Apostolic Signs and Accusations of Sorcery an Attestation to Cessationism

In a previous post, evidence for the historicity of the miracles performed by Christ was presented.¹⁾See Heath Henning, “Proof Christ Performed Miracles,” March 22, 2016; https://truthwatchers.com/proof-christ-performed-miracles/ It is notable that those who opposed Jesus Christ accused Him of performing sorcery but never denied that He performed miraculous works. The Jewish leaders accused Christ of working miracles by the power of Beelzebub (Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15), and later rabbinic authorities repeated similar charges (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 69;²⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 1, p. 233 Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 5.3).³⁾The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 7, p. 139 Robert E. Van Voorst observes that “the Tannaitic [A.D. 70-200] and Amoraic [A.D. 3^rd -6^th centuries] rabbis correctly saw the importance of healing and other miracles in Christianity (e.g., t. Hullin 2.22-23; y. Abodah Zarah 2.2), it is not surprising that they portrayed Jesus primarily as a magician.”⁴⁾Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2000), p. 132 If the rabbis acknowledged miracles performed by Christians, they likewise would have associated them with magic, just as Christ was accused of practicing magic (Matthew 10:25).

According to the Middle Assyrian Laws, dating to the twelfth century B.C., “If either man or a woman made up magical preparations and they were found in their possession, when they have prosecuted them (and) convicted them, they shall put the maker of the magical preparation to death.”⁵⁾Middle Assyrian Laws (Trans. Theophile J. Meeks), in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. James B. Pritchard) 3rd Edition, Princeton University Press (Princeton, NJ: 1969), p. 184 Hittite laws likewise required cases involving sorcery to be brought directly before the king for judgment (Hittite Laws, Tablet 1.44;⁶⁾Hittite Laws (trans. by Albrecht Goetze) in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. James B. Pritchard) 3rd Edition, Princeton University Press (Princeton, NJ: 1969), p. 189 Tablet 2.111).⁷⁾Hittite Laws (trans. by Albrecht Goetze) in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. James B. Pritchard) 3rd Edition, Princeton University Press (Princeton, NJ: 1969), p. 194

Some have considered such laws to have influenced the origin of the Hebrew laws. However, it is more likely that the Mosaic Law was formulated as a polemic against Egyptian culture (Leviticus 18:3-4; Josephus, Against Apion 1.240;⁸⁾ Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1, para. 26; in The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 951 Antiquities of the Jews 3.212-213)⁹⁾Anitiquities of the Jews, Book 3, chapt. 8, para. 8; in he New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 129 which promoted magical practices. According to Jewish law, sorcery carried the death penalty (Exodus 22:18; Deuteronomy 13:10; 18:10). This remained the case after the first century according to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:10-11),¹⁰⁾ The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 393 and sorcery was considered deserving of eternal punishment in 2 Enoch 10:4.¹¹⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 119 

More relevant to the time of Jesus Christ, first-century Roman law likewise concurred with these sentiments concerning magic. Martin Hegel, referencing Paulus Sententiae (5.19.2; 21.4; 23.2; 16; 25.1; 30b. I), reported:

At the same time the Sententiae give catalogues of crimes which are punished by crucifixion, including desertion to the enemy, the betraying of secrets, incitement to rebellion, murder, prophecy about the welfare of rulers (de salute dominorum), nocturnal impiety (sacra impia nocturna), magic (ars magica), serious cases of the falsification of wills, etc.”¹²⁾Martin Hegel, Crucifixion In the ancient world and the folly of the message of the cross, Fortress Press (Philadelphia, PA: 1977,1978),  pp. 33-34

Craig Keener likewise notes:

some ancients considered it morally just to punish deceivers (Rhet .Alex. 1, 1422b.5-8) and to execute a diviner who deliberately lied about omens (Val. Max. 7.2.5). Crowds might also seek to burn someone alive who employed dangerous magic (Lucian Lucius 54).”¹³⁾ Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 3:1-14:28, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2013), Vol. 2, p. 2010-2011

Roman culture therefore distinguished between beneficial or deceptive magic and forms of magic considered dangerous. Pontius Pilate himself was involved with divination and even had a coin minted bearing an augur’s wand.¹⁴⁾David Hendin, Guide to Biblical Coins (Third Edition), Amphora (New York, NY: 1996), p. 156 This may help explain why he was hesitant to crucify Christ (Luke 23:14–16, 20; John 19:12).

