The Controversy Over Jesus Folding the 'Napkin'

The Controversy over Jesus Folding the ‘Napkin’

Khen Lim

Image source: but-thatsjustme.com

John’s account

The Gospel of John in 20:7 throws up remarkable detail about the napkin that was originally placed over the face of Jesus. What John tells us here was not only that it wasn’t thoughtlessly cast aside as it seemed the case with His grave clothes. In the Gospel, a whole verse is dedicated to describing the manner in which the napkin was meticulously folded and set aside from the grave clothes:

“Peter and the other disciple started out for the tomb. They were both running but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He stooped and looked in and saw the linen wrappings lying there but he didn’t go in. Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there while the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings.” (Jn 20:3-7, NLT)

How it is that John’s details are so immaculate in description when the other three Gospels aren’t so is unclear. We may not have a real understanding behind his motive but at the same time, it might be presumptuous on our part to attach any symbolic meaning to his description. 

For all intents and purposes, John might have just wanted to record the event as faithfully as possible, careful to provide whatever details he could see as an eyewitness and therefore as such, offer all of us a very compelling argument that this is a historically reliable and authoritative context in which John’s Gospel is.

Image source: but-thatsjustme.com

On that very early hours of the Sunday morning, the third day from the crucifixion, Mary Magdalene arrived at Jesus’ tomb expecting to see His body there. What stumbled her upon her arrival was that the stone had already been rolled away from the entrance. Instead of entering to confirm if His body was still there, Mary turned and ran, likely frantic and in shock.

She found Simon Peter and John (‘the other disciple’, the one whom Jesus loved) and she exclaimed, saying, “They have taken the Lord’s body out of the tomb and I don’t know where they have put Him!” 

Graves were traditionally sealed during that period in time. This was because there was a habit of body snatching, which was why a decree of Emperor Claudius, which was found in Nazareth dated a few years following, declared that those guilty of removing bodies from graves would be executed. Such was the seriousness of the crime and Mary’s reaction to Jesus’ body being missing – more like stolen since she said “They have taken the Lord’s body” – reinforced the issue.

In fact, that was what inevitably happened. Rumours began to spread at that time that Jesus’ body was actually stolen:

“As the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and told the leading priests what had happened. A meeting with the elders was called, and they decided to give the soldiers a large bribe. They told the soldiers, ‘You must say, ‘Jesus’ disciples came during the night while we were sleeping and they stole His body.’ If the governors hear about it, we’ll stand up for you so you won’t get in trouble.’ So the guards accepted the bribe and said what they were told to say. Their story spread widely among the Jews, and they still tell it today.” (Mt 28:11-15, NLT)

Matthew’s recording of this deceitful conversation between the Sanhedrin priests and the Roman guards demonstrate the distinct possibility that the truth might never have been known had John not provide a proper description of the grave clothes and the folded napkin. His account, in this case, offers us a solid foundation for belief:

“The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in Him, you will have life by the power of His Name.” (Jn 20:30-31, NLT)

Image source: godshotspot.wordpress.com

On hearing this, both Peter and John rushed to the tomb to see for themselves (vv.3-4). John, being younger and faster, got there first (vv. Ibid) and he stooped around. Although he didn’t enter the tomb – possibly out of voluntary restraint and respect to the elder disciple or maybe he was simply too shocked by what he saw – he did peer into it and saw the linen cloth discarded and lying there. 

When Simon Peter arrived, it was he who entered the tomb (v.6) and saw the strewn linen (grave clothes) still in its wrapped state but on the other hand, the cloth that covered Jesus’ head was neatly folded and had laid to the other side (vv.6-7). It was only after John had then decided to enter the tomb (after Peter, that is) that he saw very clearly as if to confirm what he witnessed earlier that he then believed.

John’s descriptive recording of the grave clothes and the napkin are characteristic of someone well known for detail and historicity but yet many who read this verse are looking for something else and in that direction of curiosity and exploration, the question is whether such details are important. The popular consensus on the Internet suggests it is.

