Hebrew Gospel Pearls #7 – Matthew 3:7-12

In Hebrew Gospel Pearls #7 (Matthew 3:7-12), Nehemia and Keith discuss the importance of the original Hebrew text of the first Jewish commentary on the Gospels, how we know glosses were added in the margin of Hebrew Matthew, and whether the Essenes contributed to the authorship of the New Testament.

I look forward to reading your comments!


Podcast Version:
Download Podcast


Subscribe to "Nehemia's Wall" on your favorite podcasts app!
iTunes | Android | Spotify | Google Play | Stitcher | TuneIn

Share This Teaching

Thank you for supporting my research and teachings through my nonprofit, Makor Hebrew Foundation. Together we are empowering people around the world with vital information about the Hebrew sources of their faith!

Related Posts:
Hebrew Gospel Pearls PLUS #7
The Open Door Series
My Search for Hebrew New Testament Manuscripts
Hebrew Gospel Pearls
Torah and Prophet Pearls
Hebrew Voices Episodes
Support Team Studies
Nehemia Gordon's Teachings on the Name of God

8 thoughts on “Hebrew Gospel Pearls #7 – Matthew 3:7-12

  1. I so appreciate you digging down and finding errors, corrections and corrections in error. The one document that really triggered my interest is the Declaration of Independence. It has an error that almost everybody misses. “unalienable” should actually be “inalienable”. But then, the flow of words would feel different. Keep up the good work. This series is as fascinating as the ‘Pearls’ series.

  2. Matthew 11:11 does not say that John was greater than all the other prophets and Jesus himself. Jesus says that among these men in the past there was none greater. In other words, all these men were in the class of great men of faith (like Hebrews 11). Some of the followers of John the Baptist in the great Temple debate tried to turn these words to make John the greatest of all prophets ever, including Moses and Jesus. But that is not what the words of Matt 11 say. See Clement’s Recognitions chap 60. John risked his life to return from Parthia in Parthian clothes (camel-hair and with a black belt) to proclaim repentance (not revenge) among those who may have been responsible for the death of his father Zacharias and family and thousands of other great and faithful people (who died under Herod in the subsequent War of Varus). He must be acclaimed as among the bravest, most fearless and strongest followers of the true God.

  3. Well, Nehemia, you should be compiling the necessary content for your earned–not honorary–Ph.D. Dissertation and….title: PhD Gordon. Helpful Matthew 3:10 Table/Chart too: Tables like this assist my right-sided brain when juggling all the left-sided info. Your ‘calling’ is obvious.

    More than a great job. Thanks!

  4. I have a question regarding the Pharisees. One thing that Nehemia talks about in his book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. The Greek Jesus is how the Pharisees take passages of Scripture out of context and come up wild interpretations of the text in their midrashes. This is definitely true about the Rabbis from the Mishnaic and Rabbinical periods but is this true about the first century Pharisees. I was recently reading in The Moody Handbook Of Messianic Prophecy, p. 110-111, when it was dealing with the possibility whether the NT uses midrashic method in its messianic “fulfilment” passages. It ruled out this possibility by citing a scholar named David Instone-Brewer in his book Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 C.E. , p. 167 and 169, who said that in his examination of pre-AD 70 “protorabbinic exegesis” that,”Every single scribal exegesis examined could be quoted as an example to show that Scripture was interpreted according to its context,” and that the first century Jewish interpreters were concerned with discovering,”the primary or plain sense of the text.” Nehemia, is this an accurate summary? Do the quotations attributed to first century Rabbis in the Talmud and other Rabbinical sources really only try to discover the plain meaning of Scripture?

    • Thanks for the reply in the email Devorah. The washing of the hands commandment is definitely found no where in Scripture so the Pharisees have to be taking Scripture out of context.
      I’ve been taking a look at the Jewish Exegesis book at academia.edu and I have found some interesting things about the book. What I have found is that the Messianic Prophecy Handbook I have seems to misinterpret the scholar. The scholar actually says in p. 168 of his book that he identified at most 5 different passages that take Scripture out of its “plain contextual meaning” but do “not ignore the context itself.” I’ve looked at some of the book’s analysis of different Rabbinic passages and what I found sheds light in what the scholar was actually arguing. In pages 65 and 66 the author is addressing the two Torah theology of the Pharisees from the Babylonian Talmud, Sabbath 31a and what the scholar points out is that the Pharisees use Deut. 33:10 (“They shall teach your rules to Jacob and your Instruction to Israel…”[LGV]) as proof of two Torahs. They consider “rules” and “Instruction” to be referring to the written and oral Torahs as the scholar points out. So what I have found about this scholar is that he’s arguing that before 70 A.D. the Pharisees may have come up with wild interpretations of Scripture, but they were concerned about arguing from the context of Scripture (often not the whole context) instead of trying to find hidden or secondary meanings. It would kind of be like if I were to argue that there are two gods because the Sons of Korah in Ps. 42:2 [3] say that their souls thirst for God and the living God. I’m here concerned with what the overall context of the verse is but I’m coming up with a wild interpretaiton of the text.
      Thanks again Devorah for your email.
      Yehovah bless you.

Please leave a comment.