This is the book we are working on, and it is about “Revealing the Jewish Gospel of Yeshua.”  I have been researching this book on and off now for about thirty – thirty five years.  My wife has been adding to it since 2016.  Some revelations have only come to my wife, Karen, and me in the last few years.  You can be a big help to us in completing this book by giving us feedback on the portions we share with you here.

The Rebbe Yeshua and his disciples – Israeli Jews?

There have been many misconceptions about the Rebbe Yeshua and his disciples.  There are so many people who have been deceived into believing that the Rebbe Yeshua and his disciples were “Christians.”  They are even described as being “Early Christians,” and their movement as “Early Christianity.”  But this is what happens when “the winners” write the history accounts and not the “losers.”  Christianity was “the winners” because they were the ones who took dominance over the movement, rather the Jewish disciples.  Consequently, there are some historical and religious inaccuracies that need to be corrected.  The first is the identity of the Rebbe Yeshua and his disciples.  They were not “Christians” – but Second-Temple Israeli Jews – and if the words “Orthodox” and “Ultra-Orthodox” would have existed at that time, these words would have been used to describe them and their families.  Thus, it is historically wrong to say that the “New Testament” are “Christian writings.”  They are not; instead, they should be described as “Jewish writings,” just like the Dead Sea Scrolls are “Jewish writings.”  It were different groups of Jews who wrote the two collections – the “New Testament” and the Dead Sea Scrolls – but in each case, they were Jewish writers still the same.

We do not describe a piece of writing, or even a series of writings, by those who read and study them, but by the actual hands that wrote them, whether they were on papyrus, a scroll made out of animal hides, actual paper, or on a computer screen.  And the hands that have written the collection of writings, called the “New Testament,” were “Jewish hands,” and thus they should be called “Jewish writings” – NOT “Christian writings.”  Some may wonder why I am beating this so, but it is because the error of calling them “Christian writings” has been going on now for over nineteen centuries, and it is time that we identify them correctly.

What kind of Jews were they?

Once we acknowledge that the writers of this collection of writings were, in fact, Jews, then the next question to ask is, “What kind of Jews were they?”  To answer this question, let’s first look at Yeshua’s family:  I want to begin by describing what we know about them:

Yeshua’s Jewish Family:

  • Joseph – a Jewish Tzaddik?

What kind of Jewish man was he?  In the book of Mattityahu (Matthew), he is described as a “just man:” 

Then Joseph her husband, being a JUST MAN, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.  (Matthew 1:19, KJV)

The Greek word, dikaios (G1392), is the word that’s translated into English as “Just,” and the Hebrew equivalent of this word would be Tzaddik.  This is not much to go on in English, but in Hebrew, this is a different story.  In Hebrew, the word “just” is Tzaddik (pron. “Tzad-deek“), and this word is derived from two Hebrew words:

  • Tzedek – which means “Justice” and is a fundamental value that includes morality and righteousness. It comes from the , or “pure” or “clean.” 
  • Sidiq – which means “just,” “lawful,” “righteous,”  “right,” or even “correct.”

By calling him a “Just man,” a Tzaddik means that Joseph was not the kind of man who could close his eyes or ignore any part of the Torah of God, but he had to make sure that whatever he did, he kept every part of the Torah, no matter how minor a detail,  and he did not forget any part of it.  In English, we would say that he was sure “to cross his t’s and dot his i’s.”  

  • Maryam (Mary) –

    Another important person in his family was his mother Maryam (Mary).  What kind of Jewish woman was she?  Although Maryam was also zealous in her Torah-observance, like Joseph; however, she was also “politically-wired.” She grew up in Galilee, which was a full of Zealot activities against Rome.  I can imagine her as a young mother using two sticks to secretly teach Yeshua how to use a sword to help prepare him for later on in life when he has to fight in battle.  I have seven reasons why I am convinced that Maryam (Mary) was the one who was of the direct lineage for the throne, which is why when the angel Gabriel came and spoke with her, he spoke to her about political things, “the throne of David”; whereas to Joseph, the same angel spoke of spiritual things, the “forgiveness of sins.”  For example, to Maryam (Mary) he said,

And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus [Gk. Iesous; Heb. Y’hoshua/Yeshua].  He will be great, and will be called the son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID; AND HE WILL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOREVER; AND HIS KINGDOM WILL HAVE NO END. (Luke 1:31-33; emphasis added).

