I was doing some research on another topic and got to reading again Acts 19. This part has always bothered me, but I can't put a clear finger on it, hope someone has some insight.

Acts 19:11 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. 13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to pronounce the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches." 14 Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. 15 But the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?" 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, mastered all of them, and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 And this became known to all residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks; and fear fell upon them all; and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled. 18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.


compare to

Mark 9:38 38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." 39 But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is for us.

Yechezel 3 wrote:
I was doing some research on another topic and got to reading again Acts 19. This part has always bothered me, but I can't put a clear finger on it, hope someone has some insight.

Acts 19:11 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. 13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to pronounce the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches." 14 Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. 15 But the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?" 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, mastered all of them, and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 And this became known to all residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks; and fear fell upon them all; and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled. 18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.

compare to

Mark 9:38 38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." 39 But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is for us.
Excellent question. First, the business of 'handkerchiefs and aprons' healing the sick always worried me, as it smacks of sorcery. Where was Yeshua in this? Didn't it instead glorify Paul? How much did he charge for this strange 'ministry'?

Second, there is no evidence that that the man was delivered, even by Paul. If this had occurred, then Paul (being Paul) would certainly have instructed Luke to write about it. However because he didn't, one can only conclude that the man remained demonized.

Third, The 'Jesus whom Paul preached' was not the real Yeshua, but the lawless Jesus invented by Paul. The difference is crucial. Therefore the demon was under no compulsion to come out of the man, and instead caused havoc. Upon seeing what happened, the people must have realised they'd been fed a false Jesus in whom there's no power, because according to Luke they 'confessed'. However whereas he worded it to make us assume they repented of unbelief, from the context it's more likely they repented of the lawlessness they'd received from Paul. Remember this was Ephesus, home to the Nicolaitans, the congregation _base_d on Paul's teachings led by Nicolas of Antioch (c.f. Acts 6:5).

Fourth, as for the demon 'knowing' both Yeshua and Paul, this is as meaningless as saying "the President I know and the garbageman I know". The fact that we might know both of them does not mean they are in the same category, any more than Yeshua and Paul were in the same category.

Finally, as for Mark 9:40 "he that is not against us is for us", Galatians 2 makes it clear that Paul opposed the apostles. Therefore he is exempt from Yeshua's commandment to allow him to continue (Mark 9:39).

Although Acts 19 was worded to make it sound like a huge victory for Paul, a close reading shows it was actually a huge defeat where he lost followers en masse.

Luke was a fantastic spin-doctor, who by leaving key information out, could make the most negative situation sound positive for Paul. During his travels with Paul he did this time and again, and Paul utilised Luke's gift to the hilt.

I could say more about Luke and how he later came to righteousness, but that is off topic and best handled elsewhere.

Shalom

That was very enlightening Shaun, thanks!

You're welcome!

Shaun the Sheep wrote:
Yechezel 3 wrote:
I was doing some research on another topic and got to reading again Acts 19. This part has always bothered me, but I can't put a clear finger on it, hope someone has some insight.

Acts 19:11 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. 13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to pronounce the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches." 14 Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. 15 But the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?" 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, mastered all of them, and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 And this became known to all residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks; and fear fell upon them all; and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled. 18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.

compare to

Mark 9:38 38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." 39 But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is for us.
Excellent question. First, the business of 'handkerchiefs and aprons' healing the sick always worried me, as it smacks of sorcery. Where was Yeshua in this? Didn't it instead glorify Paul? How much did he charge for this strange 'ministry'?



Shalom Hi Shaun, Sorry for the quick reply, I've been having some PC probs since mid week. I wanted to answer more but couldn't be on long enough but wanted to thank you for responding.

Yes, I too have always had a strange feeling about those 'handkerchiefs', and today I wonder if these were not talliot? In John we see that he describes the way the tomb was left, very interesting. It says this:

5 And he stooping down , and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying ; yet went he not in . 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie , 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself *. Using the KJV here to show how translation can totally change the meaning of something.