Claims of significance

Some claim that John’s decision to accord such detailed description of the grave clothes as indicative of its importance. Consider the verses again:

“Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there while the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings.” (Jn 20:6-7, NLT)

Maybe the next two verses are even more eye-opening:

“Then the disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in and he saw and believed – for until then, they still hadn’t understood the Scriptures that said Jesus must rise from the dead. Then they went home.” (Jn 20:8-10, NLT)

Connecting these verses together, we get the idea that from what he saw, John believed. This belief is probably directed to the witnessing of Jesus being raised from the dead and is in relation to him ‘seeing’ the grave clothes. What’s more, the scene that John painted in these verses attest to a complete absence of violence or disturbances. 

Though he recorded the details of the grave clothes and the napkin, there was no documentation of any physical intervention the likes of which would have pointed to body-snatching or a recent robbery in the grave or even interference from the authorities. 

In other words, John witnessed all the evidence necessary to confirm that Jesus indeed arose from His sleeping position, right through His wrappings and then passed through the wall of the tomb in His freshly resurrected glorified body.

None of these was apparent and this, we are told, is significant. Why? Because of the manner in which the napkin was neatly folded. While the grave clothes were laid in a dishevelled state, the napkin used to cover Jesus’ head was meticulously folded and distinctively separated from the clothes (v.7):

“Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there, while the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings.” (Jn 20:6-7, NLT)

What we’re told…

Image source: Grace for the Race

At this point, what the original words say and how we interpret them in English is probably quite important. The general impression we get from the NIV and NKJV translations is that the napkin was ‘folded’ but others including NASB, ASV and RSV use the words ‘rolled up’ instead. On the other hand, the original Greek word that John used is ‘entulisso,’ which means ‘to twist’ or ‘to entwine.’ 

This word is used in only two other parts of Scripture notably in Matthew 27:59 and Luke 23:53. Other than the general consensus from John that the napkin was separated from the rest of the grave clothes, what we have here is an inconclusive piece of detail. 

Was it folded up? Was it rolled up? Was it twisted? John Stott thinks it’s ‘twirled’ instead. All four offer no agreement. But there is more and we’ll investigate further later.

It seems that what John saw were the grave clothes that were once wrapped around Jesus’ body, now lying as if still enfolding complete with spices intact within, as if stuck to their insides. These were distinct from the napkin – more on this choice of word later – that laid a small distance away, seemingly unfettered as if Jesus’ body had simply passed through the clothes like how He later appeared before His disciples in a locked room. Stott offered an analogy in which what the disciples witnessed as “like a discarded chrysalis from which the butterfly has emerged.”

Lazarus’ case in John 11:44 was somewhere different. Though he was returned to life, he was simply restored to physical life after death. In fact, his grave clothes entrapped his whole body and therefore, he had to be freed through the intervention of others:

“And the dead man came out, his hands and feet bound in grave clothes, his face wrapped in a head cloth. Jesus told them, ‘Unwrap him and let him go!” (Jn 11:44, NLT)

While the sisters were ordered to unwrap Lazarus so that he may be released, the case is different with Jesus who left behind His grave clothes as He transitioned to a completely new order of existence. And all this leads us back to the mystery of the napkin that John mentioned with great detail in his Gospel.

On the Internet, someone popularised the idea that the folded napkin has Hebraic significance because the practice is steeped in the tradition of that day. The supposedly age-old tradition of the folded napkin involves the Master and the Servant and the dinner table. The servant who sets the dinner table as his master requires, readying it for him while he waits in the wings until he finishes his meal. Until then, he is not to intervene, leaving his master to enjoy his meal to completion.

Two things, we’re told, can happen here. If the master arises from the table, he may or may not have finished his meal but two possible outcomes supposedly offer us clues. If he wipes his fingers and his mouth, cleans his beard and then wad up that napkin before tossing it on to the table, the servant will know that he has finished eating. This is because the wadded napkin says of the master, “I’m done.” 

In other words, he is satisfied with his meal and he is leaving the table. On the other hand, if instead of wadding the napkin, the master folds it and places it beside his plate, the servant knows not to touch anything on the table because apparently, the folded napkin says, “I’m coming back!”

