Category: Uncategorized

Lazarus (Heb. Eleazar), who we find in John 11, is the only named person in Scripture that Jesus raised from the dead. We find in this chapter that Lazarus and his family were friends of Jesus (implied by John 11:3, 5) and well-known of Him. What makes this more interesting is a parable in Luke’s gospel in which Jesus uses this same name for his protagonist, Lazarus the beggar. Lazarus is both a man who died and was raised to life, and a man who died and went to Abraham’s bosom. Is this a coincidence, Jesus sharing a story with some factual details? Maybe, but let’s looks at some of the details.

Lazarus is the beggar at the rich man’s door (Luke 16:19) who is carried to Abraham’s bosom. His character isn’t described, but only that he sat at the rich man’s doorstep, dogs licked his sores, and he waited on crumbs from the man’s table. Obviously, this Lazarus had some illness that prevented him from working and caused these “sores” on his skin. He may have had leprosy, which was a grievous illness of the skin, but lepers in that day were required to stay away from other people, not camp out on their doorstep. Yet, this is a parable, and the details may be more symbolic than actual. Because of his skin disease, this Lazarus was no doubt relegated to the outside of society, while the rich man was at the heart of it. When both men died, their roles are reversed, the unclean man allowed within the best of Paradise, while the rich man is outside in an awful place. Because he is the only named character in any of Jesus’ parables, some are inclined to believe he may have been an actual person.

As for the Lazarus of John 11, we don’t know how he got sick, or much of what happened after his story. In fact, it is the fact that he dies is what makes him so notable.  In another part of Luke (10:38-42), there is a short story involving Mary and Martha, but Lazarus is not mentioned. Vs. 38 implies that the home is Martha’s, not her brother’s. When Mary and Martha are mentioned, Lazarus is not always there. Only in John is Lazarus associated with his sisters. In Matthew 26:6 (Two days before the Passover), Jesus is in the house of “Simon the Leper” where takes place a similar event to Mary’s anointing of Jesus in John 12:3 (six days before the Passover). Is it possible that leprosy was a family illness? Could Simon, a formerly healthy man, been afflicted with leprosy, and so his house is run by his eldest daughter (Martha)? Note also earlier in Luke 7:36-38 that the house of Simon the Pharisee is the setting for the anointing of the woman. Even though Simon was a very common name in those days, it seems odd that these anointings take place under similar circumstances in the houses of men named Simon.

See note the similarity and differences between these events at:

https://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/In%20defense%20of%20two%20dinners%20at%20Bethany.htm

Archaeologists have discovered a tomb outside of Bethany with the names of Simon, Martha, and Lazarus. A run-down of the story can be found here:

http://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/NTCh/TheDiscoveryOfTheTombsOfMary.htm

Of course, all three names are extremely common, and the chances that all three would be found in the same tomb shouldn’t be a surprise. However, it is possible that Simon was the father (the leper of Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:3) who owned the house in Bethany and that Lazarus was the younger brother of Martha and Mary. It is not said that Simon was present at the dinner in John 12, or in Matthew 26, so it’s possible that Simon was not cured of his leprosy as many assume. Because Simon was known as “the leper” may tell us why these two women were still unmarried (as indicated by Mary anointing Jesus with her dowry), as leprosy was a disease which caused uncleanness. But those whom the world avoided, Jesus seems to embrace as his closest friends. Might Jesus have favored this family because of their disadvantage? It was perhaps passing through Bethany at one time that he saw this family and knew their story, and attached Himself to them, above all the families in Israel. The disgust of the disciples at Mary’s extravagant sacrifice is not dissimilar from us disgusted at the “poor” given money, only to spend it on drugs and alcohol. Just a thought.

At Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:50, it seems unlikely that Lazarus and his sisters would have missed it since it was just outside of town.  The New Testament is otherwise completely silent about what happened to them, unless the group of believers who gathered in Acts 1 included them. Tradition doesn’t tell us much about Lazarus and his family after the gospels, except that they went on to become evangelists in their own right.

It’s all historical guesswork and supposition, but it may help us piece together Jesus’ relationship with this family. I have to wonder if the parable of Lazarus is in some way connected the actual life experience of Lazarus of Bethany. If Lazarus’ father was a leper, that can’t have helped him much growing up. If his father had leprosy early, who would teach him a trade, or have a family business to work into? Maybe Lazarus took up begging from a young age, and sat outside the houses of the rich for morsels? And maybe it was Jesus who turned the fortunes of this house around, by giving them the good news of the kingdom. Maybe Lazarus turned his life around because he discovered a God who loved him, despite the harshness life had dealt him. Maybe Lazarus was so loved by Jesus because he was a lost soul who made something of himself as a disciple serving faithfully in Bethany.

 

 

This another one from my archives. It is a sweet story, and may even be true.

____________________________________________

There was a young woman who had been diagnosed with a terminal illness and had been given three months to live. So as she was getting her things “in order,” she contacted her pastor and had him come to her house to discuss certain aspects of her final wishes. She told him which songs she wanted sung at the service, what scriptures she would like read, and what outfit she wanted to be buried in.

