The pause provoked tension, as all eyes turned toward me. A group of fifteen older women had invited me to speak concerning spiritual warfare at their multi-denominational prayer meeting in southern Illinois. As I entered the room, the intercession had long since started, and they were focusing on some sick friends who were currently absent from the meeting. They were consecrating a piece of cloth, over which they had been praying for healing. A member of the group would deliver this cloth to a woman in need of physical restoration. After the prayer time finished, I gave my presentation, and a time of question and answer began. One of the ladies asked, “What did you think about the healing cloth?” I paused a moment to gather my thoughts, and the ladies awaited my response.

While many modern charismatic churches avoid the use of cloths (especially in the West), an advocate for healing cloths is not difficult to find. Writing from Mozambique, Gregory Kane laments that much of Pentecostalism’s initial marks have faded. He points to the faith-filled, history-supported healing system of handkerchiefs:

Anointed prayer handkerchiefs were once a distinctive in Pentecostal healing praxis. Their historical origins can be traced through the biblical use of tokens in healing, the Pauline paradigm of Acts 19:11–12, the Catholic reliquary system, and the renewal of interest in Divine healing in the nineteenth century. The use of prayer handkerchiefs was popularized through the Azusa Street revival and later through the ministry of Healing Evangelists like William Branham and T. L. Osborn.1

Kane acknowledges that the abuses of televangelists have left many Christians skeptical of the practice. Yet he asserts, “to disavow anointed handkerchiefs might well be to miss an opportunity to reconnect with our Pentecostal roots.”2 He then cautiously guides us to consider “digging out those old cotton handkerchiefs and looking to see whether the God of ‘the less common miracles’ still responds creatively to confident, expectant faith (Heb. 11:6).”3 While Kane may be correct about some persistent skepticism surrounding the subject, it seems that many Christians are currently reaching for a handkerchief!4

1. The Modern Practice of Healing Cloths

Kane is concerned that the practice of healing cloths is in steep decline. But global Christianity displays a different trend. In the 1940s–1950s, Pentecostal leaders like William Branham emphasized the practice. Branham “provided anointed handkerchiefs to the masses who could not attend campaigns” and told the sick “to pin the handkerchief to [one’s] clothes at the spot of the disease and pray for healing.”5 But such episodes have not disappeared. Cloths are a current feature of many Christian leaders and groups as an integral tool for physical healing and deliverance from demonic powers.

One example in the West is David Taylor. Raised in Memphis, Tennessee, he reports that Jesus visited him face to face and commissioned him to miracle ministry.6 This ministry includes prayer cloths. After quoting Acts 19:11–12, Taylor says, “The Lord told me to send a prayer cloth to everyone … so that they can come into total healing and complete freedom…. Take this cloth and lay it on yourself wherever your pain, sickness, or disease is and be healed!”7

Or consider Bethel Church and the expansive reach of its ministries across the globe. In 2017, they published a testimony from Brienne Peetz:8

I recently designed a custom piece of clothing (a top) for a family member…. I prayed over it and released anointing…. She has had back pain and nerve pain off and on her whole life with no explanation from doctors. About a week after receiving the top, she was in a car accident. She immediately had burning pain in her back and nerves, shooting down her legs. When she returned home, she felt the Holy Spirit tell her to go put the custom top on. When she did she was immediately healed of her back and nerve pain…. The following day she went on a 2.5-hour walk, something she typically cannot do!9

While Peetz does not directly connect this clothing to Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, the testimony frames the gift as an item intentionally commissioned to convey power.

Looking to Cape Town, South Africa in 2004, the media arm of the late T. B. Joshua’s ministry (Emmanuel TV) tells the story of Sanet Badenhorst, who suffered a catastrophic accident horseback riding.10 Due to extensive bleeding, the nine-year-old girl was near death. But the Nigerian prophet Joshua gave a handkerchief to the girl’s father who then placed it on the girl to heal her.11

Other African leaders are deeply concerned with the abundance of such prayer cloths and other commissioned items. Edward Agboada says,

