by Lonnie Lane

A
man wrote: “I am from Goa, in India.… I am under the impression that Matthew
wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. I would appreciate if you would clarify this. Thank
you.” There is much evidence to confirm that the Gospel of Matthew was
written in Hebrew and with this understanding has come a good bit of revelation
of what Yeshua was really saying.

The growing value placed on charity in the first century C.E. Cannot be overstated. As a new sensitivity developed within Judaism that challenged the compensatory “blessings and curses” paradigm of the Hebrew Bible (cf. 28) as a basis to serve God, so there was a shifting emphasis towards altruistic love embodied in the Levitical commandment, “and you shall love your neighbor as. He denied that the God of the Old Testament was the same God presented in the New Testament. For Marcion, Jesus was the Son of the God of the New Testament but not the Son of the deity described in the Hebrew Scriptures. The deities of the Old and New Testaments were, from Marcion’s perspective, literally two different gods. The Delitzsch Hebrew Gospels A Hebrew / English Translation of the Gospels. When you first open The Delitzsch Hebrew Gospels, you will be delighted to find a unique version of the Gospels with many features.Great care has been taken to present the masterful work of Franz Delitzsch, together with a new English translation, in a manner that brings honor to Messiah's name, and encourage.

It
had been assumed that the language of Yeshua’s day was primarily Aramaic, but
since the re-birth of Israel, archaeological data and linguistic research have provided
enough evidence to open up the Gospels to us, including the confirmation that at
the least Matthew was initially written in Hebrew, and possibly other Gospels
as well.

There is actually no ground for assuming that Jesus did not speak Hebrew.

When
reading Matthew and asking if it was written in Hebrew and not Greek, apart
from reports of finding actually original texts, the first question one might
ask is to whom was Matthew writing? A read through Matthew with this in mind
brings an awareness of a number of matters that would be of no interest to
Gentiles, but would mean a great deal to Hebrews. For instance, Matthew begins his gospel account of Yeshua’s
life with an extensive genealogy. To the Hebrews, this would be greatly
significant as ancestry was very meaningful to them. A Gentile would not likely
be the least interested in who begat whom, whereas to the Hebrews these genealogies
had to do with their identities and their inheritances. They also delineated
that a king could only be from the tribe of Judah and a descendent of David.
And only those from the tribe of Levi, as in Levites, could serve in the temple
or be priests.

Today,
after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and of the Bar Kokhba letters, study of these and other manuscripts give
evidence that most people were fluent in Hebrew. There is actually no ground
for assuming that Jesus did not speak Hebrew. Hebrew appears to
have been the common language at that time. Additionally, regarding Paul it is
said that “they heard that he was
addressing them in the Hebrew dialect” (Acts 22:2).We are told in Acts 21:40 that Paul spoke Aramaic but the marginal
note says, “or possibly Hebrew.” It
has been suggested by scholars that the margin note that Paul spoke Hebrew
should be considered as valid information and some scholars think that it was
Hebrew and not Aramaic that was in fact spoken. Because of the occasional
Aramaic word found in the Gospels it was assumed that was the language spoken
then, but there are far more Hebrew than Aramaic words and idioms sprinkled
through the Gospels, particularly in Matthew. Many of the supposedly Aramaic
words are actually Hebrew words. (With the exception of portions of Daniel, all
of the Old Testament was, of course, written in Hebrew.)

A
recently published tenth-century Arabic document, which is partially based on
an earlier fifth century Aramaic document, identifies the language of “the
prophets,” “Christ” and “the true
Gospel” as being Hebrew. Furthermore, it speaks against the non-Jewish
Christians for discarding Hebrew in favor of foreign languages not spoken by
the Savior. Evidently some people realized the dangers involved in diverting
from the original language. There are sayings of Yeshua which can be taken back
into both Aramaic and Hebrew, but none can be rendered into Aramaic only. Some
make sense only when rendered into Hebrew. These facts demonstrate the Hebrew
origins of Matthew and in fact, the other Gospels, by retranslating the Gospels
into Hebrew.

More
than Mark and Luke, the gospel of Matthew explicitly cites Old Testament
messianic prophesies and shows how Yeshua fulfilled them. Why would non-Jews
really care that He fulfilled Hebrew Scriptures? Matthew’s audience was clearly
the Hebrew people. It stands to reason that he would write it in their own language.
Such prophesies would be important to the Hebrews, but not to the Gentiles.
Several examples follow.

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a
sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call
him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). The fulfillment in Matthew would be, “The
virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him
Immanuel which means, ‘God with us’” (Matt. 1:23). This would be quite significant for God
said He would give a sign to Israel that would be 1) a virgin giving birth, 2)
the baby would be a son, and 3) this son would be one to bring God’s presence
to Israel. These must and could only be fulfilled by Messiah.