The legal accusation that the Jews presented to Pilate against Christ was that He was a “malefactor” (John 18:30). The Greek term κακοποιός carries the meanings “evil-doer, criminal, sorcerer.”¹⁵⁾ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Walter Bauer and trans. Wm. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, University of Chicago Press  (Chicago, IL: 1979), p. 397 Later rabbis in the Talmud repeated the charge that Christ was crucified “because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a).¹⁶⁾ accessible at http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html#43a_34

John Welch argues that a generalized indictment such as simply calling Christ a “malefactor” is too ambiguous to account for the death penalty, therefore it must carry the technical charge of sorcery.¹⁷⁾ John W. Welch, “Miracle, Maleficium, and Maiestas in the Trial of Jesus,” in Jesus and Archaeology (Ed. James H. Charlesworth), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2006), p. 376 Welch further argues:

Even more definitively, in 1 Pet 4:13-16 ‘Christians’ were exhorted to share the suffering of Christ, but not as a murder, a thief, a kakopoios, or a fourth kind of offender (the nature of which is more general and indeterminable). Clustered grammatically together with the first two very serious offenses in this list, the word kakopoios points to a particular crime of unacceptable magnitude, not merely a general indicator of moral misconduct.¹⁸⁾ John W. Welch, “Miracle, Maleficium, and Maiestas in the Trial of Jesus,” in Jesus and Archaeology (Ed. James H. Charlesworth), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2006), p. 378

There is therefore grammatical and historical evidence supporting the position that the charge against Jesus Christ was associated with sorcery. The accusation also appears to have been extended to Christians during the apostolic era (1 Peter 2:12; 4:15).

Alfred Edersheim, writing about Jewish opinions concerning demonology during the time of Christ, recorded:

Demons may imitate or perform all that the prophets or great men of old had wrought. The magicians of Egypt had imitated the miracles of Moses by demonical power (Shem. R. 9). So general at the time of our Lord was the belief in demons and in the power of employing them, that even Josephus (Ant. viii. 2, 5) contended that the power of conjuring up, and driving out demons, and of magical cures had been derived from King Hezekiah, to whom God had given it. Josephus declares himself to have been an eye-witness of such a wonderful cure by the repetition of a magical formula. This illustrates the contention of the Scribes that the miraculous cures of our Lord were due to demoniac agency.¹⁹⁾ Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Macdonald Publishing Co. (Mclean, VA: 1883, 1886), Vol. 2, p. 762

The Jewish view of magic and magicians during the time of Christ acknowledged that, in principle, divination was condemned by the death penalty, while in practice, certain provisions permitted the use of magical formulas under particular circumstances. A longstanding Jewish tradition predating Christ expressed praise for King Solomon’s practice of magic (Wisdom of Solomon 7:15-22;²⁰⁾The Apocrypha (Ed. Manuel Komroff), Barnes & Noble Books (New York, NY: 1992), p. 137 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 8.42-45;²¹⁾The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 269-270 Testament of Solomon;²²⁾The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, pp. 960-987 Pseudo-Philo’s, Biblical Antiquities 60.3;²³⁾The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 373 Apocalypse of Adam 7:13-16),²⁴⁾The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 716 a tradition that later Gnostic texts also identified (The Testimony of Truth 69,32-70,24).²⁵⁾The Nag Hammadi Scriptrues: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts (Ed. Marvin Meyer), HarperOne (New York, NY: 2008), p. 626

Edersheim further notes:

Here it may be interesting to refer to some of the strange ideas which Rabbinism attached to the early Christians, as showing both the intercourse between the two parties, and that the Jews did not deny the gift of miracles in the Church, only ascribing its exercise to magic.²⁶⁾ Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Macdonald Publishing Co. (Mclean, VA: 1883, 1886), Vol. 2, p. 772

The Lord promised to endue His disciples with power (Matthew 10:1; Mark 3:14–15; 6:7; 16:17–18; Luke 9:1; 10:19; 24:49; Acts 1:7–8; 3:12–13; etc.), and early Jewish authors confirmed that Christians were believed to possess such power. Since this power was given to the apostles by the Lord, the evidence supporting the historicity of Christ’s miracles can also be applied to the apostles, although there is comparatively less evidence outside Christian sources for the later followers of Christ performing miracles.

