# Galatians Article: Read with me???



## tdowns (Feb 5, 2008)

Anyone care to read this article;

Perspective Online: Galatians - One family of Faith

And help me to pinpoint its validness, or, error...it mentions, Wright, and discusses Galatians, which is a book, my Sunday School Class is about to go through. The person leading us through Galations, sent me the article, so, I want some feedback on it.

It's short.

Thanks.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 5, 2008)

tdowns007 said:


> Anyone care to read this article;
> 
> Perspective Online: Galatians - One family of Faith
> 
> ...



In my humble opinion, there is no doubt that this article takes an NPP perspective. One of the problems I see in this article is the division he tries to make based on the "we", "us" and "you" scenario. There is no real support in the article to make the leap that Paul is making such sharp divisions. Also his argument regarding the law is way too narrow. It appears that he is reading Galatians in isolation from the rest of Scripture. He needs to go back to Rom 2. Paul does not limit the law to the Jews alone. All have an a priori knowledge of the law, Jews and Gentiles alike. All are under the curse (Rom 5). So his comment: *"gentile Christian … been redeemed from the curse of God’s law? Is that the key to your inclusion in the Kingdom? No. Because you were never under the curse of the law. That was Israel’s distinct privilege – and danger."* doesn't hold up.

The rest of the article pretty much falls in line with NPP thought and is not the Reformed position at all.


----------



## tdowns (Feb 5, 2008)

*Thanks.....*

I appreciate it!

I was thinking the same thing, but, although I've browsed the whole FV debate, it's too big for me to tackle with true understanding, since it's all over the place, so I trust those with greater knowledge than myself (the people I respect on this board) when they say it's error. 

Thanks for the feedback, just what I was hoping for.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 5, 2008)

Trevor,

I know I didn't give you much of a critique of the article so I thought I would attach a link to an article by Lig Duncan on NPP that should give you more background info on what NPP is all about.

The Attractions of NPP

Hope it helps!


----------



## tdowns (Feb 5, 2008)

*Perfect.*

Once again perfect, since it's reaching its hand into my circles, time to start reading.


----------



## Storm (Feb 5, 2008)

*Is ANYONE free out there???*

First, this is the first time I've ever heard the terms "Federal Vision" or "New Perspectives on Paul." Can someone explain those in one sentence or two?

Second, I'm really interested in the Book of Galatians since I will be leading a group through that Book the next six weeks. I know that "freedom" is a common theme, but now I am seeing "one in Christ" as a theme also. The group is made up of men and women and I am afraid that the "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE" part is going to blow up in my face! How do I get the group to the "lowest common denominator?"

Please look at these verses:

Acts 21:25
Acts 15:1-35
Romans 10:1-13

They describe the Council at Jerusalem and their conclusion on what a Gentile should adhere to as a follower of Jesus Christ. They also explain the "Gospel." It all seems so very, very simple. There are only, like, what...FOUR things the Council says Gentile believers should worry about doing/not doing? Heck, that's less than it takes to join a solid, Bible-believing church in America today! So...what's the deal? Have we complicated the Gospel? Have we added to it? Is it too hard to be THAT free in Christ or to watch someone else be THAT free???

Finally, what about my life in Christ AFTER I believe? What "principles" do I now adhere to as a NON-JEWISH believer in Jesus? Isn't it even MORE hair-raising to try and live as a follower of Christ AFTER believing in Him and have such a simple FREE life? NO ONE will let me do that!!!

What are your thoughts?

Is anyone really FREE out there??? 

Diamond Dave


----------



## tdowns (Feb 5, 2008)

*I'll get back to you....*

after I read that article.