But to Joseph, the angel Gabriel said,

Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit [Heb. Shekinah of God].  And she will bear a son; and you shall name him Jesus [Gk. Iesous; Heb. Y’hoshua/Yeshua], FOR IT IS HE WHO WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS.  (Matthew 1:20b-21; emphasis added)

Obviously, the angel Gabriel did not speak with them about the same things.  To Maryam (Mary) it was “political,” but to Joseph, it was “spiritual.”  There had to be a reason for this distinction.  I am convinced that it was because Maryam (Mary) was the one who was the direct descendant of David’s throne through the line of Solomon (Matthew 1:6); whereas, Joseph was descended from David through his son, Nathan (Luke 4:31), which explains the different message from the angel Gabriel.  Now I believe there is an error I need to address.  The text in question is Matthew 1:16,

And to Jacob was born Joseph the HUSBAND of Mary, by whom was born Jesus [Heb. Y’hoshua/Yeshua], who is called [Messiah].  (Matthew 1:16)

In this verse, the evidence supports the idea that the word translated “husband” is a mistranslation.  Matthew would have written his “gospel” in Second-Temple Hebrew, which was a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic, and according to five of the early “Church Fathers,” there were others later who translated it “the best that they could.”  Nor am I convinced that this is the only error in the book of Matthew.  There are a few others, but this is definitely one of them.  I believe that the evidence points to the fact that the genealogy in Matthew 1 is actually Maryam’s – not Joseph’s, and I have the following seven reasons why I believe that the Greek translation of Matthew 1:16 should be disputed:

    1. Matthew 1: 1-16 is a family genealogy and the word “husband” is misappropriately placed here.  Her “father” should be here, not her “husband.”  “Joseph” was a very common male name at the time, so it would be quite possible that her father and her husband had the same first name.
    2. This is the only genealogy where Maryam’s (Mary’s) name appears in it.  It does not appear at all in Luke 3.
    3. In this same genealogy, there are three other women who are named who have sexual questionable pasts, such as Tamar (Matthew 1:3); Rahab (Matthew 1:5); the wife of Uriah (Matthew 1:6).  Why would Matthew include these women in Joseph’s genealogy?  He was not the one accused of sexual misconduct, Maryam (Mary) was.  It would make much more sense to support his argument here by including them in her genealogy – not Joseph’s.
    4. Matthew 1:17 claims that there are fourteen generations after the exile, but if you count them, there are only thirteen.  However, if the word “husband” is altered to “father,” then we have the appropriate number of generations.
    5. Also, when the angel Gabriel comes to her to announce she is going to have a son, he speaks to her of political things, “the throne of David,” which is in Jerusalem down here on earth – not God’s throne in heaven.  So for almost 2,000 years, God’s promise to Maryam (Mary) and to Yeshua has not happened yet, and they are still waiting for God to fulfill His promise to them. Also, the angel Gabriel did not tell Maryam (Mary) that “he will save his people from their sins.”  So why the distinct difference between the two unless it is Maryam who is the one who is the direct descendant for the throne – not Joseph? 
    6. So being the only physical parent of Yeshua, it would make much more sense that this genealogy would be hers, since it would prove that Yeshua was biologically descended from King David and would have a legitimate right to his throne.  By having the Greek text as it is written, his legitimate claim to the throne is in heavy dispute.
    7. The traditional Christian view that both genealogies belong to Joseph, or even that the Matthew 1 genealogy is Joseph’s and the Luke 3 genealogy belongs to Maryam (Mary), when the Matthew 1 genealogy actually is the physical, biological descent of David through Solomon, the biological descent of the next king does not make any sense, if Joseph is not the biological father of Yeshua, but if this genealogy belongs to Maryam (Mary), as I am convinced that it is, then Yeshua has a legitimate claim to the Davidic throne.

These are the seven reasons why I believe that the Greek text that we have of Matthew 1 is probably wrong and should be disputed.  According to five of the early “Church Fathers,” Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew – not Greek – and that it was others, they said, who translated it into Greek later on “the best way that they could.” Therefore, I believe when someone translated the original semitic text into Greek, they mistranslated the word that was there and placed the Greek word andra (G1083) there instead, which then comes into English as “father.”  Now I realize that this is a point of contention and argument for many scholars.  However, I am convinced by the seven reasons that I gave do support my claim.