Craig Keener observes:

Thus, regardless of their philosophic assumptions about divine activity in miracle claims, most scholars today grant that Jesus’ contemporaries viewed him as a healer and exorcist.²⁷⁾ Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2009, 2012), p. 241-242

If most modern scholars accept that Jesus’ contemporaries regarded Him as a healer and exorcist, there is likewise no compelling reason to dismiss the early Christian testimony concerning the miraculous works of His apostles.

Notably, accusations that the apostles were magicians also appear in the early apocryphal Acts.²⁸⁾David Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Westminster Press (Philadelphia, PA: 1987, 1989), p. 149 Paul is called a “magician” in Acts of Paul and Thecla, ²⁹⁾Acts of Paul and Thecla, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 8, p. 488 while Peter was accused of making “seditious murmurings” and was called “a wizard and a cheat” because many were “wondering at his miracles” in Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. ³⁰⁾Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 8, p. 480 Peter is also described as “a great sorcerer” in Acts of Peter and Andrew,³¹⁾Acts of Peter and Andrew, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 8, p. 527 and the Apostle Thomas was charged as “the sorcerer, who has come for evil into this city,” in Acts of the Apostle Thomas.³²⁾Acts of the Apostle Thomas in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 8. 538

These Christian apocryphal texts suggest that Christians in the early centuries were routinely exposed to accusations of sorcery from their opponents. Irenaeus, who likely had in mind testimony ultimately derived from Polycarp, who personally knew some of the apostles, forcefully argued that the miracles Christians were known to perform were not accomplished “by means of angelic invocation, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.32.5).³³⁾The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 1, p. 409

Similarly, Origen argued against Celsus that “Christians employed no spells or incantations” (Origen, Against Celsus, 1.6).³⁴⁾The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 4, p. 399 Tertullian contrasted “the power of God” exhibited through “Christ, or of the apostles” with the “arrogant pretensions of sorcerers,” whose signs were characterized by “fraudulence” (Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul 57).³⁵⁾The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 3, p. 234

The accusation that the apostles were sorcerers was sufficiently common that, in the canonical book of Acts, when Paul and Barnabas healed an impotent man and were subsequently regarded as gods by the pagans at Lystra, only to be stoned by the same crowd shortly afterward (Acts 14:8–19), some scholars have suggested that their opponents from Antioch and Iconium had portrayed them as “dangerous magicians.”³⁶⁾Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, InteVarsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 1993), p. 363; also Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 3:1-14:28, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2013), Vol. 2, p. 2176

Craig Keener recognized, “Some magicians were recognized as charlatans.”³⁷⁾ Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 3:1-14:28, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2013), Vol. 2, p. 1502 Paul warned Timothy that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). The Greek word translated “seducers,” γόητες, is defined as “sorcerer, juggler… in our lit. more in the sense swindler, cheat.”³⁸⁾ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Walter Bauer and trans. Wm. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, University of Chicago Press  (Chicago, IL: 1979), p. 164 Delling suggests that the term is used “in a strict sense of a ‘magician,’ esp. one who worked with verbal formula. Those who believe in demons take him quite seriously, though he is sometimes detested, esp. by the educated…. It thus comes to denote the ‘charlatan’ in a more general sense[.]”³⁹⁾ Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Gerhard Kittel; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley) WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 1964-1976) Vol. 1, p. 737 Philo grouped this term with “likely falsehoods, from which all the sophists of Egypt, and all the augurs, and ventriloquists, and sorcerers spring; men skillful in juggling, and in incantations, and in tricks of all kinds, from whose treacherous arts it is very difficult to escape.”⁴⁰⁾Philo, On Dreams, 1.220; in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged New Updated Version (Trans. C. D. Yonge), (Peabody, MA: 1997), p. 385 In the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Judah is recorded as warning his children “on account of the licentiousness and witchcraft and idolatry that you practice contrary to the kingship, following ventriloquists, omen dispensers, and demons of deceit.”⁴¹⁾Testament of Judah 23:1; in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 801

