Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Harel13]

I don’t think so. Do you have some clear example?

Note: Considering the thread was originally directed at Jews until it was decided to open it to all of RF, it's no wonder that you believe differently.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I don’t think so. Do you have some clear example?

Read Isaiah 6-8. Then check out who the name Immanuel was referring to and its fulfillment was. Also consider who is considered the mother of Immanuel in that context.

 

[oldbadger]

Hi there,

As a former Christian, having read the Old Testament and New Testament to completion and numerous books multiple times, it has always occurred to me that a few Old Testament scriptures that the New Testament says was fulfilled by Jesus or in some other way, seem to have been taken out of context.

Sometimes the writers would quote a single verse from a passage to prove a point and then when going back I would find that the context seemed very different.

In some cases I have found that this was a misunderstanding of the context on my part.

Would you guys say that the NT writers definitely take certain quotes out of context from the OT?

@Harel13

Sure do!
And the gospels got heavily 'tweeked' by some early ardent Christians.
It takes a whole lot of unraveling, but in my researches I discovered that Jesus and the Baptist were wonderful guys who objected strongly to the Temple money-go-round, corruption, and a mostly hypocritical priesthood. No more than that.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Sure do!
And the gospels got heavily 'tweeked' by some early ardent Christians.
It takes a whole lot of unraveling, but in my researches I discovered that Jesus and the Baptist were wonderful guys who objected strongly to the Temple money-go-round, corruption, and a mostly hypocritical priesthood. No more than that.

I do think that they were guys trying to reform Judaism at the very least.

 

[oldbadger]

I do think that they were guys trying to reform Judaism at the very least.

Hi.........
Well, I've already written that Jesus and the Baptist were strongly opposed to the Temple money-go-round, Priesthood corruption and hypocrisy, that is quite clearly indicative of their wish to reform, or at least to cleanse the priesthood and Temple from corruption and hypocrisy. Both John and Jesus were very clear about that.

So.... yes.

 

[1213]

Read Isaiah 6-8. Then check out who the name Immanuel was referring to and its fulfillment was. Also consider who is considered the mother of Immanuel in that context.

I would like to hear, who do you think the Immanuel is in those? I personally have to think the scriptures more, because it seems there is two meanings to it.

 

[Vouthon]

Paul disagrees with the popular Jewish view that while the merit of the patriarchs has ended, the covenant of the patriarchs has not. No matter how badly the Jewish people act, they will always remain God's people.

"...how much the more so for an entire people that has merit and the covenant of the ancestors that you have come to uproot!" (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:15)
And Shmuel said: The letter tav is the first letter of the word tama, ceased, indicating that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased and will not help the wicked. (Shabbat 55a)
Tosfot there: "Says Rabbeinu Tam that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased but the covenant of the Patriarchs has not ceased."​

As with almost everything concerning Pauline thought, his mode of exegesis in the Epistle to the Romans is a complicated beast. He is neither an easy writer to 'follow' (in terms of the sequential train of his argument) nor one that is simple to 'fathom' or tie down based upon 'this or that' line.

Many, many people have poorly exegized Paul and thus come away from his writings with deductions he'd never have endorsed himself.

Arguably, the entire premise of traditional Protestant theology is an example of that - Paul did not believe in "faith alone", if by that one means relying upon 'belief' as a means of justification/salvation. His references to 'works of the law' concerned only ritualistic Torah obligations that were not binding upon Gentiles - the conregrants he was addressing, primarily, in his letters. In terms of moral works, he was insistent that his Gentile believers had to adhere to a stringent set of moral norms derived both from the Tanakh and the teachings of Jesus.

As one Jewish NT scholar, Mark Nimos, writes in a study:

"The traditional Reformation view of Romans... In this view, Paul is the great evangelist of Christianity (anachronistically seen as a separate religion already in his time) as the movement of liberation from the bonds of legalism and “works-righteousness” that according to this conception characterized Judaism.

Historically, this view has been reinforced by some Protestant Reformation theologians, such as Martin Luther, who saw medieval Roman Catholicism as a “works-righteousness” religion, one that emphasized the deeds of the faithful as necessary to earn their way into God’s grace.

