The first and simple answer would be no, it isn't as simple as that though.
I read an article about an Israeli, Zuckermann, which has written a book about Hebrew, he claims that modern Hebrew is actually not a continuation of the old Biblical language but rather a creole with influences from all the languages which the people spoke who lived in other countries before coming to Israel. He gave examples like words which were used by zionists in a different way with removing the biblical definition and certain sentences in the Bible which are interpreted in the completely opposite way from what it means by modern Israelis.
This makes modern Hebrew according to him a made language, so a constructed language which would be better called "Israeli".
This made me think and I think that especially considering reviving languages we should also see that it's impossible to revive a language without it becoming artifical in some way. Of course a person with knowledge of modern Hebrew can also read the Bible, but vocabulary was necessarily to be created by lending from other languages or by using roots which makes it for a part constructed.
There are first language speakers so it has changed in a natural language in this way, but my question is, in how far is the Hebrew constructed in and before 1948 a conlang and can we call it like that looking at the definitions of a conlang?
What are your thoughts?