“James” (Heb. Ya’acov/Jacob), one of the brothers of Yeshua and the head of the Jerusalem congregation. 

Another person we should consider when looking at Yeshua’s family and this early movement is “James” (Heb. Ya’acov/Jacob), one of the sons of Joseph and Maryam (Mary) and the brother of Yeshua.  In the writings of the “New Testament,” he is called “James the Just.”  Being called “Just” like his father, Joseph, he would have also been a Tzaddik.  Thus, Yeshua would have been raised within a family of Tzaddikim (“just” or “righteous ones”).  And in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History Complete and Unabridged, translated by C.F. Cruse (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), he quotes from an earlier historian, Hegesippus, who gives a rather detailed description of the lifestyle of “James.”  

Hegesippus also, who flourished nearest the days of the apostles, in the fifth book of his commentaries gave the most accurate account of him: (4) “James, the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of this name, was surnamed the Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now, received the government of the church [Gk. ecclesia] with the apostles.  This apostle was consecrated from his mother’s womb.  (5) He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food [i.e., meats].  A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and he never used a [public] bath. [These Roman public baths were associated with false gods and goddesses].  He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary.  He never wore woolen, but linen garments.  He was in the habit of entering the Temple alone and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as camel’s, in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God. (7) And indeed, on account of his great piety, he was called the Just, and Oblias (or Zaddick and Ozleam) which signifies justice and protection of the people; as the prophets declare concerning him.  (Book 2, Chapter 23, lines 3b-7).

Thus, based upon Hegesippus’ description here, we can see that “James,” or in Hebrew Ya’acov (Jacob), was not only a Tzaddik, but he was also a Nazarite and a vegan.  

Brothers and Sisters?

According to the Scriptures, Yeshua had four brothers and at least two sisters.  How do not know how many sisters he had, but we know there were at least two.  In Matthew 13, we read, 

Is not this the carpenter’s son?  Is not His mother called Mary, and his brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?  And his sisters, are they not all with us?  Where then did this man get all these things?  (Matthew 13:55)

Here we can see that there were four brothers – James (Heb. Ya’acov/Jacob), Joseph, Simon (Heb. Shi’mon), and Judas (Y’hudah/Judah) or “Jude” for short, and since the word “sisters” is in the plural, there were at least two of them, but how many?  Again, we really do not know.  But there is speculation that Salome who came with Mary to bring spices to the sepulcher to anoint the body of Yeshua was the name of one of Yeshua’s sisters. 

And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices, that they might come and anoint him.  (Mark 16:1)

Notice, in this verse, Mark referred to Maryam (Mary) the mother of Yeshua by the names of his brother, James (Heb. Ya’acov/Jacob) and his sister Salome instead of Yeshua, because Yeshua had been killed.  Now considering the parents and what Yeshua and James (Heb. Ya’acov/Jacob) was like, it is difficult for me to believe that his other brothers and sisters were not very similar.

His early Jewish Movement?

We have discussed the Rebbe Yeshua’s family, but what about those who comprised his movement?  What were they like?  They were Israeli Jewish men and women who lived a zealously Torah-observant Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox lifestyle.  In considering this, their lifestyle would have been just as zealous in their Torah-observance as the modern ultra-Orthodox movement, the Chassidim.  For example, in Acts 20, Ya’acov (Jacob; trans. “James”) and the elders in the Jerusalem congregation say of the Jewish believers there to the believing second-generation Pharisee, Rav Sha’ul Paulus (Paul),

You see, brother, how many thousands (myriads) there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and THEY ARE ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW (Heb. Torah).  (Acts 20:20).