And there lies the significance and the importance – someone on the Internet says that the folded napkin is Jesus’ intentional symbolism; that He is returning because He has unfinished business and the evidence points to the scene portrayed in John 20:8 where the young apostle’s faith in the Lord’s resurrection is brought to great prominence:

“Then the disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in and he saw and believed…” (Jn 20:8, NLT)

Still such belief is viewed as inferior to a faith that is based on the witness of God’s Word:

“…for until then they still hadn’t understood the Scriptures that said Jesus must rise from the dead. Then they went home.” (Jn 20:9-10, NLT)

In John’s case, what he saw in the tomb could have easily made him think of passages such as Psalm 16:9-11 or how the whole of Old Testament bore great witness to the triumph of the Messiah and the eternal glory of His reign:

“No wonder my heart is glad and I rejoice. My body rests in safety. For You will not leave my soul among the dead or allow Your Holy One to rot in the grave. You will show me the way of life, granting me the joy of Your presence and the pleasures of living with You forever.” (Ps 16:9-11, NLT)

What one is supposed to think of the folded napkin and the meaning behind it has been a controversial one on the Internet but a bit of clarity might be all it takes to determine how much of this is tripe. It is easy to assume that in the modern world we live in, what we observe in John’s writing appears to make a lot of sense.  

Those grave clothes that were separated from the napkin and appeared relatively dishevelled is logical if Jesus had to do a Houdini because He was tied up. All the squirming and twisting just to get out from being tightly bound would have done just that to the grave clothes. Remember that even Lazarus had difficulty getting out of his own grave clothes and needed assistance (Jn 11:44). And, of course, once He was unbounded, Jesus could easily remove the napkin from His face.

Maybe, just maybe, the whole thing about the folded napkin is God’s way of showing the orderly nature of the resurrection and that John recorded it in good faith. Just as He acted at Creation, He did the same at the resurrection of His Son and He will be the same towards all of us when the time comes. 

The folded napkin could be John’s way of telling us that we can count on God’s orderliness. God’s work has always been systematic because it is in His nature to be so. His orderliness and consistency are not only an inspiration but also an encouragement for us to look at Him, knowing that He is “the same, yesterday, today and forever” (Heb 13:8).

Was it actually a napkin?

Image source: treasuredupandpondered.blogspot.my

Yet for all of that, the question remains: is there any real significance behind the folded napkin? All of what we know of God’s consistency is true but are we looking too much into the napkin and seeing things we shouldn’t be seeing?

The fundamental conflict begins with the word ‘napkin’ because the major translations use different words. While KJV, AS and RSV resort to ‘napkin,’ NIV calls it ‘burial cloth,’ NKJV changed to ‘handkerchief’ while NASB prefers to use ‘face cloth.’ For accuracy, maybe we should turn to the original Greek word ‘saudarion’ (σουδάριον), which originates from the Latin equivalent, ‘sudo,’ which means ‘to sweat’ or ‘to work hard.’

The Greeks use the word to refer to either a towel or an absorbent cloth but not quite a table napkin that we’ve been led to believe. As such, perhaps we can therefore consider it as some sort of towel for wiping sweat off one’s face. The word ‘saudarion’ is only used four times in the Bible – John 11:44 and of course, 20:7 as well as Luke 19:20 and then Acts 19:12.

But why the discrepancies in the English translations? Does that mean the Bible scholars have been flip-flopping over the choice of words, unsure as to what it actually meant? Maybe over the centuries, they thought that all those variations offer a more appropriate translation but you’d never know.

Was it even folded?

Next comes the word ‘folded.’ Again, we have no other choice but to look at this exegetically. We find that the major translations in English offer up not just ‘folded’ as in NIV, NLT, ESV and NKJV but also ‘rolled up’ as preferred y NASB, ASV and RSV. Then there is also KJV, which uses ‘wrapped together.’ There is no question about it – all three interpretations are incongruent.

The word ‘folded’ gives an impression of bending the cloth to form creases so that in the end, the cloth is arranged in a more compact but orderly manner. ‘Rolled up’ on the other hand simply suggests that the cloth is gently turned over to form a cylinder-like arrangement or at least, that’s how I’d imagine it to be.