----------



## G.Wetmore (Feb 5, 2008)

Storm said:


> First, this is the first time I've ever heard the terms "Federal Vision" or "New Perspectives on Paul." Can someone explain those in one sentence or two?
> 
> Second, I'm really interested in the Book of Galatians since I will be leading a group through that Book the next six weeks. I know that "freedom" is a common theme, but now I am seeing "one in Christ" as a theme also. The group is made up of men and women and I am afraid that the "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE" part is going to blow up in my face! How do I get the group to the "lowest common denominator?"
> 
> ...



I'll let someone else answer the FV NPP question, and quickly address the rest. 


I am going to paste in part of a paper I wrote for a Biblical Theology class that address the argument of Galatians

Galatians Arugment:

Galatians is an often misinterpreted book. In order to understand Paul’s argument, one must first understand what he is arguing against. Paul is not arguing for salvation by faith, over and against the Mosaic Law. Paul is arguing against the Judaizers and their mis-interpretation of the Mosaic Law. Paul’s argument is that God’s plan for his people, which now includes gentiles, has always been salvation by grace through faith, and not by meritorious law-keeping. In order to understand Paul’s argument, especially as it as seen in Galatians 3, the error of the Judaizers must be reconstructed. 
The Judaizers were trying to make Gentile Christians, in Galatia, live like Jews. What exactly did this entail? They were teaching the Gentiles that they must submit to circumcision (Gal 5:2, 11; 6:12), and keep the Jewish ceremonial calendar (Gal 4:10). In short, they had to Judaize, or live like a Jew. So what is the big deal? Is there more at stake (to be crass) than a bit of skin, or a few festival days? Yes, so much so that Paul says that if they submit to this, then Christ is of no value to them (Gal 5:2). Why does Paul take such a strong stance, especially when he himself had Timothy circumcised in order to preach to the Jews (Acts 16:3)? The answer to this question is the key to understanding Paul’s argument, in Galatians.
The reason behind Paul’s insistence to resist the Judaizers is found in the Jewish concept of meritorious law-keeping. Paul is not arguing against it, as God had revealed it, but against this Jewish misunderstanding of the Mosaic covenant. In this Jewish tradition, righteousness was thought to be the fulfillment of all a persons obligations. Righteousness was about what a man could accomplish to be right before God. Paul is writing against this view. G. Dix describes Paul’s argument as “a brilliant and vigorous attack on the whole Pharisaic conception of Zekith (lit. ‘satisfaction’), i.e., the notion that it is only by ‘satisfying’ the demands of the Law upon him, that a man can attain to . . . righteousness”17 The Jews had built a system of acquired merit on the basis of demands and the fulfillment of obligations. Steve Schlissel comments:
"This wrong view of the law has, not surprisingly, prevailed in Jewish history after Christ. The Encyclopaedia Judaica defines Righteousness as “the fulfillment of all legal and moral obligations.” It is regarded as “a learned trait resulting from sustained performance of obligations.” Today, serious discussion is had among orthodox Jews concerning the following: May one tie his shoelaces on the Sabbath, or squeeze a sponge, or open the refrigerator, or turn on his hearing aid, or play with nuts on the ground? (It depends, no, it depends, it depends, no.) This attitude was confronted by Jesus over and again. The famous hand washing encounter of Mark 7:1-23 lives on in spirit among my people. . . . These and thousands of other regulations are rooted in the notion of acquired merit."
Schlissel then applies this concept to Paul’s argument.
"This is the key point in understanding Paul’s argument. If righteousness is, as Jewish thought held (and still holds) a “result . . . (of) sustained performance of obligations,” then the one with the most obligations can attain to the most righteousness. On this supposition it is easy to see why the Jew gives thanks for being a Jew. It is to the Jews that the Law was given. At the time of Paul, with the Temple standing and the priesthood operative, this was an especially important point. If Gentiles were not obligated to keep the whole Mosaic code, erroneous Jewish reasoning could argue that there would consequently always be a two-tiered membership in the Church. Thus Paul emphasizes that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile."
The Judaizers were trying to make the Gentile Christians live like a Jew, because they thought that acquiring the meritorious righteousness of law-works was necessary to be righteous before God. In their understanding, in order for a man to be right before God he had to be a Jew. It is against this false understanding of the Mosaic Law that Paul argues. With this understanding, it is clear why Paul told the Galatians that their salvation rested on this issue. If they believed that they were made righteous before God by coming under the Mosaic Law, to gain merit, then they were no longer seeking to be right before God by Jesus Christ’s sacrificial atonement!
With this understanding, Paul’s argument in Galatians is clear. He begins by warning them about, and pronouncing anathema upon, competing gospels (Gal 1:1-9). He proceeds to give them his apostolic credentials, as the apostle to the gentiles (1:10-2:10). He then introduces the judaistic problem by referencing his conflict with Peter (2:11-21). There are a few details in this interchange which will enlighten the understanding of chapter 3. Paul publicly confronted Peter, because he stood condemned (2:11). He stood condemned because he drew back and separated himself from the Gentiles, fearing the Jews who came from James (2:12). Peter began to act as if being a Christian was based upon being a Jew. He acted as though what made a person right before God was not faith in Jesus, but meritorious confirmation to Jewish ceremonies (i.e. circumcision). Paul confronts this, saying that what makes a man justified is faith in Jesus, not being a Jew. Performing the law is not what makes a man righteous (2:16). 
Verse 19 makes it clear that Paul is not speaking against the Mosaic Law, but against this false understanding of that Law. Paul says that the Law, itself, taught him that he was not justified by his meritorious law-observance. The Law taught Paul that he was not acceptable because of who he was or what he could accomplish, but because of who God is and what God could accomplish. Through the Law Paul died to the Law, as a system of meritorious righteousness. The Mosaic Law kills any attempt at justifying oneself by merit. It is only after a man understands that he cannot gain meritorious righteousness that he can be alive to God. For, if a man could justify himself through his own merit, then Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21). Jewish distinctives (i.e. ceremonies, circumcision, etc.) were temporary (Gal 3:25-29). They were given to teach justification by faith (3:24), not to replace it. To say that those distinctives are what justifies a person is the same as saying Christ was not necessary.