Here we have their own verbal witness that they were all zealously Torah-observant.  They were not complaining about this; instead, this was something they were praising God about.  Now there were those who were not that zealous in their Torah-observance when they began with the movement, but once they got to know the Rebbe Yeshua and His family, they grew to be zealously Torah-observant.  For example, Yochanan (John) writes in his general epistle,

Everyone who practices sin (violating the commandments in the Torah, the first five books) also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.  And you know that He [Messiah] appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin [violation of the Torah].  No one who abides in Him sins (violates the Torah); no one who sins (violates the Torah commands) has seen Him or knows Him.  Little children, let no one deceive you; the one who (continues to; repeatedly) practices righteousness is righteous.  Just as He is righteous; the one who (continues to; repeatedly) practices sin (violating the commands in the Torah) is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning…No one who is born of God practices sin (violating the Torah), because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (I John 3:3-8a, 9)

By the verbal confession of most Christians. who claim that “they cannot help but sin,” when compared to what Yochanan (John) writes in this epistle, then most Christians by their own confession are of the devil, and they have never actually known the Rebbe Yeshua.

THE FALSE RUMOR
          Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) was not only a P’rushim (Pharisee), the son of a P’rushim (Pharisee), identifying himself as belonging to the Jewish sect that was the strictest in Torah-observance.  For example, in Acts 20, after the Jerusalem elders tell Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) about how zealous they all were for the Torah, Ya’acov (Jacob/James) tells him about a false rumor that had been spread about him:

and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. (Acts 20:21).

This false rumor painted Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) as believing the same things as those Jews who had become Apostates to God under the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose defeat and those of the Syrian-Greeks is celebrated every Hanukkah season.  They continued by saying,

What, then, to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.  Therefore do this that we tell you.  We have four men who are under a vow;  take them and purify yourself  along with them, and pay their expenses in order that they may shave their heads; and ALL WILL KNOW THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO THE THINGS WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT YOU, BUT THAT YOU YOURSELF ALSO WALK ORDERLY, KEEPING THE LAW (Heb. “Torah”). (Acts 20:21-24; emphasis added)

The whole point of asking Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) to do this vow was to disprove this false rumor about him.  Here we can see Ya’acov (Jacob/James) and the elders here all boldly declaring that they knew Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) was also a Torah-observant Jew who would NEVER teach the Jewish people to do what this rumor is falsely accusing him, since he says, “ALL will know that there is NOTHING to the things which they have been told about you.”  What these Jerusalem elders who personally met Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) and interacted with him declare was that this rumor was completely FALSE, it is a bold-faced LIE, and yet Christianity has declared that this same FALSE RUMOR and BOLD-FACED LIE is, in fact, the truth.   The FALSE RUMOR and LIE is taught by Christianity – Not the Jerusalem elders!  

PAUL GAVE A SIN OFFERING?
          The whole point of Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) not only paying for the animal sacrifices for himself and the other four men were to prove to the Jerusalem masses that this rumor that they had heard about him was completely FALSE.  Also, there is only ONE vow given in the Written Torah that involves the shaving of the head – THE NAZARITE VOW – which is in Numbers 6:13-21. If Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) believed that the Torah had come to an end as Christianity falsely teaches than now would have been a good time to say so, but he does not.  He goes through with the ceremony.  This NAZARITE ceremony involved the bringing of the following for each person:

  • One male lamb a year old without defect for a burnt offering;
  • One ewe-lamb a year old without defect for a sin offering;
  • One ram without defect for a peace offering;
  • a basket of unleavened cakes of fine flour mixed with oil and unleavened wafer spread with oil;
  • a grain offering and their libations.

This list can be found in Number 6: 14-15.  Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) became one of “the Way” (Heb. HaDerekh) in Acts 9, but here he is in Acts 20, and he is giving for himself and four other men five ewe lambs as sin offerings.  Thus, the Christian teaching that the Rebbe‘s death on the cross brought an end to the need of sacrifices is clearly wrong.

ZEALOUS TORAH-OBSERVANCE DOES NOT MEAN TOTAL AGREEMENT
But just because those who were part of HaDerekh (“the Way”) were zealous in their Torah-observance does not mean that they agreed on every point with every Pharisee, Sadducee, or Scribe on how certain things should be interpreted and applied.  This also does not mean that those of HaDerekh were in complete disagreement with Second Temple Judaism of the day.  There were beliefs and practices that they shared with the other Second Temple Jews of the time, but there also ones – how many, we do not know – that they disagreed with that was believed and practiced by other sects within the Judaism of the day.  According to the mainstream Jewish writer, Rabbi Harvey Falk in his book, Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus (1985), he writes,

The first disputes regarding the Oral Law passed down for some seventeen hundred years from Moses at Sinai took place at this time between the sages Hillel and Shammai.  Their respective Schools – Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai – were to clash over three hundred and fifty (350) times on issues of the Oral Law during the next hundred years.  Nor were these minor disputes; the issues between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai went to the very core of what Judaism stood for – and especially import for our subject, Judaism’s attitude toward the salvation of the Gentiles. 

