I am sure Luther and the Reformers knew OF the Essenes. But they probably had only Josephus to go by, and Josephus really oversimplifies the complexities of the community. That’s why I suggested that they did not know quite what we know.

My article here was simply to highlight the apparent contradiction between the ultra-conservatism of the Qumran community and adherence to what we (and I am sure Paul) would certainly call “works of the law” as opposed to their hymn which seems to espouse justification by grace apart from merit.

1) Presumably the Essene community was known by Luther and the Reformers, although I know of no exclusive treatise from Luther or the reformers about that community. It was certainly known by Josephus (e.g. Antiquities, xvii, 21) and I haven’t found any argument yet outside this article which leads me to believe that they didn’t have resources similar to that of Josephus.

Furthermore, according to my own studies, I have not found the Essene community to be conservative in any ‘kind’ sense of the term. The Essene’s were characterized by strict “communal solidarity” which FAR exceeds biblical moderation in terms of a covenantal community. (Although I do have great respect for some of the stands they took in their community rules.)

Even within the 1Qs itself
(which you quoted above), we find explicit references to being a part of their community, and not just a covenantal community in general. Prior to the Hymn, it states that any man who “refuses to enter the covenant of God” with them “walks in the stubbornness of his heart, for his soul detests the wise teaching of just laws. His knowledge, powers, and possessions shall not enter the Council of the Community…He shall not be reckoned among the perfect; he shall neither be purified by atonement, nor cleansed by purifying waters, nor sanctified by seas and rivers, nor washed clean with any ablution.”

Furthermore, their literature is notorious for treating the doctrine of election as taught in the Palestinian Talmud and other Rabbinical doctrines as being too elastic. Their attitude in regard to the Covenant was that only the initiates of their own “new covenant” were to be reckoned among God’s elect and, as such, united already on earth with the angels of heaven. 1Qs states that “God has given them to His chosen ones and has caused them to inherit the lot of the Holy Ones. He has joined their assembly to the Sons of Heaven, to be a a Council of the Community, a foundation of the Building of Holiness, an eternal Plantation throughout all ages to come.”

These kinds of categorical claims are found in excess throughout 1Qs, and I (personally) do not find them to be conservative in any kind sense of the term, because they give an impression that one cannot be justified without entering into their “covenantal community,” primarily because their community was in “true” covenant with God. So, even though the hymn you cited expresses one aspect of their views of justification (and I must say, the entirety of that hymn is marvelous), it does not cover their community’s emphasis found outside their hymns and liturgy. And so, the argument of their “conservative” hymn teaching justification does not do justice to their teaching of justification outside that hymn, which I presume was understood by Luther and other Reformers who glanced through what was known about the Essenes.

Let’s not forget, that at a glance, certain characteristics of the Essenes could very well have been understood by Luther and the reformers simply because of the works of Josephus and his sources (e.g. an Essene was forbidden to eat food prepared by people not belonging to the brotherhood, Wars II,143 – an Essene took a baptismal bath twice daily before meals, Wars II, 129, 132, and also 4Q414). So maybe Luther and the Reformers weren’t so naive after all (even without the Dead Sea Scrolls hymn).

2) It’s also interesting to note that the Book of Hebrews begins attacking certain doctrines which we know now to be taught exclusively among the Essene Community; the most important of which involved their eschatology.

The Essenes taught that in the eschatalogical age (soon to come in their own day) God would reign supreme over all, but not by taking upon Himself human nature as the Messiah, but rather sending “The Prince of the Congregation,” also known as the “Prince of light” who is Michael the archangel, a.k.a. Melchizedek. According to their own literature, Michael the archangel would be sent to usher in the “last days” and God would put all enemies under Michael’s feet. But that’s not all, God would call three human beings (already existing) to become individual Messiah’s (one priest Messiah, one King Messiah, and one Prophet Messiah)that would reign over all the earth to subdue evil and bring in the new heavens and new earth. (For starters, review IQM xviii, 4Q285, 4Q161, 4Q266, 1QSb v, 21, 25, 28, 4QpIsa, 4Q161, IQM xv, 4; xvi, 13; xviii, 5, IQs ix, 11)

Ironically, all of these views are the first to be dealt with step by step in the first few chapters of Hebrews. And so, seeing that these interpretations of the Essenes are known to us now, and the book of Hebrews sheds light on this being known early in church history, it is my position that Christians today would be wise to avoid praising the Essene community in their treatment of scripture.

I at least do not view them as conservative in its Godly sense.

Enjoyed meeting you at Big Cedar. Wishing you all the best!

~Chris

Enjoyed your website but keep in mind being a perfectionist is not a good thing…better to pursue excellence rather than perfection…I have more on this and would be happy to share it with you at some time in the future.

Marv Fremerman
http://www.mindoversports.com