Answer to the no jew/greek, slave/free, male/female question:

To understand what this is argument is all about you need to understand the Jewish system of acquired merit. In Jewish thought, righteousness equalled the fulfillment of obligations. Therefore whoever had the most obligations could gain the most righteousness. Still today, in Jewish synagogues you can hear Orthodox Jews thank God for making them Jew and not a Gentile, a free man and not a slave, and a man and not a woman. This is because a Gentile is not under the obligations of the Jewish ceremonies, and therefore cannot gain that righteousness, a freeman has more law-obligations than a slave, and a male has more obligations than a female. Therefore a Jewish male has more ceremonial law obligations than anyone else. Therefore if they meet those obligations they have a chance to accrue that righteousness. 
Paul's argument is against this Jewish understanding of righteousness. According to the Jewish understanding a Gentile could never be righteous before God because he wasn't a Jew, and was not fulfilling the obligations of the ceremonial law. Therefore if he wanted to be right with God he would need to become a Jew, or Judaize to acquire an acceptable righteousness. Paul is arguing that the Jews have missed the point of the law, which was a tutor to teach Justification by faith in Christ. Now that Christ has come there is not need for those ceremonial tutors. Paul is not giving an argument that there are not distinctions whatsoever between these categories of people, but against the Jewish conception of the degrees of law obligations as a basis for earning meritorious righteousness. This is clearly seen in Paul's teaching elsewhere that restricts women from teaching in the Church. 

Answer to question about the Jerusalem council:


Acts 15:19 Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God; 
Acts 15:20 but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. 
Acts 15:21 For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath. 


These four categories are not the only thing gentile believers must do. That would be an absurd conclusion. For example, stealing or murder isn't mentioned, does that mean those are up for grabs? 