The Schools of Shammai and Hillel both accepted all of the commandments contained in the five books of the Torah.  But the written law of Moses is too brief to be applied to practical issues of everyday life, and it was accepted that an oral and more detailed tradition was handed down by Moses.  The debates of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai centered on this oral tradition.  (7)

Is it possible that there may have been oral traditions that went back to Mosheh (Moses) himself?  There may have been some basic ideas, but does this mean every teaching in the Oral Law (Mishnah) goes back to Mosheh (Moses)?  No, this I do not believe.  Instead, I believe that the majority of the Oral Law has its beginnings with Ezra the priest after the people came back with him from Babylon and during the time period between the Tanakh and the writings of those from HaDerekh (“the Way”).  The one hundred years after the debates of Hillel and Shammai is the same time period during which the disciples of Yeshua were writing what is now called the “New Testament.”  Thus, their writings should be considered as part of this debate.  A debate that “went to the very core of what Judaism stood for.”

What name did the Jewish disciples call themselves?

The evidence indicates that the disciples called themselves HaDerekh (“the Way”).  This name is used for them SIX TIMES in the book of Acts (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22), but I believe the complete name for the group was HaDerekh ADONAI (“the way of the Lord”), which we see used in Acts 18, 

Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures.  This man had been instructed in THE WAY OF THE LORD; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning [Yeshua], being acquainted with the [immersion] of John [Heb. Yochanan].  (Acts 18:24-25, NASB; emphasis added)

The phrase “the way of the Lord” is used in several passages within the Tanakh, the Scriptures.  It is written as Derekh Y-H-V-H in (Genesis 18:19; Judges 2:22; 2 Samuel 22:22; 2 Kings 21:22; Proverbs 10:29; Isaiah 40:3; and Jeremiah 5:4-5), and it is used as Derekh Adonai in those writings during the Babylonian Exile and afterwards, such as Ezekiel 18:25, 29; 33:17, 20).  Thus, giving us a biblical precedence for using the word “Lord,” rather than the sacred holy covenantal name of God, contrary to those who claim we should use the holy name in everything we do. 

The phrase “the way of the Lord” is found for the first time in the same passage that Rav Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) quotes a line from and calls it “the gospel” in his letter to the congregation in Galatia:

Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness [Genesis 15:6].  Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are the sons of Abraham.  The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached THE GOSPEL BEFOREHAND TO ABRAHAM, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.”  So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.  (Galatians 3:6-9, NASB; emphasis added)

Here we can see that Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) is saying that the very same “gospel” (“good news”) that was proclaimed by Yochanan (John) the Immerser, the Rebbe Yeshua and his disciples, and by him was told to Abraham “beforehand” (or “in advance”).  And what was the essence of this message: “All the nations will be blessed in you [Abraham].”  But in what passage do we find this line and the phrase “the way of the Lord”?  In the passage of Genesis 18, when three strangers come and share a meal with Abraham before they continue in their journey to Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is after they have eaten and told Abraham and Sarah that they would have a son the following year, that we read,

Then the men rose up from there, and looked down toward Sodom; and Abraham was walking with them to send them off.  The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and IN HIM ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH WILL BE BLESSED?  For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep THE WAY OF THE LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him. (Genesis 18: 16-19, NASB; emphasis added)

The sentence that is written in all caps is the one that Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) quotes and calls it “the gospel.” And it is in the very next sentence where we see the phrase “the way of the Lord” that the disciples use for the name of their movement, or “the way” for short.  However, rather than using the version with the sacred name, as we see here in the Hebrew here in Genesis, I believe they use the same form as the Levite and prophet Ezekiel, Derekh Adonai (“the way of the Lord”).  