A development in modern Christianity that attracts attention is the subtle but strong emergence of the use of charms and talismanic elements by some Pastors, Prophets and Bishops. The craze for so-called mega church with huge membership and quest to keep each one of them has pushed some pastors to enter into contract with some juju men and women for charms and talismans. Some of these charms and talismans have been in the forms of holy water, anointed oil, handkerchiefs, hand-bangles perfumes, stickers etc. Unsuspectingly, these are sold to members in the name of prophetic guidance.12

Collium Banda directs a critical question to Christian communities situated amid their traditional religions. The increasing popularity of modern prophets is tied to anointed objects, and he wonders if such objects have fed dissatisfaction “with the sufficiency of Christ in the African context.”13 In other words, weighty issues and essential doctrine may hang on the thread of a small cloth.

Yet the church has a ministry of healing through the gifting of the Spirit, though occasional and incomplete before the recreation of all things. As Wayne Grudem says, “The healing miracles of Jesus certainly demonstrate that at times God is willing to grant a partial foretaste of the perfect health that will be ours for eternity.”14 While critical of “so-called divine healers,” Lewis Chafer asserts, “Spiritual believers in all past generations have experienced divine favor, healing included.”15 At a minimum, even the most miracle-skeptic Christian should concede that the prayers of the church lead to occasional healings. The question that lies ahead is whether Acts 19:11–12 sustains a specific practice of healing cloths for the church today. Consider the text:

And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.16

Δυνάμεις τε οὐ τὰς τυχούσας ὁ θεὸς ἐποίει διὰ τῶν χειρῶν Παύλου, ὥστε καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας ἀποφέρεσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ χρωτὸς αὐτοῦ σουδάρια ἢ σιμικίνθια καὶ ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι ἀπ’ αὐτῶν τὰς νόσους, τά τε πνεύματα τὰ πονηρὰ ἐκπορεύεσθαι.

Let us now reflect on the circumstances surrounding the healing cloths.

2. The Events Surrounding Acts 19:11–12

Ephesus is a city of some challenge for Paul’s mission work. Acts depicts “a clear knowledge that Ephesus was indeed the magic capital of Asia Minor. If Christianity could triumph there, its God would clearly be seen to be great.”17 Luke’s telling of the gospel’s entrance into Ephesus is not subtle; Ephesus overflows with religious and magical practices. Even beyond the book of Acts, it bears “a reputation in antiquity.”18 Spirits are central to their world, and “harnessing spiritual power and managing life’s issues through rituals, incantations, and invocations” is the norm.19 In addition to Artemis, Ephesus also boasts other temples of worship to Hestia and Serapis.20 In fact, while the influence of Artemis in Ephesus cannot be overstated, the entire city exuded religious and magical power with Arnold claiming, “up to fifty other gods and goddesses were worshiped.”21 Thus, the larger narrative concerning Ephesus in the book of Acts is a snapshot into the community’s spiritual rhythms—exorcisms, magic items, and idols.

Having an active and evangelizing Christian church in Ephesus proves strategic, and the city receives a significant portion of Paul’s missional attention. “This city was not only the site of his longest missionary tenure, as presented in the scheme of Acts, but also the base of operation for Paul and his associates as they spread the Christian Gospel into the adjacent cities and regions of Asia Minor.”22 The challenge of Ephesus was met by an unusual length of stay for Paul as well as an unusual plan for ministry.

Paul had a sustained public presence in Ephesus, unlike many of his other locations of ministry. After three months of reasoning in the synagogue, conflict led to his withdrawal (Acts 19:8–9). Yet he cleverly redeployed his efforts to “the hall of Tyrannus” (τῇ σχολῇ Τυράννου). “Securing use of an official lecture hall meant that Paul no longer played the role of a street corner Cynic… , user of public buildings, or lecturer at banquets; he is a recognized teacher of philosophy in Ephesus, with his own students, listeners, and patrons.”23 By setting up shop in a public hall, Paul is now incarnating himself into the Greco-Roman context as a “Christian philosopher,” setting up a headquarters for his work in the area and extending his evangelistic reach.24 In Acts 19:10, Luke aptly summarizes the impact of this two-year-long endeavor on Ephesus and on the surrounding regions: “All the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.”