These four categories are things that the gentiles would normally not have to keep, but for the sake of the transitional period of the church (moving from a strictly Jewish to a mixed body) they were told to follow these things for a time. These were ceremonial laws, that they were told to keep for the sake of the Jews. They were told to do these things so as not to offend those who were Jewish. Of course the only problem category is sexual immorality. But of course, we know that there were also ceremonial laws concerning this. And since it is put in a list of ceremonial laws, it seems safe to conclude that these were things that Gentile Christians would not normally be bound to do, but for the sake of peace and unity were asked to do.


----------



## Poimen (Feb 6, 2008)

“They prate that the ceremonial works of the law are excluded, not the moral works… [but] let us hold as certain that when the ability to justify is denied to the law, these words refer to the whole law.”
-Calvin’s Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 11.19


----------



## G.Wetmore (Feb 6, 2008)

Poimen said:


> “They prate that the ceremonial works of the law are excluded, not the moral works… [but] let us hold as certain that when the ability to justify is denied to the law, these words refer to the whole law.”
> -Calvin’s Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 11.19



Of course the moral works of the law do not justify a person, but that is not what Paul is speaking of in Galatians. If Paul was speaking of the moral law, then he would be contradicting the rest of the NT, because Paul is arguing that we no longer have to observe the law. If Paul was speaking about the moral law, then Christians he would be telling Christians that they could live however they wanted, and that is absurd, Paul would never say that. He is specifically speaking about the observance of the ceremonial law, as a system of meritorious righteousness. The question is how is one made right before God. Is it by Christ and his work, received in faith, or by a system of Jewish merit, obligating all men to judaize in order to be accepted by God.


----------



## tdowns (Feb 6, 2008)

*Change Post title?*

Can a moderator change the post title? In haste, I made a generic, nondescript title, I'd rather it read, "Galation's article: Read with me?" Or something like that.

Thanks.

Thanks for the responses, very helpful...I'm going to focus on the Duncan Article today.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 6, 2008)

Storm said:


> First, this is the first time I've ever heard the terms "Federal Vision" or "New Perspectives on Paul." Can someone explain those in one sentence or two?
> 
> Second, I'm really interested in the Book of Galatians since I will be leading a group through that Book the next six weeks. I know that "freedom" is a common theme, but now I am seeing "one in Christ" as a theme also. The group is made up of men and women and I am afraid that the "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE" part is going to blow up in my face! How do I get the group to the "lowest common denominator?"
> 
> ...



For the NPP and FV in a short compass, I would look at Scott Clark's short article here: For Those Just Tuning in: What is the Federal Vision? « Heidelblog


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 6, 2008)

tdowns007 said:


> Can a moderator change the post title? In haste, I made a generic, nondescript title, I'd rather it read, "Galation's article: Read with me?" Or something like that.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Thanks for the responses, very helpful...I'm going to focus on the Duncan Article today.



Done.


----------



## Poimen (Feb 6, 2008)

G.Wetmore said:


> Of course the moral works of the law do not justify a person, but that is not what Paul is speaking of in Galatians. If Paul was speaking of the moral law, then he would be contradicting the rest of the NT, because Paul is arguing that we no longer have to observe the law. If Paul was speaking about the moral law, then Christians he would be telling Christians that they could live however they wanted, and that is absurd, Paul would never say that. He is specifically speaking about the observance of the ceremonial law, as a system of meritorious righteousness. The question is how is one made right before God. Is it by Christ and his work, received in faith, or by a system of Jewish merit, obligating all men to judaize in order to be accepted by God.