He projected this view onto Judaism through his interpretation of the context for Paul’s opposition, a context he likened...to his own opposition to this development in the Roman Catholicism of that time. This view thus contrasted Christianity, and especially Protestant Christianity, as a “religion of grace” with Judaism (and Roman Catholicism) as “religions of law.”...Most scholars now reject this view as overly simplistic and mistaken, both in its treatment of Judaism at the time of Paul and in its characterization of Roman Catholicism and of other Christian rivals."

(Brettler, Marc Z., Levine, Amy-Jill; Marc Zvi Brettler. The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Kindle Locations 9376-9377). Oxford University Press, USA. Kindle Edition.)​

With reference to our specific element of his thought for a start, Paul seems to positively reference even the concept of zekhut avot in one segment of his argument in Romans:

"but as far as election is concerned, they [Jews] are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable." (Romans 11:28)​

This would appear, at face value, to be anendorsement of the idea that Jews remain God's people because of His love for them 'on account' of the merits of their ancestors, the Patriarchs. In the same chapter, just above his 'merits of the fathers' insinuation, Paul affirms:

"So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written,

“Out of Zion will come the Deliverer;
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “And this is my covenant with them,
when I take away their sins.”"

(Romans 11:25-27)​

This reminds one of Rabbinic statements, such as:


Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1

All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. ​

Nonetheless, Paul also taught that the inheritance of the promises - of which Jews were the "natural branches", in his 'olive tree' allegory - was not something that a Jew could rely upon as a preordained given without any 'initiative' on their part. They were 'elected' and this 'election' is irrecovable but something was still demanded - faithfulness expressed through works. Individual branches could be 'broken off', similar to what the Rabbis intimated in the above quotation by referring to those who have "no portion in the olam haba" on account of certain grave sins.

The above quotation is a conflation of Isaiah 59.20–21 with 27.9 (Paul often 'conjoins' Tanakh citations together in a fluid referencing style, when he thinks they align with one another in spirit). In vv. 17–21, Paul uses ekklaō to refer to the “broken” - however 'broken' is a poor translation. It can more properly be rendered, "bent but not severed".

So, there is a real sense in which Paul believes that God's calling of "Israel" is truly 'irrevocable'. All Israel, mysteriously, will attain to the world to come and as Paul understands it salvation in the 'Messiah' (for Paul, Jesus of course)- even if some branches are "bent" along the way (temporarily), with a 'Messianic' remnant being left to testify to the Gentiles (i.e. the early Jewish Christian community in Paul's theology).

Paul’s argument - and I'm paraphrasing his thought here, not articulating my own views - is that the Jews of his own time who did not join the fledgling Christian movement had failed to undertake the covenant obligation of being entrusted with God’s oracles "to the nations" (i.e. a light to the Gentiles), which he thought he was undertaking on Israel's behalf (I know, he got that one a bit wrong in hindsight didn't he? ).

In his own self-conception, Paul’s regarded himself as an eschatological figure carrying out Israel’s prophesised mission (in the Messianic Age) of converting all humankind to the One God worshiped among the Jewish people, away from idols and paganism. Namely, the vision outlined by Isaiah.

A central question that preoccupied James, Peter and Paul, along with the other apostles, was how the messianic age would differ from the previous age. In pre-Messianic times, God had left gentiles to their own devices, pretty much, other than some prophets of their own (modelled after Balaam, perhaps) and natural reason. But Paul tells us in a speech recorded before the Areopagus in Acts that God now wanted a new relationship between Israel and 'thenations':

"From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God* and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28 For In him we live and move and have our being....While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:26-30)

​

The early church was actively seeking to bring Gentiles into the church, owing to the belief that this was in fulfilment of Tanakh prophecies, such as:

"It will come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord
Shall be established as the highest of the mountains
And shall be raised above the hills;
Shall be established as the highest of the mountains
And shall be raised above the hills;
And all the nations shall flow to it,

3 And many people shall come, and say:

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the god of Jacob;
That he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.”
Out of Zion his torah will go forth,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."

(Isaiah 2.2–3 RSV)​

It all hinged on how one interpreted that line, "out of Zion, the Torah will go forth" in relation to "all the nations" and peoples flocking to Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel.