In addition to Paul’s public ministry in the synagogue and the public hall, the Lord expands his influence in Ephesus still further. “Extraordinary miracles” (translated from the litotes “δυνάμεις τε οὐ τὰς τυχούσας”) are attributed to Paul in 19:11, “no less spectacular than those by the group of Jerusalem apostles.”25 From Luke’s point of view, no other location of Paul’s work receives miracles of such a kind. The miracles in this city are beyond the ordinary ministry of the apostle, who already performs miracles which are unusual. In Ephesus, Paul is an apostle, rabbi, philosopher, and miracle-worker.

Paul’s ministry could almost be construed as magic, especially for the common Ephesian saturated in the religious culture of the city. But Luke’s construction of the broader narrative steers us away from such thinking.26 Chance comments, “From the narrator’s perspective, Paul is clearly not an ally of the forces of darkness; hence, he is no magician, no matter how much methods associated with him appear magical.”27 Paul does not coerce God or employ some clever, repeatable, consistent method for wonderworking like a magician to earn a wage or acquire fame. “Luke draws a line between magic and miracle,” and Paul performs miracles for the spread of the gospel, not as an end in themselves.28 With that in mind, he is no magician, just a servant.29

Considering Paul’s many roles, one wonders how he sustains such a busy schedule. A skeptic could question how Paul manages to work, teach, and survive financially in Ephesus. But it is possible “for a dedicated, hard worker, as Paul obviously was.”30 Clinton Arnold clears up the concern:

One ancient tradition (the Western text of Acts) explains that Paul teaches “from the fifth hour to the tenth,” that is from 11:00 A.M. until 4:00 P.M. If this tradition is true, we can surmise that Paul spends the mornings plying his leatherworking trade in the workshops (see Acts 18:3). Then he engages in a daily period of intense teaching in this public hall at a time that is normally reserved for a meal and rest. During the evening he returns to work or spends time meeting with people house to house.31

Not a lot of time remains for public signs and miracles. Yet God finds a way through the extraordinary miracle of cloths.

3. The Cloth of Acts 19:11–12

While we are concerned primarily with the use of handkerchiefs as a healing device, Acts 19:12 points to two items (“handkerchiefs or aprons” [σουδάρια ἢ σιμικίνθια]) being involved in the miraculous healings and exorcisms. Both words are loanwords from Latin (sudarium, semicinctium), and their exact identity is debated, depending on the job with which they are associated.32 The items could be from Paul’s leatherworking/tentmaking outfit or his teaching paraphernalia.

A σουδάριον has a wide range of meaning, including its function as a “face-cloth for wiping perspiration.”33 The word also appears in Luke 19:20 to hold money and in John 11:14 and 20:7 to cover the face of the dead.34 With the immediate context of Acts 19:8–9 and the σχολή in mind, Richard Strelan suggests, “The sudarium worn around the neck was part of the uniform of an orator and was worn and used for effect as much as it was for practical purposes.”35 The ancient historian Suetonius also records that emperor Nero wore “a handkerchief bound about his neck.”36 In sum, both a worker’s sweat rag or a philosopher’s neck/head cloth are possible.

A σιμικίνθιον is often translated as an “apron, such as is worn by workers.”37 Its exact identity is mysterious, but T. J. Leary argues that it is likely best translated as a belt, rather than a vocation-specific apron.38 In other words, both items are not necessarily associated with his morning trade but could be identified with his afternoon teaching garb. Ben Witherington disagrees, positing that it is an apron and not a belt. He adds, “The image conjured up is that when Paul’s reputation as a miracle worker got around, people came to see him while he was at work, and upon their request, he gave them items of his clothing, used in his trade apparently (leather working or tentmaking).”39

Upon consideration of the context and the spiritual environment of Ephesus, it seems more likely that the healing items are associated with Paul’s public teaching ministry. After all, “craftworkers were not highly regarded, and a worker with animal skins would not have been thought to possess ‘power’ in his clothing or skin.”40 Meanwhile, a gifted public speaker could be seen as powerful.41 And in sharp contrast to the prior image painted by Witherington, Strelan says,

Paul wore the sudarium and the semicinctium in the hall of Tyrannus where he debated, dialogued, and taught. He wore that clothing because it was the accepted dress of an orator. People wanted access to that particular clothing because the voice and the stomach/genital area of a holy man were considered bodily areas of special power.42

Yet the exact identity of the cloths is less important than how they are used.