The Judaizer's insistence that the Gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved is the occasion for which Galatians was written but the grounds for Paul's gospel argument is much grander and broader as it covers the whole law. One either has Christ keep it for him or he is a debtor to every part (ceremonial, moral etc.) Calvin writes:

_Institutes_, 3.19.3 

"For those who teach that Paul in this contends for freedom of ceremonies alone are absurd interpreters, as can be proved from the passages adduced in the argument. Such passages are these: That Christ “became a curse for us” to “redeem us from the curse of the law” [Galatians 3:13]. Likewise: “Stand fast in the freedom wherewith Christ has set you free, and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say... that if you receive circumcision, Christ will become of no advantage to you... And every man who receives circumcision is a debtor to the whole law. For any of you who are justified by the law, Christ has become of no advantage; you have fallen away from grace” [Galatians 5:1-4p.]. These passages surely contain something loftier than freedom of ceremonies! Of course I admit that Paul is there discussing ceremonies, for his quarrel is with false apostles who were trying to reintroduce into the Christian church the old shadows of the law that had been abolished by Christ’s coming. But for the discussion of this question, the higher topics upon which the whole controversy rested had to be considered. First, because the clarity of the gospel was obscured by those Jewish shadows, Paul showed that we have in Christ a perfect disclosure of all those things which were foreshadowed in the Mosaic ceremonies. Further, because those impostors imbued the common people with the very wicked notion that this obedience obviously availed to deserve God’s grace, Paul here strongly insists that believers should not suppose they can obtain righteousness before God by any works of the law, still less by those paltry rudiments! And at the same time he teaches that through the cross of Christ they are free from the condemnation of the law, which otherwise hangs over all men [Galatians 4:5], so that they may rest with full assurance in Christ alone."


----------



## Storm (Feb 6, 2008)

*What About External Markings?*

Wow! Thanks to everyone who responded...great stuff!

First, can someone send me that famous Jewish prayer where the guy said, "I thank God that I'm not a dog, a Gentile or a woman!" Or something like that...

Second, I went back to Genesis 17 and read about Abraham and how he was credited with God's righteousness simply because he believed God when he was told that he'd have a son in his old age. Then, after that, he was told that he should circumsize himself and every male in his household as a SIGN of the COVENANT with God. Even the males who were bought from foreigners! So Abraham and his household were actually the first GENTILE believers as well as the first JEWISH believers, right?

So in Galatians, Paul seems to be saying that believers no longer need a "sign of the covenant" to be "in" the faith and in the family of God. There are verses on circumsized hearts, which some have said happens during baptism.

My question is this: What are the "marks" of a believer today? If someone is Jewish or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, what is it that "sets them apart" as a child of Abraham???

Diamond Dave


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2008)

tdowns007 said:


> Anyone care to read this article;
> 
> Perspective Online: Galatians - One family of Faith



I didn't find the article accepting of a new Pauline perspective, although the author seems taken by some claims to new insights. He appears to be concerned with personal salvation, whereas new perspectives make the epistle's message of justification a matter of covenant community. The old perspective was as sensitive to the Jew/Gentile problem as the new perspective claims to be, so highlighting the "us" and "them" language is not really a problem. The real weakness of the article arises because the author only deals with one theme of the epistle -- justification by faith. He ignores the imperatives, and hence gives the false impression that there is no moral obligation laid upon "the Israel of God" as a matter of sanctification. The apostle was concerned with the unspiritual behaviour of the various sections of the church against each other. Therefore he urged a standard of behaviour which gave evidence of being led by the Spirit. This is what the old "Presbyterian piety" sought to do. It took the imperatives of Scripture seriously, and insisted the church of God is not a come-as-you-are, act-as-you-will, free-for-all. It is the church of Jesus Christ, and reflects that by fulfilling the law of Christ. If one reads Galatians carefully it will be seen that the apostle is not opening the floodgate to any kind of character to become a member of the Christian community, because he quite clearly states that certain men should be cut off. His concern is to show that now in the fulness of time the covenant community must be Christ-centred, resting upon Him for justification, sanctification, and glorification.


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 6, 2008)

Rev. Winzer,

Do you recommend any helpful commentaries on the book of Galatians?