Further,
Messiah’s birth place was specific: “But
you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of
you will come for Me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from
of old, from ancient times” (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment verse would be, “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least
among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will
be the shepherd of my people Israel” (Matt. 2:6). It’s doubtful that a non-Hebrew audience would care much
where Yeshua was born. Bethlehem Ephratah is equivalent of saying “Little
Bethlehem,” a town too small to have much to brag about. However, the prophecy also
said that He would be a ruler who would be a shepherd of the people. The
“flocks” of people following Yeshua may reveal why the people wanted to crown
Yeshua as King.

As
further evidence of Matthew being written to appeal to a Hebrew audience, is
found in what we call “The Sermon on the Mount.” It reads like Moses might have
written it, like it came right out of Torah. Those not familiar with Torah are
likely to read the Sermon as either a spontaneous burst of prophetic wisdom or a
list of new requirements Yeshua is now giving his followers. But to those to
whom He was speaking, His words were meant to put the people back in touch with
how God thinks. “Blessed are those who
hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (5:6)
would restore a sense of righteousness being a longing for God and His
righteousness rather than a following of all the “traditional” (added) rules in
self-righteous satisfaction. He was lifting God’s original Torah teachings out
of what the rabbis had imposed upon them with their traditions and complex
interpretations with their added requirements. Rather than His statements being
extraneous or unrelated to Torah, Yeshua was in fact redefining how to live the
commandments by the grace and spirit of God. This, of course, is missed unless
one is familiar with the teachings of the Torah and the Prophets in the Old
Testament. An understanding of the Sermon from a Hebrew perspective tends to
realign His words with the rest of Scripture (remember, there was only Old
Testament Scripture then) by lifting them out of some of our own Christian “traditional”
teachings. (Yes, we have traditions too.)

To be poor/meek/humble before God necessarily requires that one be repentant.

Let’s
take, for instance, “Blessed are the poor
in spirit, fortheirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). Our
English translations somewhat distort what the original (Hebrew) text is saying. If we read the text in a Hebrew context
we find that the word for poor does not mean to be materially destitute or in
contrast to being well-to-do; it means to be “humble” or “meek.” Morford in his
Power New Testament’s footnote on 5:3
says, “Poor is a Hebrew idiom for repentant.” To be poor/meek/humble before God necessarily requires that
one be repentant. Remember that Numbers 12:3 describes Moses as the “meekest”
man on earth. It certainly does not mean he is the most financially lacking of
all men, but from his face-to-face encounter with the Lord on the mountain, he
was undoubtedly the meekest man on earth. The closer one is to God, the meeker
one becomes. Citing Isaiah’s messianic passage early on in Yeshua’s ministry He
declared, “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, because the LORD has
anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor” (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18). What
He had to say, even today, are words of salvation only to the meek, the repentant,
the “poor in spirit.”

Another
misunderstanding of the phrase is taking it to mean that to be truly blessed
one must live in a spirit of poverty as a sign of true reverence. This
interpretation has often been used to inspire vows of poverty. He was not
saying that any person who really wants to be god-fearing had better not appear
to be other than materially poor. This misunderstanding of the Hebrew context
of the word poor has caused suffering for many ministers and missionaries and
their families, and has been the cause of prideful judgment or pity of them. (I
am reminded of a story from the 1930’s or so in which the church ladies all
saved their used and dried teabags to send, along with their discarded
clothing, to the “poor” missionaries overseas, thereby protecting them from any
pride that new teabags or clothing might bring.)

Additionally, it has also been interpreted as
God favoring the poor, with disdain toward the rich, which is just as
unbiblical as it would be if God were favoring the rich to the neglect of the
poor. Both perspectives misrepresent Him because God shows no partiality. “The rich and the poor have this in common;
The LORD is the maker of them
all” (Proverbs 22:2). Admittedly there are verses in Scripture that warn of
self-sufficiency of the rich as opposed to the meekness of those who recognize
their need of God and His provision. One can be rich in material wealth and still
be meek or ‘poor in spirit’ before God. King David is a prime example. Yeshua
was not saying that being rich in itself is bad or ungodly. To the contrary,
there are many Biblical examples of God’s riches blessing His people. Nowhere
did Yeshua call a state of poverty “blessed.” Anyone who has ever been poor can
agree, it’s not a blessing. Rather, Scripture puts it this way: “It
is the blessing of the LORD that makes rich, and He adds no sorrow to it” (Prov.10:22).

The greatest example of God’s blessings
of prosperity is that of David and Solomon after him who were the richest kings
on the earth at that time because of the abundant blessings of God upon David
for his obedience to Him. One story tells is well. The Queen of Sheba, a very well-to-do lady in her own right
judging from what she presented to Solomon of an extremely costly gift, found
herself breathless and speechless at the opulence and splendor she found in
Solomon’s palace: “When the queen of
Sheba perceived all the wisdom of Solomon, the house that he had built, the
food of his table, the seating of his servants, the attendance of his waiters
and their attire, his cupbearers, and his stairway by which he went up to the
house of the LORD, there was no more
spirit in her. Then she said to the king, “It was a true report which
I heard in my own land about your words and your wisdom. Nevertheless I did not
believe the reports, until I came and my
eyes had seen it. And behold, the
half was not told me. You exceed in wisdom and prosperity the report which I heard….Blessed be the LORD your God
who delighted in you to set you on the throne of Israel; because the LORD loved
Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice
and righteousness.” She gave the king a hundred and twenty talents of
gold, and a very great amount of spices and precious stones. Never again did
such abundance of spices come in as that which the queen of Sheba gave King
Solomon” (1 Kings10:1-10, my emphases).

