In what has become one of the most enigmatic passages in all of Scripture, John writes that upon entering the tomb of Jesus, Peter “beheld the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself” (Joh 20:6-7). It seems significant that John specifically notes that the face-cloth was rolled up in a place by itself, but it is not at all clear what that significance is. In the Middle Ages, the Shroud of Turin first appeared in 1354, perhaps offering the relic as a solution to this puzzling passage: the Shroud was actually the face-cloth John describes that was left as evidence of Christ’s resurrection to strengthen the faith of His Church. At a time when the Bible was only available in Latin and there was widespread Biblical illiteracy, this was perhaps quite believable, but in light of our more accurate understanding of the text today, the image on the Shroud does not appear consistent with the linen wrappings and face-cloth described in Scripture. Also, in 1988, radiocarbon dating by three different laboratories dated the Shroud to between 1260 and 1390 with a 95% confidence level, so it seems unlikely to be authentic.
What then are we to make of the facecloth that was rolled up in a place by itself, separate from the other linen wrappings? Is there any truth to the internet legend that the folded “napkin” (KJV) was in reference to a first century custom that told a servant that the master wasn’t finished at the table but was coming back? No, there is no evidence that this was ever a Jewish custom and the first references to it seem to have originated on the internet in 2007[1]. Notice though that neither Matthew nor Mark, both of whom wrote before Luke and John, mentioned any of the grave wrappings, but Matthew did note the almost immediate response given by Jesus’ adversaries to the missing body from the tomb; see Mat 28:11-15. Although Matthew and Mark may not have understood at the time they wrote the significance of the empty wrappings left in the tomb beyond the resurrection which they soon began to heartily proclaim, what did the early church later realize about them that addresses the religious leaders’ charge that Jesus’ disciples stole His body to falsely claim He had been raised from the dead? Think: if anyone had somehow been able to steal the body in spite of the Roman guard, would they have taken the time to remove the grave wrappings to leave them there? We should understand then that the primary purpose of mentioning the linen wrappings was not as evidence that Jesus’ material body had been transformed so as in His resurrection state to pass through the wrappings leaving them undisturbed (which is quite possibly true but is not clearly stated as such) but rather as an apologetic to answer the charge that Jesus’ body had been stolen. For the clear evidence of the resurrection was not the empty grave clothes, but the actual risen Savior whom they had heard with their ears, seen with their eyes, and touched with their hands (1Jo 1:1).
Still though, what are we to make of John’s words about the face-cloth that long after the other gospels had been in circulation he seems to have included as significant? What two things in particular does he note in Joh 20:7 as being significant? Note that the NAS rolled up translates the same word used for how Joseph wrapped the body in linen cloth (Mat 27:59, Luk 23:53) and is found only in these three places in Scripture. The word may also be related to that used in Heb 1:12 and Rev 6:14 for a mantle or scroll being rolled up. From this description it would seem that John meant to communicate that the face-cloth was indeed still “wrapped up” in the form it would have been upon Jesus’ head. Thieves would certainly not have taken the time to leave the grave wrappings, much less roll up the face-cloth in the shape it had been upon His head. Notice also from Joh 20:12 that it is also possible from Mary’s description of the angels sitting at the head and feet of where Jesus had been lying that the grave clothes may very well have also been similarly wrapped up in the form they would have been upon His body, otherwise how would she have known where His head and feet and been? The description also seems to imply that the two angels were sitting with the grave clothes between them. Note also that it was at this point in his narrative when John had entered the tomb and saw the linen wrappings and the facecloth that he believed, which must be in reference to Jesus’ words that He would rise again, though he had as yet not seen the risen Christ; see Joh 20:8.
But what then of the face-cloth not lying with the linen wrappings, but in a place by itself? Recall that John wrote at the end of the first century, after the other gospels and most of the rest of our New Testament had been written, as the early Church was still trying to wrap its head around who the person of Jesus actually was. He was the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mat 16:16), but all who are being led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Rom 8:14, Gal 3:26), and angels are also referred to as sons of God (Job 1:6). Hence it is John’s gospel that makes the distinction that Jesus is the only begotten (μονογενῆ) Son of God, true God of true God, of the same divine nature as the Father and not a created being as other men or angels. He was also a man, but clearly more than a man, with a nature different from other men. It is His body, in some sense, of which those who follow Him become a part; just as they were in the first man, Adam, who was of the earth, now they are in the last Adam, Christ, who is from heaven. And Jesus is more than just a part of that body, a brother among brothers. He is the body, the vine of which we are but branches (Joh 15:5). In particular, He is the head of the body, the Church, and although intimately connected to all the parts of His body because they are a part of Him, He is still distinct and separated from them. Although it took time for the early church to come to understand Christ’s divine nature as separate from our own, by the time John wrote it had become clear to him so that in His gospel we find the clearest statements among all the gospels in regard to such: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Joh 1:1). “I and the Father are One” (Joh 10:30). “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Joh 14:9). “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father” (Joh 16:28). “I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (Joh 20:17). “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” (Joh 20:28). The face-cloth, all rolled up as if still on the head, and in a separate place by itself was no doubt an enigma to Peter, John, and the early church; we might wonder how many other enigmatic things about Christ never got recorded in Scripture! But as God’s revelation of who Jesus was continued to unfold over the first century, it is possible that John saw the significance of the face-cloth separated from the rest of the grave wrappings as a perfect picture of Christ’s separation as head of the Church from the Church itself as His body.
[1] As summarized by one writer: If first-century Jewish residents of the land of Israel used table napkins, and if there were such a custom as described, and if the handkerchief mentioned in John 20:7 were a table napkin, and if the Greek word ἐντετυλιγμένον meant “having been folded” rather than “having been wrapped up,” then we might be able to swallow this. I would guess that the detailed description of this supposed custom is an invention triggered in someone’s fertile mind by the archaic KJV translation, “napkin.”