In Ephesus, cloths themselves are not a healing device. Craig Keener says, “Cloths had no specifically ‘medical’ use and certainly no specifically thaumaturgic function.”43 However, the cloths may have been surreptitiously stolen or politely requested to recreate the healing bags common in Ephesus (and associated with Artemis), as they were specifically used as an apotropaic device, an object to ward away evil and illness.44 Recreating one with a piece of cloth (which can be used to hold items according to the usage found in Luke 19:20) is not beyond the realm of possibility.

But the healing power is not ultimately in the cloth or even in Paul. Luke articulates that God is performing the miracles (19:11). Paul and his cloths serve as instruments of healing and deliverance, much like Peter and his shadow in Acts 5:12–16.45 Carl Holliday says, “What both Peter and Paul have in common is access to the name of Jesus, who himself can emit thaumaturgic power through indirect physical contact.”46 Furthermore, nothing about the text indicates that Paul is intending to imbue power into the cloths. Thus, Witherington says,

Luke does not say Paul traded in healing handkerchiefs or the like, or that he initiates such practices. It appears not to be Paul who takes these clothing items and lays them on the ill, but others who apparently did believe in the magical properties of the clothing of a healer. Furthermore, one must pay close attention to the flow of the narrative here, which concludes with the repudiation of magical recipes and books.47

These healing cloths are not procedurally anointed or commissioned. Avoiding any endorsement of magical behavior among the church, Luke’s presentation is plain: “These ‘extraordinary miracles’ are performed by God ‘through the hands of Paul’; God is the actor, Paul is the agent, and the explication of Paul’s teaching (the ‘kingdom of God’; 19:8) is the goal.”48 The emphasis is not on the cloths (or even Paul) but on the God who works wonders to unveil the gospel and loose those obsessed and enslaved by magic.49

4. A Comparison of Acts 19:11–12 and the Modern Practice of Healing Cloths

In 2019, Simon Herrmann wrote a paper reflecting on the spitting of ginger upon the sick. The Christian Lele of Papua New Guinea exercise this practice as a Christianized version of a local concept for healing. In support of the spitting of ginger, Herrmann said that the handkerchief narrative means that “God was willing to connect with people on the basis of their beliefs, which were, without doubt, shaped by their culture and environment.”50 He then argued that this “hybridity” supports the ongoing, God-focused expression of the ginger-spitting practice. Yet Luke’s intention to promote “hybridity,” in which local religious practices are amalgamated into Christian norm, remains in question. To discern the proper relationship between Acts 19:11–12 and modern healing cloths, let us compare the two.

From the previously provided examples, most healing handkerchiefs today are intentionally commissioned to perform that role. A common term is “anointed.” From the southern Africa context, Banda explains, “Anointing is the process by which prophets sanctify an object through a prayer of blessing or touching it to impart on it God’s miracle-working power. The object is then considered holy by hosting God’s miracle working power.”51 This perspective is pervasive throughout the world concerning healing cloths. And Christians who offer such devices occasionally find themselves in competition with other religious practitioners and magicians who commission similar items.

The events in Ephesus are drastically different. The apostle “did not promote himself as a miracle worker, unlike Simon Magus (8:9–10) and the sons of Sceva (19:13–15).”52 While the events are permissible, Paul does not commission or anoint the cloths. The text says nothing about Paul approving, encouraging, selling, or giving the cloths.53 A possibility even exists that the items are “taken without his knowledge.”54 Thus, Paul’s practice in Ephesus, as described by Luke, stands in contrast to the magicians of that time and modern healing handkerchiefs.

Furthermore, modern cloths are often tied to need, as in a Christian “needs” one for healing. Then people clamor for such items and rely on them for healing. Yet Paul’s ministry in Ephesus displays a different arc. Arnold says, “God chooses to manifest his healing power in spite of this deficient understanding of spiritual power…. God dramatically teaches the Ephesian Christians about the futility of their magical practices.”55 It is as if God uses “magical” events to display to the Ephesians that they no longer need magic. Instead of producing a dependency upon “Paul-blessed” items, the exact opposite occurs, for the miracles help lead locals to the burning of magical items (19:19) and the rejection of false religion (19:26).