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> Do you recommend any helpful commentaries on the book of Galatians?



For exegesis, from the Greek, Lightfoot is still excellent. From English, Wilson provides a collocation of traditional reformed comment. Hendriksen is balanced as always. John Brown is his usual self in being able to trace through the line of thought and offer insightful remarks. For preaching and application there is the ever reliable James Fergusson. For a quick overview I recommend Bill Dumbrell's New Covenant Commentary, who interacts with new scholarship and finds a way to present his conclusions according to the old evangelical faith. There are others which might be consulted, but it depends how much one desires to step into the deep of modern thought. In any commentary on Galatians the key text is chap. 2:16.


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 6, 2008)

Which Wilson, Doug Wilson?


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> Which Wilson, Doug Wilson?



Geoffrey Wilson, published by Banner of Truth.


----------



## SolaGratia (Feb 6, 2008)

Sounds Better, Nowadays You Never Know!-Thanks


----------



## G.Wetmore (Feb 7, 2008)

Storm said:


> Wow! Thanks to everyone who responded...great stuff!
> 
> First, can someone send me that famous Jewish prayer where the guy said, "I thank God that I'm not a dog, a Gentile or a woman!" Or something like that...
> 
> ...



I am going to verbatim type in a section from Steve Schlissel (who gets a bad wrap, but if you listen to him - has many good things to say) on the issue.

"One tradition with obvious roots reaching back to Second Temple Judaism is that portion of the Daily Prayer which thanks God for certain privileges. In the Jewish liturgy, a series of b'ruchas (blessings) is recited every morning. Three blessings are of special interest to those hoping to understand Galatians 3:28. Here's the relevant section from the siddur:
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe
who has not made me a Gentile
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe
who has not made me a slave
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe
who has not made me a woman

Hmmm. The very same order used by Paul in 3:28. Isn't that interesting! Yes, but not half as interesting as the reasinging behind these b'ruchas. Keep in mind that the htreat in Galtaita was posed by those who held hte view that 'the Law and its fulfillment offer the sole divinely-given means and opportunity for righteousness before God' (DIX) 
This is the key point in understand Paul's argument. If righteousness is, as Jewish thoroughly held (and still holds) a 'result. . . . (of) sustained performance of obligations,' then the one with the most obligations can attain the most righteousness. On this supposition it is easy to see why the Jew gives thanks for being a jew it is to the Jews that the Law was given. At the time of Paul, with the Temple standing and the priesthood operative, this was an especially important point. If Gentiles were not obligated to keep the whole Mosaic code, erroneous Jewish reasoning could argue that there would consequently always be a two-tiered membership in the Church. Thus Paul emphasizes that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Thus far, the meaning of Galatians 3:28 is obvious. 
Obvious, too, is the fact that a slaves has less opportunities than a free man to fulfill the Law's commands, and thus, according to some Jews, attain unto righteousness. 
The third condition (that of being a man, not a woman) suggest no obvious advantage - until the Jewish thinking behind it is introduced. Then it makes perfect sense. Remember that Paul is telling Galatians that the Jews are wrong: you dont' become more Chrsitan by coming under more commands. But according to Jewish practice, meb have more obligations than women. women are not required to fulfill all the commandments! But according to Jewish practices, men have more obligations than women. Women are not required to fulfill all the commandments! For exapmle, it is only the males who were obligated to attend the three great festivals in Jerusalem (Deut. 16:16; women and children were permitted; but not required to attend (cf 1sam 1; luke 2)
Rabbi Dr. Louis Jacobs writes, 'The wording of the bedediction recieted each day in which a man praises God for not having made him a woman should not be overinterpreted since from the context it is clear that the thanks sare for greater opportuniites a man has for carrying our the precepts, woment being exempt from those positive precetps which for their performance depend on a given time of the day or year. . . . . In the Jewish Book of Why, A.J. Kolatch notes, 'Over man centuries, this prayer has been viewed by most Jews as an expression of thanks on the part of man for the good fortune of having been born male and thus being privileged to perform so many more commandments than a woman . . . . Women are considered on par with slaves and minors because unlike men, none of the three classes is obligate to fulfill all of the law 613 commandments. . . Women are obligated to observe all the negative commandments in the torah. . . . . . . . . . "