A Comparison – Yeshua & Ba’al Shem Tov

I was amazed when I was reading Chaim Potok’s book, Wanderings: Chaim Potok’s History of the Jews, about the founder of the Chassidic movement, Rabbi Israel Eliezer, more popularly known as Ba’al Shem Tov, or Besht, and that there were several life experiences that the Rebbe Yeshua and His movement, HaDerekh, shared with Ba’al Shem Tov, or Besht, and His movement, the Chassidim.  For example,

  • Both of them were born and raised among the poor, suffering, and struggling of their respective Jewish communities.
  • Both of them reached out to everyone in the Jewish community, regardless of who they were, whether the mainstream or those who were not accepted by the mainstream.
  • Both of them were looked down upon by the religious leaders of their areas as being “uneducated” and “unlearned.”
  • Although the Rabbi Eliezer, i.e., Ba’al Shem Tov, did not write anything down, and all we know about him is from “an oral tradition set down in writing more than fifty years after his death,” according to Potok, but according to the early Church historian, Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, the Rebbe Yeshua (Jesus) wrote a short letter to a Gentile (non-Jewish) prince, named Agabus, who offered him safety and shelter from those who had been threatening His life. (Book 1, Chapter 13)
  • Both of them were well-known as “faith healers.”
  • Both of them wandered around the country as they taught and trained disciples.
  • Both of them loved to tell stories.
  • Both of them were charismatic leaders, but neither one was ever ordained as a “rabbi,” but they were both called “rabbi” by their disciples.
  • Both taught about a compassionate God who dearly loved His people; and
  • Both of their communities grew rapidly and expanded after their founder’s deaths.

Not only did they have these things in common, but their movement were both not accepted by the mainstream Jewish community, and persecuted by one Jew in particular; for example, for HaDerekh, the movement founded by the Rebbe Yeshua, the one Jew was the Pharisee, Sha’ul of Tarsus, and for the Chassidim, Rabbi Eliezer’s movement, it was Rabbi Elijah of Vilna. 

Just as Sha’ul (Paul) saw the HaDerekh (“the way”) movement within the Judaism of his day as dangerous, Rabbi Elijah of Vilna saw the Chassidim movement as dangerous for the Judaism of his time.  For example, according to Chaim Potok, Rabbi Elijah of Vilna regarded,

  • Hasidic ecstasy and enthusiasm, the reports of miracles and visions of its leaders, as menacing delusions and not unlike pagan worship of mortal beings (467);
  • Hasidic emphasis on prayer a serious threat to the importance of Torah study (467);
  • Hasidic adoption of certain Sephardic prayers and their insistence upon the use of specifically sharpened knives for ritual slaughter – since Hasidim would not eat meat from animals slaughtered by rabbinically approved slaughterers; therefore, Rabbi Elijah of Vilna regarded all of these actions as a flouting of rabbinic authority. (467)

Interestingly, mainstream Judaism asserts a “pagan connection” in the teachings of the HaDerekh movement, just like Rabbi Elijah of Vilna accused the Chassidic movement of having a “pagan connection” in some of their teachings.  The Rebbe Yeshua and the Ba’al Shem Tov were also both willing to reach out to everyone – great and small – with in the Jewish communities that were and are both inside and outside of the land of Israel, and they were both similar in that regard to the more recent Chassidic Lubavitch leader, Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson (April 5, 1902 – June 12, 1994).

Another point of comparison between HaDerekh, and the Chassidim movements of Ba’al Shem Tov and the Rebbe Menachem Schneerson is that they are all zealous in their observance and love of the Torah.  As I mentioned earlier, in the book of Acts 21, Ya’akov (trans. “James”), and the other leaders of the Jerusalem congregation, tell Sha’ul Paulus (Paul) who had come to visit the congregation there and to worship in the Temple while observing the feast of Shavuot (weeks/Pentecost),

On hearing it, they praised God; but they also said to him, “You see, brother, how many tens of thousands of believers there are among the Judeans, and they are ALL zealots for the Torah. (Acts 21:20, CJB)

So what happened to change the character and nature of those who led the movement to the ones today who no longer zealously love and observe the Torah, but they view it as something “foreign” that no longer applies to them, but see it instead as “legalism,” “bondage” and “death”?  This is what I want to discuss in part 4 of this series. In this part, I needed to complete the picture of what the early Jewish disciples of the Rebbe Yeshua were truly like.  Unfortunately, much of this is not told to Christians in their churches, so I thought that this part was needed within this study.  

Return to the Top