Yet, the original Greek word ‘entulisso’ means ‘to twist’ or ‘to entwine,’ which offers up quite a different view altogether. Any English dictionary would suggest that ‘to twist’ is nowhere near ‘to fold’ or ‘to roll up’ or even ‘to wrap together.’ So, once more, there is no agreement on how the cloth – no longer the table napkin that we first thought it was – appeared in the tomb. The original Greek word is used only in two other places, both in the New Testament, namely Matthew 27:59 and Luke 23:53.

The ‘folded’ part of the mystery seems out of place not only because table napkins were not part of the culture back then but also because the practice of handwashing was a particular piece of tradition that remains vague today. 

After a meal, the Jews would wash their hands. This was the dining ritual. However, rabbinical injunction merely suggests that the washing of hands before a meal was mandatory but it doesn’t say anything about whether people should dry their hands – after washing them post-meal – with a cloth.

Apparently, no early rabbinic source offers advice on this issue and if not, how does the ‘folded’ part of the napkin fit into the picture (even assuming that napkins were used then, which they weren’t)? Folding the napkin was a tradition that was picked up in Europe but that was centuries later. This custom was neither known nor practised in Israel or any part of the Mid-East in the time of Jesus.

So far then, the ‘folded napkin’ might not be a table napkin and it might not have been folded as well. It leaves us with no clear agreement as to what this cloth was supposed to be other than the fact that it was placed over Jesus’ head and was physically distinct from His grave clothes. And without a proper understanding of what it really is supposed to be, we don’t know how important it is though we cannot look past its significance for several reasons.

Firstly, the napkin (we’ll resort to using this term for simplicity) is evidence that Jesus had risen again. The fact that it was separated from the grave clothes tells us that Jesus arose and removed the napkin Himself and then neatly placed it aside. Secondly, there is no question that Jesus’ body was not kidnapped by anyone. Had it been the case, His grave clothes and napkin wouldn’t have been left like how John recorded it.

The kidnappers wouldn’t have had the luxury of time to strip Him of His grave clothes and very likely too, they would have been far too nervous to be this painstakingly meticulous with His napkin. For all intents and purposes, they would simply have taken His body from the tomb as it were and surreptitiously left. Thirdly, remember that Lazarus emerged alive still encumbered in his grave clothes but Jesus did not. That difference is startling and very telling.

Is there really a Jewish connection?

Image source: but-thatsjustme.com

Many claim that the folded table napkin was an ancient Hebrew custom that even Jewish boys knew. They tell us that the person who folds the napkin indicates his intention to return. Yet despite all the rigorous checking of Bible study sources including rabbinical texts, there was and is no such custom in Jewish culture. Perhaps the only exception is a passage in the Mishnah that speaks of a napkin relating to a meal.

Two rabbis, Shammai and Hillel, disagree on the handwashing whether it should be performed before or after the cup of wine is filled. Shammai further said that, “after wiping his hands with a napkin, the diner should place the napkin on the table.’ On the other hand, Hillel opined that, “he should place it on a cushion” instead.

Yet for all the debate about the napkin, nothing was mentioned about whether it was or wasn’t folded, wrapped, twisted or rolled at the completion of the meal. In fact there was much disagreement between the two rabbis with just about everything else but as for the table napkin, nothing untoward emerged that would shed light on the mystery of the folded napkin.

Elsewhere, no commentaries, past and present, raised any issue with the napkin mystery and neither was there anything ever written on Jewish websites about it. And it appeared that no one in the Jewish community could be coerced to verify the napkin tradition. No matter what, that napkin mystery could never be proven.

Eight doubts

Image source: thecrossinthedesert.blogspot.my

There is no question about the importance of Scripture explaining Scripture. It is in fact central to biblical veracity and that is where we face the problem here. Nowhere in the Bible do we learn about this tradition of the folded napkin. None of the apostles mentioned anything pertaining to it. 