Some practitioners of such arts were considered demonic, while others were understood to be harmless illusionists. The Mishnah distinguishes between the two: “‘The sorcerer’—he that performs some act is culpable, and not he that [only] deceives the eyes” (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 7.11).⁴²⁾ The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 393 Keener recognized this distinction, noting, “Rabbis also knew of workers of illusions and considered them far less dangerous than genuine sorcerers (Spire Deut. 171.6.1).⁴³⁾ Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 3:1-14:28, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2013), Vol. 2, p. 1503

What we find in the perspective of the ancient world, therefore, is a generally negative opinion of magicians, particularly because of their association with greed and financial exploitation. The Old Testament condemned those who marketed spiritual services for hire. The prophet Micah spoke of those who “teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money” (Micah 3:11). An unnamed prophet refused an offer of gifts (1 Kings 13:7-10). Elisha’s servant Gehazi was rebuked and struck with leprosy after receiving a reward following a miraculous healing (2 Kings 5:25-27). Balaam was a soothsayer (Joshua 13:22), whose greed for the “rewards of divination” (Numbers 22:7) ultimately led to his condemnation (Deuteronomy 23:4; Nehemiah 13:2; 2 Peter 2:15; Jude 1:11).

Josephus acknowledged that Balaam spoke “by inspiration, as not being in his own power, but moved to say what he did by the Divine Spirit.” (Antiquities of the Jews 4.118)⁴⁴⁾Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 148 Josephus even considered that Moses gave Balaam “great honor, by setting down his prophecies in writing” (Antiquities of the Jews 4.157).⁴⁵⁾ Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 151 Jewish tradition states that Balaam has “no share in the world to come” (Mishna, Sanhedrin 10.2).⁴⁶⁾ The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 397

Some rabbinic references to Balaam have been interpreted as cryptic references to Jesus (The Mishna, Aboth 5.19;⁴⁷⁾The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 458 Babylonains Talmud, Gittin 57a;⁴⁸⁾ http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 106a-106b)⁴⁹⁾http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_106.html although this interpretation is generally rejected by modern scholars.⁵⁰⁾Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2000), pp. 110-111, 115-116 Nevertheless, a comparable negative association appears to have been shared in traditions concerning both Balaam and Jesus Christ.

Craig Keener’s comments concerning the ancient attitude toward miracle workers further illuminate the factor that contributed to the negative reputation of money-seeking magicians. He writes, “Thus, for Apollonius (Vit. Apoll. 1.34), various criteria distinguished magic from miracle working, but most important is the issue of greed. Charges of magic were common against all who did miracles… but the best answer to them is to keep using miraculous power without seeming to desire it and without seeming greedy.”⁵¹⁾ Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 3:1-14:28, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2013), Vol. 2, p. 1500-1501 He later states, “More commonly, many pagans were aware of charlatan prophets with a profit motive; a fee was also a prerequisite for oracle consultation at the shrines.”⁵²⁾ Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 15:1-23:35, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2013), Vol. 3, p. 2429

The New Testament provides an example of this association between supernatural activity and financial gain in the account of the slave girl who possessed “a spirit of divination” and brought “her masters much gain by soothsaying” (Acts 16:16). The Apostle Paul understood the popular impressions of the culture in which he ministered. Although he acknowledged his own miraculous works (Romans 15:18-19; 1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Galatians 3:5; Hebrews 2:4), he also worked to earn his own living (Acts 18:3; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:9).

Non-canonical Christian texts from the first century likewise caution against “prophets” who sought financial gain. The Didache states, “But whoever saith in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, ye shall not listen to him” (Didache 11:12).⁵³⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 7, p. 381 In the second century, Irenaeus emphasized that Christians had performed miracles, “neither practicing deception upon any, nor taking any reward from them” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.32.4).⁵⁴⁾The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 2012), vol. 1, p.409

Paul generally refused to receive financial support for his own ministry (Acts 20:33-35; 1 Corinthians 9:3-18; 2 Corinthians 11:7-9; 12:13-16), and the money he earned through his labor was used to support those whom he served in ministry (2 Corinthians 12:15). Barnabas is also said to have wrought miracles (Acts 15:12), and although he was entitled to receive compensation for his ministry, he did not do so (1 Corinthians 9:6). The Apostle Peter likewise strongly opposed the acquisition of financial gain through spiritual power (Acts 8:18-20).