5. Conclusion

The practice of religiously commissioning and distributing healing cloths has more in common with the Ephesian sons of Sceva than with the miracles wrought by God through Paul. The local exorcists attempted to replicate and bottle the miracles, distributing them as they willed. But in fact, God, not the items or the human instruments, dictated the miracles performed during this seminal moment in church history as God places his apostle in a philosopher’s chair and heals the diseased and demonized with cloths.

Luke has no interest in propping up Paul by endorsing magical practices. He “distinguishes between Christian miracle-working and the practice of magic in the Greco-Roman world. His purpose is to draw attention to the unique role and status of Peter and Paul in God’s purposes.”56 And as the story of Ephesus concludes, neither Paul nor his cloths are idolized or granted exaggerated importance.57 But this differentiation is exactly what eludes us today in many of these practices. When cloths are specifically and repeatedly commissioned by so-called miracle-working Christian leaders, the line between magic and Christian miracle fades.

We previously examined Kane and his concern that Pentecostalism needs to recover its distinctiveness, as if Christianity is missing something without occasional or regular faith-filled healings through handkerchiefs. But “the power of God manifested in Paul’s miracles ultimately led to the Ephesians’ overcoming their magic and superstition (cf. 19:17–20),” and Paul does not heal everyone in his ministry.58 There is no variant reading of 2 Timothy that says, “I have included an anointed prayer cloth with this letter to heal your stomach.”59 Perhaps, contrary to Kane, Christians who predominantly pray for healing and eschew cloths signify a wealth of faith, not a lack thereof.

To use the words of Stott, let us neither be “sceptics” or “mimics.”60 We do not doubt or discard the “extraordinary miracles.” Yet we also do not seek “to copy them” by becoming magicians who can manipulate spiritual power upon request.61 Instead, we see the gracious work of God in credentialing Paul’s ministry and reaching into the magical mania of Ephesus to heal, deliver, and save.62

I was standing before a room of godly women, mothers in the faith, who pray fervently for the lost and the sick. The question had come concerning the prayer cloth that they had commissioned. And after a pause, I said, “The practice of prayer cloths arises from Acts 19 with Paul in Ephesus, but I do not think that Luke intended that section of Scripture to provide a prescriptive norm for the church today. Sadly, a preoccupation with miraculous objects can become a crutch upon which our faith begins to rest.” Having now reconsidered Acts 19:11–12 at length, that counsel remains unchanged.

---

[1] Gregory Kane, “Anointed Prayer Handkerchiefs: Are We Missing a Paradigm for Healing?” JEPTA 1 (2012): 75.

[2] Kane, “Anointed Prayer Handkerchiefs,” 86.

[3] Kane, “Anointed Prayer Handkerchiefs,” 86.

[4] Kane, “Anointed Prayer Handkerchiefs,” 86. He marvels, “not even the practitioners can agree on the precise mechanism by which prayer handkerchiefs operate.” But they apparently work.

[5] C. Douglas Weaver, The Healer-Prophet: William Marrion Branham (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2000), 71.

[6] David E. Taylor, “Through the Years,” JMMI, https://joshuamediaministries.org/feature-presentation/about-apostle-david-e-taylor-jmmi/.

[7] David E. Taylor, “Free Miracle Prayer Cloth,” JMMI, https://joshuamediaministries.org/free-miracle-prayer-cloth/.

[8] Peetz gave a two-hour presentation with the Bethel School of Creativity, specifically concerning fashion. The lecture description says, “In this class Brienne Peetz will teach on the Father’s original intent for the fashion industry and ultimately His original design for your destiny! What does it look like to be part of the fashion industry in the kingdom? You will leave this class equipped and empowered to release heaven through fashion!” Brienne Peetz, “The Fashion Industry’s Heavenly Design,” Sched, https://schoolofcreativity2017.sched.com/event/9f8J/the-fashion-industrys-heavenly-design.