There are also no accounts anywhere in the Old Testament that lead us to this mystery or any explanation of its symbolism. And if Scripture cannot explain this, there is every reason to doubt the supposed symbolic meaning. Or at least, we have a genuine need to be concerned and wary.

The second thing to note is that there are no other ancient texts that support the folded napkin and its supposed significance. Of course, it would be hard to prove a negative since no such texts exist but then again, there has not been any ancient materials that even remotely raises similar details about it. And of course, the fact that the Bible is completely silent on this mystery makes it much harder for any of us to support it.

Thirdly, table napkins – at least, that is what we have been led to believe when talking about traditional Jewish symbolism – may not even exist at that time. In fact, napkins per se were not even common then. As late as the Middle Ages, folks were still wiping clean their hands and mouths not with napkins but, believe it or not, with leftover bread. 

Clearly, napkins were either not in use or they were simply very uncommon; certainly not prevalently enough to be culturally relevant. And if they weren’t relevant then, it is not appropriate to consider it as an integral element in any custom or tradition including the Jewish.

Fourthly, as we know of its Greek origins, the actual word isn’t ‘folded’ but more like ‘twisted,’ which makes it incongruent with the so-called ‘folded napkin’ tradition that is central to the argument. Twisted napkin? Even that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. 

But like I said earlier, napkins weren’t even a common item then. So twisted or not twisted, napkins were not part of the tradition then. And that throws the folded part into a complete quandary.

Fifthly, Jesus and His disciples – and just about everyone else during that time – never ate at ‘tables’ the way we understand them today. Today, we attend to our meals at home and in restaurants by being seated at the table be it a round or rectangular one. At the table, our dinner is set with appropriate cutlery and crockery. We eat by sitting upright and using what is provided on the table. 

Our entire etiquette revolves around the dinner table but back in Jesus’ days, there were no such tables and chairs. They ate their meals very differently then and whatever we conjure today of a ‘proper meal’ in a ‘proper’ way isn’t anywhere near what people did at that time. Therefore to talk about the ‘folded napkin’ symbolism (that involves eating at the table) is too hard to understand.

In fact the Gospels are pretty clear on the choice of words used in describing meals or mealtimes. They speak of people in a ‘reclined’ position whilst eating, which is opposed to how we eat in an upright posture. What this means is that they lie in a semi-prone posture around an approximately one-foot long horseshoe-shaped food tray called a ‘triklinium.’ 

There, they find and pick what they want to eat and dip into. By comparison, it was truly communal and informal. Moreover these details are not uncommon but instead different ancient literature do talk about it. In fact, archaeologists have also discovered similar artefacts in places like the Masada in Israel.

In our sixth doubt, we centre our argument on the ‘folded napkin tradition’ that involves the role of the servant and his master. The servant humbly serves the master with food at the meal table as the former awaits his completion before he could intervene. In fact, he is expected to wait sight almost unseen while the master eats in peace. 

The problem with this scenario is that neither Jesus nor any of His closest disciples or contemporaries at that time were affluent enough to have servants waiting on them. Jesus might have at times visited and ate with people where women would wait on Him – such as Mary and Martha – but they were not servants by any measure but friends who hosted Him.

This error is made even more significant because Jesus would not have used an aristocratic practice and turn it into a powerful symbolism that commoners would struggle to understand or relate to the analogy. It would have been completely untypical of Jesus considering that His parables were largely visages of the average person living an average life. 

Such an analogy would have otherwise have been an affront to those who yearned to listen to what Jesus had to say but only to end up hearing something so ridiculously removed from their lives.

While we talk about servants, our seventh doubt focuses on the probability that an average villager would maintain Jewish boys in such a role of servitude. It would certainly have been expensive but that isn’t the only point. Even more importantly, the stipulation of Mosaic Law to manumit (release from servitude) slaves every seventh year (Ex 21:2, Lev 25:39-41, Dt 15:12) would have made it economically unfeasible to practise this. 

Given this stringent requirement, Jewish boys used as slaves (or servants) would have been a rare sight and if that’s the case, it is also unlikely that ‘every Jewish boy’ would know or understand this little mystery of the folded napkin.