Everything was in order and the pastor was preparing to leave when the young woman suddenly remembered something very important to her.

“There’s one more thing,” she said excitedly.

“What’s that?” came the pastor’s reply.

This is very important,” the young woman continued. “I want to be buried with a fork in my right hand.” The pastor stood looking at the young woman, not knowing quite what to say. That surprises you, doesn’t it,” the young woman asked.

“Well, to be honest, I’m puzzled by the request,” said the pastor.

The young woman explained. “My grandmother once told me this story, and from there on out, I have always done so. I have also, always tried to pass along its message to those I love and those who are in need of encouragement. In all my years of attending church socials and potluck dinners, I always remember that when the dishes of the main course were being cleared, someone would inevitably lean over and say, ‘Keep your fork.’ It was my favorite part because I knew that something better was coming … like velvety chocolate cake or deep-dish apple pie; something wonderful, and with substance!” So, I just want people to see me there in that casket with a fork in my hand and I want them to wonder ‘What’s with the fork? Then I want you to tell them: ‘Keep your fork … the best is yet to come.’

The pastor’s eyes welled up with tears of joy as he hugged the young woman good-bye. He knew this would be one of the last times he would see her before her death. But he also knew that the young woman had a better grasp of heaven than he did. She had a better grasp of what heaven would be like than many people twice her age, with twice as much experience and knowledge. She KNEW that something better was coming.

At the funeral people were walking by the young woman’s casket and they saw the pretty dress she was wearing and the fork placed in her right hand. Over and over, the pastor heard the question What’s with the fork?” And over and over he smiled. During his message, the pastor told the people of the conversation he had with the young woman shortly before she died. He also told them about the fork and about what it symbolized to her.

The pastor told the people how he could not stop thinking about the fork and told them that they probably would not be able to stop thinking about it either. He was right.

 

 

Friday, December 26, 2003 CompuServe: EBRUN1234

This is another piece from my archives. Funny, because its true.

____________________

In light of foreign wars, terrorist threats, and violent crimes, many are wondering if any safe places exist anymore for themselves and their families. I received the following informa­tion recently on “How to Stay Safe in the World Today.”

1. Avoid riding in automobiles because they are responsible for 20% of all fatal accidents.

2. Do not stay home because 17% of all accidents occur in the home.

3. Avoid walking on streets or sidewalks because 14% of all accidents happen to pedestrians.

4. Avoid traveling by air, rail, or water because 16% of all accidents involve these forms of transportation.

5. Of the remaining 33%, 32% of all deaths occur in hospitals. Above all else, avoid hospitals.

You will be pleased to learn, however, that only .001 % of all deaths occur in church worship services, and these are usually related to previous physical disorders. Therefore, logic tells us that the safest place for you to be at any given point in time is at church! Bible study is safe too. The percentage of deaths during Bible study is even less.

FOR SAFETY’S SAKE -Attend church and read your Bible…IT COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE!

Ok, so this one isn’t mine. I found it in my archives, but I thought it would be helpful to illustrate an important point. Just because we read something in an English translation doesn’t mean we can read it back into the original context. This thing makes the rounds every year around Easter. Thought you might be better equipped with this information.

And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. (John 20:7)

________________________________

Why Did Jesus Fold the Napkin?

This is one I can honestly say I have never seen circulating in the emails so; if it touches you forward it.

Why did Jesus fold the linen burial cloth after His resurrection? I never noticed this …..

The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin.

Early Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance. She ran and found Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved. She said, ‘They have taken the Lord’s body out of the tomb, and I don’t know where they have put him!’

Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb to see. The other disciple out ran Peter and got there first. He stopped and looked in and saw the linen cloth 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 to the side.

Was that important? Absolutely!

Is it really significant? Yes!

In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The folded napkin had to do with the Master and Servant, and every Jewish boy knew this tradition.

When the servant set the dinner table for the master, he made sure that it was exactly the way the master wanted it. The table was furnished perfectly, and then the servant would wait, just out of sight, until the master had finished eating, and the servant would not dare touch that table, until the master was finished. Now if the master were done eating, he would rise from the table, wipe his fingers, his mouth, and clean his beard, and would wad up that napkin and toss it onto the table. The servant would then know to clear the table. For in those days, the wadded napkin meant, “I’m finished.” But if the master got up from the table, and folded his napkin, and laid it beside his plate, the servant would not dare touch the table, because………. the folded napkin meant, I’m coming back.”

The Message in the Neatly Folded Napkin in Jesus’ Tomb – Fiction!¹

Summary of the eRumor:

According to this forwarded email, the head covering over the body of Jesus Christ in the grave was a neatly “folded napkin.” It goes on to say that among Jews of the time a master would let his servants know whether he was finished eating or coming back to the table by the way he left his napkin. If he tossed it aside, he was finished. If he folded it, he was not finished and would return. The hidden message in the story is that by laying his “napkin” aside and neatly folded Jesus was saying he was coming back.

The Truth:

There are a couple of problems with this eRumor. One is the translation or interpretation of the Bible verse quoted. The other is the alleged Jewish custom referenced in the story.