Paul began assertively pushing the belief that the entire moral law of the Torah, but not the culturally specific parts that were meant only to distinguish the Jewish people as "a kingdom of priests, a holy nation" consecrated to God as his chosen people (Exodus 9:16), should be binding on the Gentiles but that anyone who thought they should have to circumsise and follow other mitzvot were acting in violation of God's will that the 'nations' come to Jerusalem for teaching as the nations (Gentiles) and not as Jews.

To this extent, Paul regarded himself as acting in fulfilment of the Torah, which he interpreted as promising that Abraham would become the father not merely of one nation (Israel), but that he would be “the father of many nations” (Gen 12.1–3,17). Paul comes back to this fundamental idea again and again and again in his letters (22.15–18; Rom 4; Gal 3.6–9).

It is, so to speak, the leitmotif of his entire theology.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I would like to hear, who do you think the Immanuel is in those? I personally have to think the scriptures more, because it seems there is two meanings to it.

So the situation in these verses concerns the problems with Syria and Ephraim. The two Kings are Rezin and Remaliah's son.

The Lord will give Ahaz a sign regarding the situation:

"The young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and hall call his name Immanuel. "

There are also further verse applying to the sign of Immanuel.

"Curds and honey He shall eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings."

Then the verse goes on to talk about Assyria.

Chapter 8, the following, shows the fulfillment of this prophecy. The young woman isn't a virgin, because she is a prophetess, Isaiah's wife (verse 3). She gives birth to Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz , who is Immanuel in this context.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi there,

As a former Christian, having read the Old Testament and New Testament to completion and numerous books multiple times, it has always occurred to me that a few Old Testament scriptures that the New Testament says was fulfilled by Jesus or in some other way, seem to have been taken out of context.

Sometimes the writers would quote a single verse from a passage to prove a point and then when going back I would find that the context seemed very different.

In some cases I have found that this was a misunderstanding of the context on my part.

Would you guys say that the NT writers definitely take certain quotes out of context from the OT?

@Harel13

It is absolutely scandalous the way verses of the Tanakh are taken out of context, mistranslated, and even made up outright.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It is absolutely scandalous the way verses of the Tanakh are taken out of context, mistranslated, and even made up outright.

It seems less scandalous to me and more the norm. Christians take their own NT out of context all the time.

I am still trying to figure out to what extent the Jews do the same to their own texts, as it seems that tradition influences translation, from what I have been presented on this thread.

 

[Vouthon]

It is absolutely scandalous the way verses of the Tanakh are taken out of context, mistranslated, and even made up outright.

I do think, however, that from a historical-critical perspective we need to separate the New Testament texts from later Christian exegesis.

The reason is that most of the NT writings were not penned from the vantage point of Christians.

Rather the people writing these texts were largely self-identifying Jews who were proponents of a sect that emerged within the wider milieu of Second Temple Judaism.

When contemporary scholars approach their writings, they do not do so through the lens of the next 20 centuries of "Christian" explication of the scripture but rather on their own terms in their own cultural setting.

To do this fairly and effectively, one needs to heavily contextualize the NT with copious cross-referencing from parallels in other Second Temple writings to assess how these works structured their arguments or exegesis.

Take as an example the research on Paul - as part of their broader forays into Second Temple Jewish studies - undertaken by two Israeli academics, Ophir and Rosen-Zvi (both teaching at Tel Aviv University):


Paul, the Gentiles, and the Other(s) in Jewish Discourse — ANCIENT JEW REVIEW

The modern scholarly turn, to which Ophir and Rosen-Zvi are also indebted, that treats Paul as a Second Temple Jewish writer rather than a (proto)Christian has also served as a powerful frame for reconceptualizing the braided history of Christianity and Judaism.

Following close readings of the New Perspective and the “radical” New Perspective (or the Sonderweg School), Ophir and Rosen-Zvi argue that by theorizing the ethnē “Paul was part of the very formation of Jewishness, the formation of the categories that became the building blocks of Jewishness” (167). Though Ophir and Rosen-Zvi focus on the role that the rabbis played in the formation of Jewishness, Paul, as he so often does, remains central to the (hi)story of Judaism.