[9] Brienne Peetz, “Healing Through Kingdom Fashion Design,” Bethel, 20 July 2017, https://www.bethel.com/testimonies/healing-through-kingdom-fashion-design.

[10] “Impossible! A Dying Girl and TB Joshua’s Handkerchief,” Emmanuel TV, https://emmanuel.tv/content/impossible-a-dying-girl-and-tb-joshuas-handkerchief/. The Emmanuel TV website no longer displays the entire story, but the longer narrative continues to circulate through “Prophet T. B. Joshua’s Miracle Handkerchief,” News Ghana, 30 January 2015, https://newsghana.com.gh/prophet-t-b-joshuas-miracle-handkerchief/.

[11] “Prophet T. B. Joshua’s Miracle Handkerchief.”

[12] Edward Agboada, “Charms, Talisman, and Amulets in Contemporary African Christianity,” AJBT 4.1 (2021): 181–82.

[13] Collium Banda, “Complementing Christ? A Soteriological Evaluation of the Anointed Objects of the African Pentecostal Prophets,” Conspectus (December 2018): 55. He says at length, “Various studies have highlighted that many African Christians struggle with the sufficiency of Christ and his salvation in their African context, prompting them to maintain one foot in Christ and another in their African traditional religions (ATR). This raises the question: to what extent are the anointed objects of the African Pentecostal prophets an expression of the resilience of dissatisfaction with the sufficiency of Christ in the African context?”

[14] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 1315.

[15] Lewis Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 7:183.

[16] Biblical quotations come from the ESV, unless otherwise noted.

[17] Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 576.

[18] Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 34.

[19] Arnold, Ephesians, 34.

[20] Richard E. Oster Jr., “Ephesus,” ABD 2:545.

[21] Arnold, Ephesians, 33.

[22] Oster, “Ephesus,” 2:548.

[23] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–2015): 3:2830–31.

[24] Keener explains,

Established philosophers and other teachers often lectured in rented halls; this could have been a guild hall, but because it is named for a person it seems likelier a “lecture hall” (NIV), where Tyrannus is the landlord or (somewhat more probably) the customary lecturer. “Tyrannus” (a common name in Ephesus) might be a nickname, perhaps for a severe teacher. Public life in Ephesus, including philosophical lectures, ended by noon; most people in antiquity rested for one or two hours at midday, and advanced education lectures might finish by 11 a.m. Thus if Tyrannus lectured in the mornings Paul used it in the afternoons (perhaps doing manual labor in the mornings, cf. 20:34). In any case, residents of Ephesus would view Paul as a philosopher or sophist (professional public speaker). Many early Greco–Roman observers thought that Christians were a religious association or club (like other such associations in antiquity), or a philosophical school that took the form of a such an association. To outsiders, groups that taught ethics and lacked the sacrifices and idols characteristic of most religious groups could appear like philosophic schools.

Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 382–83.

[25] Keener, Acts, 3:2839. Parsons says, “Paul uses litotes (lit. ‘not ordinary’…) to describe the miracles God performs through Paul.” Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) 269. A litotes refers to use of the negative to emphasize a positive, and many English translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV) prefer to leave the literary device untranslated in this passage.

[26] The story of Ephesus has prescriptive implications. “Luke alerts Christians to distance themselves from magic.” Francis Innocent Otobo, “Luke’s Use of the Spirit to Engage Gentile Christians,” ABR 69 (2021): 59.

[27] J. Bradley Chance, Acts, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2007), 346.

[28] Dirk van der Merwe, “The Power of the Gospel Victorious Over the Power of Evil in Acts of the Apostles,” Scriptura 103 (2010): 87. He says in full, “Luke is drawing a distinction between magic and miracle. Magic is confined to those who attempted to manipulate the power of God through various means for their own purposes. Miracles, on the other hand, are confined to utilize this power as support for the proclamation of the gospel.”

[29] Witherington says, “What characterizes magic is the attempt through various sorts of rituals and words of power to manipulate some deity or supernatural power into doing the will of the supplicant.” Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 577. Paul does not behave in this manner, while the exorcists of Acts 19 do.

[30] Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 601.