The Verse

The eRumor is based on whether the cloth was a “napkin” and was “folded” in the empty tomb of Jesus.

The story is based on the account of Jesus’ resurrection in John 20:7.

Here is how that verse is translated in one of the most widely-used versions of the Bible, the King James Version: “…and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.”

We checked seven of the most respected translations of the Bible to see how the translators handled this verse.

Three of them translated the cloth as a “napkin” (King James, American Standard, Revised Standard Version). Others translated it as a “burial cloth” (New International Version), a “handkerchief” (The New King James Version), or a “face-cloth” (New American Standard Bible). The Greek word is saudarion, which comes from a Latin word for “sweat.” It connotes, for example, a towel for wiping sweat. It is used in the Greek for a towel or cloth, but not specifically a table napkin.

The other key word is “folded.” Was the burial cloth or napkin left folded in the tomb?

Two of the translations used the word “folded” (New International Version, New King James Version). Others translated the word as “rolled up” (New American Standard Bible, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version), or “wrapped together” (King James Version).

The Greek word is “entulisso,” which is from words that may mean to twist or to entwine.

The bottom line is that there is not agreement that it was a table napkin and not agreement that it was neatly folded in any meaningful way. The main meaning of John 20:7 is to convey that the cloth, which was placed over Jesus head or face at burial, was separate from the rest of his grave clothes.

The Story

We have checked numerous Bible study sources and have found nothing about this alleged Jewish custom of the folded napkins. We did not find any Bible scholars who have used this story and illustration about the meaning of the folded napkin.

Additionally we talked with a Jewish rabbi friend of TruthOrFiction.com’s who has been a life-long Orthodox Jew, a Jewish scholar, and lives in Jerusalem, Israel, and he said he’d never heard of it

The only references to this story that we found are from Internet postings and emails that seem to have originated in 2007.

.Updated 1/28/08

The Deductions:²

Well, Aunt Erma, it turns out that there are good reasons why you’ve never heard of this tradition.

I find historical/cultural traditions- particularly Jewish ones- of great interest and value. Yet, they are apparently made up at alarming rates. So, I wanted to verify this story. It turns out that I did.

There are several problems with this story. Separately, perhaps they could be overlooked. Compiled together, the story lacks even a hint of authenticity.

The KJV rendering of John 20:7 reads,

John 20:7 (KJV)

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

The more modern NIV reads,

John 20:7 (NIV)

7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

One says “burial cloth” while the other says “napkin.” One says “wrapped” while the other says “folded.” These types of variances in English translations are clues that further study on an original language term is needed.

1- Like many are, this idea is falsely based on a western application of an English term: in this case, the term, “napkin” in the text. When English speakers use that term, we’re thinking Wendy’s drive-thru. Using the English understanding of that term, a scenario was obviously invented. The underlying Greek term is soudarion, which is defined as a piece of cloth used for one of two purposes in the East: to wipe sweat off the face or to cover the face of the dead. As such, no self-respecting Jew would EVER use such an article at a meal setting (it would be either unclean or in the least thought of as unclean), and thus no such mental association would ever be made between the soudarion (or lit. “sweat-cloth”) and a dinner napkin. It would be tantamount to modern day people associating a diaper with a napkin. Only a few (older) translation use the term “napkin” for this reason. It is a technically proper translation, but gives a western reader the wrong impression. More modern translations use other terms, such as “burial cloth” (NIV), “face-cloth” (NASB), “handkerchief” (NKJV), etc.

2- The second problem is with the term “folded,” also necessary to the postulated cultural reference of folding a napkin at the dinner table. That underlying Greek term is entylisso, which is a compilation of two terms, en (meaning “at a primary fixed position” – or “at,” “in,” “among,” etc.) and heilisso, meaning “twisted” or “coiled.” While “folded” is again a technically accurate translation, it conjures up the idea of the creasing and flattening out of an article. In fact, it is more akin to the wadding up and throwing aside (used in the supposed practice of the master leaving the table) than an intentional folding and creasing. This issue may could be explained away if it were not for the problems with the term soudarion. But, coupled together, it’s just another hole in the cheese. Entylisso gives no clear indication that the face-cloth was folded in an intentional way, but rather that it was somehow handled and distorted as being discarded separately from the grave clothes.

3- I have a sizeable arsenal of Jewish background resources. I searched them all to find a reference to this practice and could not find it. Afterward, I set off in research online. Surely you can’t believe everything you read online (as this email demonstrates) but I thought it worth a try to find a legitimate biblical scholar who may have referenced the custom. As it turned out, I found only one Jewish scholar (David Bivin of The Jewish Perspective) who had referenced this custom (of folding the napkin at the dinner table) and he did so in response to this very email. His answer? “There is no historical or cultural documentation which supports claims of this assertion.”

Sadly, you can find this reference in numerous online sermons by pastors who should know better than to randomly quote a tradition they learned of in an email from Aunt Erma.

. . .

Make no mistake: Jesus is returning. But, not because someone had the creative ability to fabricate this outlandish email. He is returning because scripture says he will.

1 http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/folded-napkin.htm

2 http://www.returningking.com/?p=78