This perspective concerning ministry ultimately derives from the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, who instructed His Apostles to abandon their possessions (Mark 6:8-9; Luke 9:3, 58; 10:4; 12:33; 14:33; 18:29). The Apostles therefore lived and ministered according to this spiritual labor of love, knowing that the surrounding culture could regard them as charlatans if they were seen performing miracles while simultaneously receiving financial compensation. In order to avoid even the appearance of evil that might hinder the Gospel (1 Thessalonians 5:22), they lived without substantial possessions and willingly endured poverty (1 Corinthians 9:11-12; Philippians 4:11-13).

The question raised by this evidence, then, is what changed with the successors of the Apostles. Why would Paul teach that it was acceptable for the next generation of pastors to earn a living from their ministry (1 Corinthians 9:6-19; 1 Timothy 5:17-18)? What changed so dramatically that financial support could be provided to those laboring in spiritual things? Ultimately, the answer proposed here is that the Apostolic sign gifts would cease with the ministry of the Apostles (Acts 2:43; 5:12; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:4). Since these miraculous manifestations would no longer continue after the Apostles, there would no longer be the same concern that pastors of the following generation would be accused of practicing sorcery for financial gain.

The purpose of the miracles was to attest to the divine authority behind the message of the Gospel. Once that divine authority had been established and the inspired Scriptures completed, there was no longer a necessity to authenticate the message through the same miraculous signs. The cessation of the Apostolic sign gifts, therefore, provides a historical and theological explanation for the changing relationship between miraculous ministry and financial support.

Two potential arguments against this premise for cessationism are foreseeable and therefore worthy of consideration.

First, one might argue that modern charismatic churches may exist in which a pastor does not receive an income for his ministry but is nevertheless perceived to perform miracles.  Ultimately, this is a pragmatic argument and does not negate the Scriptural teaching that Paul instructed ministers to receive financial support (1 Corinthians 9:6-19). The distinction is significant because the historical concern surrounding accusations of sorcery appears to have diminished once the Apostles had passed from the scene.

The second argument concerns an ancient Jewish tradition associated with Hillel the Elder. Hillel, who lived in the first century B.C., expressed the principle that scribes were not to profit materially from teaching the Law (Mishnah, Aboth 1.3;⁵⁵⁾The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 447 4.5).⁵⁶⁾The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 453 Scribes were permitted compensation at a later date,⁵⁷⁾Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave), Fortress Press (Philadelphia, PA: 1967, 1989), p. 112 apparently to compensate them for the income they would otherwise have earned had they not been distracted from their secular labor (Mishnah, Bekhoroth 4.6).⁵⁸⁾The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 534

It seems likely that the apparent discrepancy in the Mishnah (Aboth 3.5)⁵⁹⁾The Mishna (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 450 can be explained by distinguishing between direct payment for teaching and the generosity of a scribe’s disciples or supporters, who might assist the teacher through hospitality. A similar practice is reflected in the New Testament (Mark 15:41; Luke 8:1-3; 9:4; 10:7-8; John 12:6; Galatians 6:6), and Paul himself received such assistance from the Philippians (Philippians 4:16-18; 2 Corinthians 11:9).

From this perspective, one might argue that Paul was simply following a common Jewish practice as a teacher of Scripture, and that his refusal to receive payment for his ministry had nothing to do with avoiding accusations of sorcery. There is some historical basis for this argument. Nevertheless, the general view of scribes among first-century Jews could also be highly negative, with scribes being characterized as covetous and gluttonous (Luke 16:14; 20:47; Mark 12:40; Testament of Moses 7:3-8).⁶⁰⁾The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 930

Furthermore, it remains significant that Paul taught that ministers were entitled to receive regular financial support, rather than merely relying upon the generosity of their students or individual benefactors. He develops this principle through analogies drawn from ordinary agricultural laborers (1 Corinthians 9:7-10) and from the priests (1 Corinthians 9:13), who received regular portions from the offerings of the people whom they served (Numbers 18:8-24). Paul concludes, “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14).

Thus, the practice of Jewish scribes does not appear to account adequately for Paul’s argument concerning ministerial compensation or for his own deliberate self-denial of financial support. Paul acknowledged that ministers had a legitimate right to receive material support for their spiritual labor, even though he voluntarily surrendered that right in his own ministry. The distinction is important: Paul’s refusal to receive financial support was a voluntary act of self-denial, whereas his teaching concerning other ministers established financial support as a legitimate principle for those who labor in the Gospel.