[31] Clinton E. Arnold, Acts, ZIBBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 191–92. Bock adds, “If correct, then Paul meets in an off-peak time but also when people would be free to hear him. Although the Western text is not original, the timing is likely.” Bock, Acts, 601.

[32] Keener says, “Paul’s ‘handkerchiefs and aprons’ (NIV) could be rags tied around his head to catch sweat and his work aprons tied around his waist (cf. 20:34; or, less commonly suggested, pieces of his teaching uniform).” Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, 383.

[33] BDAG, “σουδάριον,” 934.

[34] “σουδάριον,” EDNT 3:258.

[35] Richard Strelan, “Acts 19:12: Paul’s ‘Aprons’ Again,” JTS 54 (2003): 155. Parsons agrees, “The context of these items implies that they were a part of his lectureship attire consisting of a sweat-rag and a belt, not a sweat-rag and apron from his tent-making enterprise.” Parsons, Acts, 270.

[36] Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, trans. Joseph Gavorse (New York: The Modern Library, 1931), 278.

[37] BDAG, “σιμικίνθιον,” 924.

[38] T. J. Leary, “The ‘Aprons’ of St Paul—Acts 19:12,” JTS 41 (1990): 527–29.

[39] Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 579–80.

[40] Strelan, “Acts 19:12,” 156.

[41] Strelan, “Acts 19:12,” 156.

[42] Strelan, “Acts 19:12,” 157.

[43] Keener, Acts, 3:2840.

[44] Arnold, Ephesians, 35.

[45] Beverly Gaventa points to the similarities between Peter and Paul’s miracles: “These [miracles of Paul] are, of course, parallel to earlier healings accomplished by the fringe of Jesus’ garment (Luke 8:44) and the shadow of Peter (Acts 5:15).” Beverly Roberts Gaventa, The Acts of the Apostles, ANTC (Nashville: Abington, 2003), 266–67.

[46] Carl L. Holladay, Acts, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016), 371. Pervo probably speaks too boldly when he claims, “Paul surpasses Jesus in power” because this event is more extraordinary than the healing of Mark 5:28–29. Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 472.

[47] Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 578.

[48] Parsons, Acts, 269–70.

[49] Jaap Doedens insightfully comments regarding the purpose of miracles in the New Testament: “Within the Book of Deuteronomy the expression ‘signs and wonders’ refers in most cases to God’s mighty deeds as part of the Exodus-story to free his people from slavery under the Pharaoh. It would be interesting to take this into account when we read about ‘signs and wonders’ in the New Testament: they are probably an indication of God’s new Exodus, liberating slaves of idols from their idolatry.” Jaap Doedens, “The Things That Mark an Apostle: Paul’s Signs, Wonders, and Miracles,” The Biblical Annals 11.1 (2021): 105.

[50] Simon Herrmann, “Spitting Ginger in Jesus’ Name? The Concept of Hybridity in a Lele Theology of Healing,” IBMR 43.4 (2019): 349.

[51] Banda, “Complementing Christ?,” 57. He also mentions that this anointing extends to a variety of items. He says, “Although the standard list of anointed objects commonly compromised [olive] oil, water and handkerchiefs, recent Zimbabwean times have seen regalia branded with the prophets’ names, branded bottled water and bizarre cases of objects such as cucumbers, pens for exams, and even condoms.”

[52] Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 795.

[53] Schnabel, Acts, 796.

[54] Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, 383.

[55] Arnold, Acts, 192.

[56] David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 538.

[57] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, AB 31 (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 647.

[58] John B. Polhill, Acts, NAC 26 (Nashville: B&H, 1992), 402.

[59] While we need not subscribe to the cessationism espoused by Derickson, we would still do well to recall “the men Paul did not heal” such as Epaphroditus, Timothy, and Trophimus. Gary W. Derickson, “The Cessation of Healing Miracles in Paul’s Ministry,” BSac 155 (1998): 308–11.

[60] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts: To the Ends of the Earth, BST (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 306.

[61] Stott, The Message of Acts, 306.

[62] Jesus did the same in his ministry by meeting people where they were. “Jesus himself condescended to the timorous faith of a woman by healing her when she touched the edge of his cloak.” Stott, The Message of Acts, 306.