The 'linen clothes' were the burial shroud. The 'napkin' that was about his head was not part of this, but part of his personal belongings. Now I have heard Christian preachers preach their 'gentilized' version of what this meant. That in fine dining it is the way to show a waiter that you are not done with your meal by leaving your napkin folded a certain way which means you would return to the table and had only gone away for a bit (bathroom or to speak to someone at another table, take a phone call, etc). Intimating that this was Yeshua's way of showing that he would return, but to a meal? OY!

Yet this superimposes modern etiquette on a totally different culture and time! What is called a 'napkin' here was certainly not used for dining in a tomb! But the hint in is in the way it was laid. It was folded. As one would with their tallit when not wearing it. This was placed over the head and buried with the deceased. All that would be missing would be the string of techlet, blue, as these were quite pricey and would be passed down in the family. James might have been the recipient of these since Yeshua did not have offspring to pass on to.

Now what does this have to do with Paul? Everything, as the same word that is translated as 'napkin' here is translated as 'handkercheif' in Acts 19. The word in Greek is 'soudavrion'. We see this word twice in John, the other time it is used when describing how Lazarus looked when he came from the tomb. Again he would have had his tallit over his head.

I don't think Luke knew what to call it, and I don't think they used talit in the Tanach so there is no Greek equivalent from the LXX to help here and it was strictly a Jewish garment.

It is this same burial head covering we see Paul doing his miracles with. Now lets see about Paul's 'business'.

acts 18:1 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He (Paul) came to them, 3 and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers.

Jewish 'Tent' makers from Rome? Really? What booming business would that be in such a sophisticated city? I suggest these Jewish tent makers were not making tents, but talliot. When one put it over one's head it makes a tent, a 'prayer closet' to draw close to the Almighty one. And this is what I think was also named by Luke as a handkerchief. I can't prove it because the Greek words are different, but I don't believe they had linen 'napkin's or handkerchief for blowing one's nose back then as Strong's suggests.

I think that it is possible that Paul heard the story (which Luke (8:44) has also recorded so it could have come from him even) speaks of the woman who had an ongoing blood issue, who touched Yeshua's tzitzit and was healed.

Sad to say I think that Paul was doing what I've seen many televangelists doing, using the tallit for profit. They tell the audience that they will send them this 'special prayer shawl, 'just like Jesus wore' that they will pray over for them and for a certain price it can be theirs and it will bring healing to them!

It also comes to mind that the 'garments' that Saul/Paul was holding when they stoned Stephen might also have been the talliot, why else would he need to hold them? because they shouldn't touch the ground as anyone could toss of a coat, because of the tzitzit. I know it's described as at his feet, but why all in one place unless he had spread out something to hold them all to keep them from touching the ground?

Anyway on to the aprons.

It is interesting that the word translated 'apron' that Paul had miraculously touched is actually a Latin word. So for now I will have to hold off looking up to see if it would be the same in the LXX, but the only other place the word 'apron' is found is in Genesis 3:7

And the eyes of them both were opened , and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together , and made themselves aprons.


12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

Isn't it interesting that the only two times this word is used it is in connection with evil (spirits and knowledge thereof)?

I also find it troublesome that it says that these _object_s were 'brought from his body' very odd way of putting it, don't you think?

What you say about 'handkerchiefs' meaning tallitot makes good sense, especially given the similarity to 'handkerchief' in Yeshua's tomb.

Of course the tzitziot are to remind us to obey the commandments and do what is right in the sight of YHWH (Numbers 15:39). Those who do this position themselves to receive healing and protection from disease (Exodus 15:26), which comes even before all the other promises listed in Deuteronomy 28.

Now if Paul had sent tzitziot, their healing would have constituted their first 'sign and wonder', and encouraged them to delve more deeply into Torah and become true talmidim of Yeshua.

But what did Paul do? He substituted tallit, a garment which is not holy in itself, and which is merely a covering! It did nothing to point the recipients towards Torah, and upon receiving their healing they would have been thanking Paul for his special magic cloth, not YHWH for their healing! Therefore this was just one more technique used by Paul to turn people away from the Law and towards himself.

I'm also intrigued by your reference to the tallitot being sent 'from his body'. Would this have made them ritually unclean? Considering that one of the ways Aaron transferred his holiness to his sons was via his priestly garments, do you see the tallitot as a way in which Paul tried to spread his unholiness to other people?

Interested in your thoughts.

Shalom