42S QCESTIONS' CONCERNING JESUS'. foundhim of' whom Moses and the prophets did write, that is, the Messiah ; Nathanael being convinced that Jesus was he, pre-. sently saluted him by this name, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel. 4. The prophets in the Old Testament frequently intimate the divinity of Christ ; and some few of the ancient Jews might probably believe that he was the memra, or word of the Lord, the shekinah or glorious habitation of God, ofwhich the Chaldee paraphrast sometimes speaks. Dr. Allix in his Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians, seems to be too positive and triumphant in this point, that this memra or Logos to which the Chaldee paraphrast 'ascribes the creation of the world, and the government of it, and particularly of the Jewish nation, is the Messiah in their sense. Mr. Nye and others utterly deny it. But the excellent Mr. Robert Fleming, in his discourse of Christology, volume I. pages 136-144. very judiciously follows a middle path, and tells us, " That he did not find one of the many citations used by Doctor. Allix that. seemed to necessitate our judgment this way. Therefore he run through the targums himself in those places where he thought it most probable to find what he sought, and yet could find but few passages that seemed very plainly to relate to the Messiah."-- Upon which he concludes, " That though the word memra is sometimes used for the Messiah, yet it is much more frequently used in other senses, and that the Jewish memra and Messiah are spoken of sometimes as two distinct beings or persons."* But what doubtful hints or plain evidences soever there might be from the books of the prophets or these paraphrastical authors, 'that' Christ was to be the true God, yet the Jews in Christ's time did not generally believe it : And though some learned authors have asserted it, yet I never. saw it proved. Surely ifthe Pharisees had but embraced this opinion, they could never have been at a loss to have answered bur Lord Jesus, when be asked them, Mat. xxii. 45, 46. If Christ be David's son, how doth he in Spirit call him Lord? It was plain by their silence and confusion, that they did not believe bis godhead. Bishop Bull is of this mind as well as Dr. Whitby. See Bull's Judici- um Ecclesi a Catholics, &c. capite i. sectione 13. and Whitby's * Mr. Fleming in that place tells us, that though he could not find the word memra and Messiah used as explicatory of one another in those places which are plainly prophetical of Christ, yet he supposes the reason might be this, that memra denotes Christ with relation only to his divine nature before his assuming human nature, and Messiah denotes him only as he was to appear visibly and become man, therefore it was hardly possible that both these words should be used of him at once. See "Christology, volume I. page 143." Thus it is evi- dent that Mr. Fleming searched after this notion with a seeming inclination to find it'true, yet he could not findso great and incontested evidence of it, as to suppose that the ancient Jews generally embraced this opining, that the Memra or Word of God was the same with the Messiah.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=