You can read on for yourself in Steve Schlissels article in the book in-titled the federal vision, pgs 250ff

you w


----------



## Storm (Feb 12, 2008)

*Was Jesus an "Essene?"*

Hey, in studying Galatians, I came across something that said the Judaizers (or Jewish converts) who were troubling Paul's disciples (i.e. new Gentile believers) were of the "Essene sect."

Were they the Pharisees, Scribes, priests and teachers fo the Law? How did they end up in Galatia and why would they want to disturb the Gentile Christians there?

Also, one thing I read said that Jesus was an Essene. Could that be true???

I'm trying to figure out who these people were that were troubling the Galatian Christians and why they were so pursuasive!!!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2008)

Storm said:


> Hey, in studying Galatians, I came across something that said the Judaizers (or Jewish converts) who were troubling Paul's disciples (i.e. new Gentile believers) were of the "Essene sect."
> 
> Were they the Pharisees, Scribes, priests and teachers fo the Law? How did they end up in Galatia and why would they want to disturb the Gentile Christians there?
> 
> ...



Absolutely not. Christ was not an Essene. Those who usually say that are Rabbis that don't want to deal with the substance of what Christ taught.

From Edersheim's _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_


> It is only at the conclusion of these investigations that we are prepared to enter on the question of the origin and meaning of the name Essenes, important as this inquiry is, not only in itself, but in regard to the relation of the sect to orthodox Judaism. The eighteen or nineteen proposed explanations of a term, which must undoubtedly be of Hebrew etymology, all proceed on the idea of its derivation from something which implied praise of the sect, the two least objectionable explaining the name as equivalent either to ‘the pious,’ or else to ‘the silent ones.’ But against all such derivations there is the obvious objection, that the Pharisees, who had the moulding of the theological language, and who were in the habit of giving the hardest names to those who differed from them, would certainly not have bestowed a title implying encomium on a sect which, in principle and practices, stood so entirely outside, not only of their own views, but even of the Synagogue itself. Again, if they had given a name of encomium to the sect, it is only reasonable to suppose that they would not have kept, in regard to their doctrines and practices, a silence which is only broken by dim and indirect allusions. Yet, as we examine it, the origin and meaning of the name seem implied in their very position towards the Synagogue. They were the only real sect, strictly outsiders, and their name Essenes (᾽Εσσηνοͺ, ᾽Εσσαͺοι) seems the Greek equivalent for Chitsonim ({hebrew}), ‘the outsiders.’ Even the circumstance that the axe, or rather spade (ͺξινͺριον), which every novice received, has for its Rabbinic equivalent the word Chatsina, is here not without significance. Linguistically, the words Essenoi and Chitsonim are equivalents, as admittedly are the similar designations Chasidim ({hebrew}) and Asidaioi (᾽Ασιδαͺοι). For, in rendering Hebrew into Greek, the ch ({hebrew}) is ‘often entirely omitted, or represented by a spiritus lenis in the beginning,’ while ‘in regard to the vowels no distinct rule is to be laid down.’ Instances of a change of the Hebrew i into the Greek e are frequent, and of the Hebrew o into the Greek _ not rare. As one instance will suffice, we select a case in which exactly the same transmutation of the two vowel-sounds occurs - that of the Rabbinic Abhginos ({hebrew}) for the Greek (εͺγενͺς) Eugen_s (‘well-born’).