In our final piece of doubt, the ‘folded napkin’ tradition forces us to connect two drastically contrasting practices. When we talk about the ‘folded napkin’ in a biblical sense, we are relating to the historical death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. But when we talk about it in a traditional or customary sense, we then pertain to a practice that centres on the partaking of meals at the table. 

One is morbid when compared to the other. One is ritualistically impure (as in talk about death) but in the other, ritual purity – and decency – is demanded at all times. When one mixes and blends the two contrasting elements together and call it ‘symbolism,’ what we risk doing is to attract accusations of poor and offensive taste.

It is abhorrent to talk about both diametric rituals in the same breath but in the case of the folded napkin, that is what we end up doing. This would have been completely unacceptable then but interestingly even by today’s cultural standards, it is still discomforting and unsettling.

Conclusion

Image source: rebekahbeene.wordpress.com

Before I go on to conclude, let us just consider what would have happened had Jesus not really die on the cross but was merely swooned from a gruesome torture. Imagine that He was brought down from the cross out of public sight and then carried to the tomb where He would supposedly be wrapped in Jewish customary grave clothes and then have His face covered by the napkin. 

But because He wasn’t dead, He recovered sufficiently to quietly leave the grave unnoticed by the Roman guards placed in front of the entrance to His tomb. Or maybe the Sanhedrin priests might have paid the guards off so that they would look elsewhere while some of His followers ferried Him out of the tomb. Imagine that this was the real story.

That is where the folded napkin and the grave clothes still in their wrapping state stand in the way of such claims and allegations. This is why John’s witness and his reporting is so vital that it is the cornerstone evidence to the resurrection of Christ Jesus. 

That John’s Gospel says to us is why would someone be beaten so traumatically that He would appear dead to everyone that He would go to the extent of neatly folding His napkin? Why leave behind such a mystifying little detail? Why the meticulousness? And why would God inspire John to add that little observation?

The evidence presented by John and Peter offers the single most powerful testimony of Jesus’ resurrection. And while the alleged Jewish customary practice is nothing but a piece of fiction perpetuated on the Internet as far back as April 2006 (read here), the fact is that in its biblical context, its meaning and significance is beyond reproach.

It is John’s eyewitness testimony that offers us the type of incontrovertible evidence that we can believe. John tells us in perfect clarity that Jesus not only existed but He died and rose from the grave. In this case, the evidence laid in the folded napkin, not so much because it is an (unproven) Jewish tradition that symbolises something more but because it alone stands in the way of any claims that Jesus’ body was stolen.

The simple fact with the napkin and the grave clothes is obvious – why would anyone spend the time – and risk getting caught – removing Jesus’ grave clothes and then neatly fold the napkin and place it somewhere else? Rather than trying to read any special traditional symbolism, let us just come to terms with the premise that the folded napkin was God’s way of telling us that not anyone but Someone took His time.

Even though we can discredit the symbolism part of the folded napkin, we only need to open our Bible and find many other instances that talk about Jesus’ promise of returning. In fact, in the New Testament alone, there are dozens of such verses available and all of them state very clearly without any symbolic interpretations. Here’s just one of many:

“Don’t let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God and trust also in Me. There is more than enough room in My Father’s home. If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with Me where I am. And you know the way where I am going.” (Jn 14:1-4, NLT, bold my emphasis)

Symbolism or no symbolism, that is one powerful resounding promise.

For further reading:

-    Wilson, Marvin R. (Jan 1990) Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, STIFF WRAPS Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.). Available at https://www.christianbook.com/father-abraham-jewish-roots-christian-faith/marvin-wilson/9780802804235/pd/0423?event=AFF&p=1011693& and https://www.amazon.com/Our-Father-Abraham-Jewish-Christian/dp/0802804233

-   Chaignot, Mary Jane (no date) A Question About the Napkin Placed on Jesus’ Face in BibleWise at http://www.biblewise.com/bible_study/questions/a-question-about.php

-    Prof Nunnally, Wave E. (no date) Is There Anything Symbolic About Jesus Folding the ‘Napkin’ Which Was Over His Face in the Tomb? in http://www.isitinthebible.com/nt/napkin.htm