The Hebrew idea of heaven is not an ethereal other-worldly kingdom but of a messianic millennial kingdom on earth with God dwelling with man.

Getting back to the Sermon on the Mount, now
that we’ve cleared up the issue of poor not meaning financially needy, Yeshua
also had this to say: “Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit
the earth: (Matthew 5:5), Again,
the word “meek” does not mean weak, but a quality of humility and gentleness,
that of someone who acknowledges their need of God. It is to such people that
Yeshua came to preach. Matthew records Yeshua quoting directly from Psalm 37:11
which says, “The meek shall inherit
the earth.” He had just
mentioned the “Kingdom of heaven” (:3) and now He’s talking about inheriting
“the earth” (:5). Which is it? Here we find more Hebrew roots nuggets that give
clarity to what He’s saying that tie them both together. Matthew alone uses the
term “Kingdom of Heaven” 32 times while Mark and Luke use “Kingdom of God” 68
times collectively. Both “kingdom of heaven” and “Kingdom of God” mean the
identical thing for the reason that “heaven” is a Hebrew synonym for God
Himself. For example, “…whoever
swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it”
(Matthew 23:22).

Now, here’s some food for thought. The Hebrew
idea of heaven is not an ethereal other-worldly kingdom but of a messianic
millennial kingdom on earth with God dwelling with man. The Hebrew expectation
is not that we would ascend to be with God to some ‘other’ place, but that once
He banishes sin and evil from the earth, He comes again to dwell with man and
walk with him much as He did with Adam in the Garden of Eden, as He had
intended to dwell with mankind from the beginning. The earth will be renewed to
be without any sign of the Fall. Take a read through Revelation 21 and 22 with
this in mind. If you compare the picture of the earthly eternal reign of God in
these two chapters in the book of The Revelation, you can see that to “inherit the earth” is the same as
inheriting the Kingdom of God. In both we experience His eternal rule. When
Yeshua said, “My Kingdom isnot of this world…not of this realm”
(John 18:36), this is what He meant. The realm of which Pilate spoke was of an
earthly realm not submitted to the reign of God. What Yeshua meant was not this
worldly order or even this age, but of “an
age to come, eternal life” (Matthew 12:32; 13:39; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30;
Eph. 2:7; Heb. 6:5) which would be both.

It
is to the repentant and those who know their need of God that the Kingdom of
God’s reign and presence belong! This is what He was saying. The Pharisees made
it seem that only those who studied as they did and lived scrupulous lives of
cleanliness, searching the Scriptures and writings all day were worthy of
heaven or God’s acceptance. All of these “works” were attempts to earn or
insure God’s favor, in itself a good thing, to want to please God, but it sees
only from the limits of man’s minds, and not from the expanse of Who God is.
Who could possibly earn their way to God? Yeshua was saying that God looks at the hearts, the motives
of men and He is well aware of who basks in the pride of their own
accomplishments verses the repentant ones who know their need of God’s mercy.

By
inference, Yeshua’s words meant that those who are sure that they have earned a
place with God and boast of it have no part in His Kingdom. All they stood for
was counter to everything that He stood for in terms of relating to God. Now
can you understand why the leaders were so inflamed against Him and what He was
teaching the people? One would have to own up to being repentant to receive Him and what He was
saying, which would mean exposing your vulnerability and admitting you weren’t
what all the Pharisees and scribes worked so hard to be. It would mean a
complete turn around of values. Or, you would be one who considered Him someone
to be done away with. There is no fence-sitting for those who truly hear what
Yeshua has said.

This
issue of the language of Yeshua is critical, for when Yeshua was extricated
from His Hebrew background, including that He spoke Hebrew to people whose
language it was, what was subsequently written and said about Him in Christian
circles created a profound misunderstanding of who and what he was. Dr. Brad
Young explains at least some of the reasons for this: “Although Jesus was
Jewish, his theology is sometimes treated as if he were Christian. But Jesus
never attended a church. He never celebrated Christmas. He never wore new
clothes on Easter Sunday…Jesus worshipped in the synagogue. He celebrated the
Passover. He ate kosher food. He offered prayers in the temple in Jerusalem.
The Jewish religious heritage of Jesus impacted his life in every dimension of
his daily experience. Jesus must be understood as a Jewish theologian. His theology
is Jewish to the core….” This
would include the language He spoke and in which, at the least, the Gospel of
Matthew was written.

Reprint of this article is permitted as long as you use the following; Use by permission by Messianic Vision, www.sidroth.org, 2010.

Hebrew Gospel Of Matthew Howard

Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible Copyright ©1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, Calif. All rights reserved. Used by permission.