> This derivation of the name Essenes, which strictly expresses the character and standing of the sect relatively to orthodox Judaism, and, indeed, is the Greek form of the Hebrew term for ‘outsiders,’ is also otherwise confirmed. It has already been said, that no direct statement concerning the Essenes occurs in Rabbinic writings. Nor need this surprise us, when we remember the general reluctance of the Rabbis to refer to their opponents, except in actual controversy; and, that, when traditionalism was reduced to writing, Essenism, as a Jewish sect, had ceased to exist. Some of its elements had passed into the Synagogue, influencing its general teaching (as in regard to Angelology, magic, &c.), and greatly contributing to that mystic direction which afterwards found expression in what is now known as the Kabbalah. But the general movement had passed beyond the bounds of Judaism, and appeared in some forms of the Gnostic heresy. But still there are Rabbinic references to the ‘Chitsonim,’ which seem to identify them with the sect of the Essenes. Thus, in one passage certain practices of the Sadducees and of the Chitsonim are mentioned together, and it is difficult to see who could be meant by the latter if not the Essenes. Besides, the practices there referred to seem to contain covert allusions to those of the Essenes. Thus, the Mishnah begins by prohibiting the public reading of the Law by those who would not appear in a coloured, but only in a white dress. Again, the curious statement is made that the manner of the Chitsonim was to cover the phylacteries with gold - a statement unexplained in the Gemara, and inexplicable, unless we see in it an allusion to the Essene practice of facing the rising Sun in their morning prayers. Again, we know with what bitterness Rabbinism denounced the use of the externe writings (the Sepharim haChitsonim) to the extent of excluding from eternal life those who studied them. But one of the best ascertained facts concerning the Essenes is that they possessed secret, ‘outside,’ holy writings of their own, which they guarded with special care. And, although it is not maintained that the Sepharim haChitsonim were exclusively Essene writings, the latter must have been included among them. We have already seen reason for believing, that even the so-called Pseudepigraphic literature, notably such works as the Book of Jubilees, was strongly tainted with Essene views; if, indeed, in perhaps another than its present form, part of it was not actually Essene. Lastly, we find what seems to us yet another covert allusion to Essene practices, similar to that which has already been noticed. For, immediatley after consigning to destruction all who denied that there was proof in the Pentateuch for the Resurrection (evidently the Sadducees), those who denied that the Law was from heaven (the Minim, or heretics - probably the Jewish Christians), and all ‘Epicureans’ (materialists), the same punishment is assigned to those ‘who read externe writings’ (Sepharim haChitsonim) and ‘who whispered’ (a magical formula) ‘over a wound.’ Both the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud offer a strange explanation of this practice; perhaps, because they either did not, or else would not, understand the allusion. But to us it seems at least significant that as, in the first quoted instance, the mention of the Chitsonim is conjoined with a condemnation of the exclusive use of white garments in worship, which we know to have been an Essene peculiarity, so the condemnation of the use of Chitsonim writings with that of magical cures. At the same time, we are less bound to insist on these allusions as essential to our argument, since those, who have given another derivation than ours to the name Essenes, express themselves unable to find in ancient Jewish writings any trustworthy reference to the sect.
> On one point, at least, our inquiry into the three ‘parties’ can leave no doubt. The Essenes could never have been drawn either to the person, or the preaching of John the Baptist. Similarly, the Sadducees would, after they knew its real character and goal, turn contemptuously from a movement which would awaken no sympathy in them, and could only become of interest when it threatened to endanger their class by awakening popular enthusiasm, and so rousing the suspicions of the Romans. To the Pharisees there were questions of dogmatic, ritual, and even national importance involved, which made the barest possibility of what John announced a question of supreme moment. And, although we judge that the report which the earliest Pharisaic hearers of John brought to Jerusalem - no doubt, detailed and accurate - and which led to the despatch of the deputation, would entirely predispose them against the Baptist, yet it behooved them, as leaders of public opinion, to take such cognisance of it, as would not only finally determine their own relation to the movement, but enable them effectually to direct that of others also.


----------