​

I think it's very important that we don't misunderstand the New Testament as a case of "Christians" misappropriating and mistranslating the scriptures of another religion (as one could viably argue for subsequent Christian exegesis of the Tanakh).

Rather, what we have in the NT are a "sect" of Second Temple Jews interpreting the tradition of the Hebrew Bible in their own partisan fashion, with their interpretations subsequently being inherited by later generations of Christians.

 

[pearl]

In his own self-conception, Paul’s regarded himself as an eschatological figure carrying out Israel’s prophesised mission (in the Messianic Age) of converting all humankind to the One God worshiped among the Jewish people, away from idols and paganism. Namely, the vision outlined by Isaiah.

Until some where along the way the false belief of a 'Christian' God replacing the God of Israel.

 

[Vouthon]

Until some where along the way the false belief of a 'Christian' God replacing the God of Israel.

If this is a reference to the later Nicene Trinitarian conception of God as three hypostases but with one essence and being, that doctrine as later articulated isn't found in the corpus of Paul's letters and it has no obvious precedent in pre-Christian Judaism. It arises from later systematization of the 'deification' of Christ (which is very much a feature of the New Testamant texts) using the philosophical language of ontology.

Already, in his letters we do, however, find Paul attesting to a mutation of traditional Jewish theology which led him - in tandem with all the other NT authors - to incorporate Jesus into the shema as a "second power" in heaven pre-existing from eternity with the God of Israel as his Wisdom and agent of creation.

Consider:


Binitarianism - Wikipedia

Larry W. Hurtado of University of Edinburgh uses the word "binitarian" to describe the position of early Christian devotion to God, which ascribes to the Son (Jesus) an exaltedness that in Judaism would be reserved for God alone, while still affirming as in Judaism that God is one and is alone to be worshiped. He writes:

...there are a fairly consistent linkage and subordination of Jesus to God 'the Father' in these circles, evident even in the Christian texts from the latter decades of the 1st century that are commonly regarded as a very 'high' Christology, such as the Gospel of John and Revelation. This is why I referred to this Jesus-devotion as a 'binitarian' form of monotheism: there are two distinguishable figures (God and Jesus), but they are posited in a relation to each other that seems intended to avoid the ditheism of two gods.[1]
​

Hurtado does not describe binitarianism as antithetical to Nicene Christianity but rather as an indication that early Christians (before Nicaea) were monotheistic (as evidenced by their singular reference to the Father as God) yet also devoted to Jesus as pre-existent, co-eternal, the creator, embodying the power of God, by whom the Father is revealed, and in whose name alone the Father is worshiped. He writes, "The central place given to Jesus ... and ... their concern to avoid ditheism by reverencing Jesus rather consistently with reference to 'the Father', combine to shape the proto-orthodox 'binitarian' pattern of devotion. Jesus truly is reverenced as divine."[1]:618

Hurtado's view might be interpreted as urging that, at this stage in the development of the Church's understanding, it could be said that God is a person (the Father) and one being; and that Jesus is distinct from the Father, was pre-existent with God, and also originating from God without becoming a being separate from him, so that he is God (the Son). This view of a binitarian pattern of devotion would posit a unity of God's being and a oneness of the object of worship, which is sympathetic to its predecessor view in Judaism; and it also displays a plurality of simultaneous identities, which is sympathetic to its successor in trinitarianism. It is a development in understanding of Christ, in other words, from which arose several subsequent ones in the further course of development that eventually came into conflict with one another.
​

Scholars term this theological conception "binatarianism", with the Holy Spirit at this stage of doctrinal development being a much less articulated concept - more of a divine force or power (not terribly dissimilar to traditional Jewish understanding of the Spirit of God), as opposed to a hypostasis.

However, this 'binatarian' conception of monotheism (unlike later Nicene Trinitarianism with its ontological categories of hypostases and ousia) was a Jewish 'heresy' that manifested itself in groups within Second Temple and early post-Second Temple Judaism outside of the context of early Christianity, as one can clearly infer from the Babylonian Talmud's not infrequent condemnations of this "two powers heresy".

Consider Hagigah 14a in the Bavli in which the Rabbis discuss the proper exegesis of Daniel 7:9:

One verse says: His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool (Dan. 7:9), and (elsewhere) it is written: His locks are curled and black as a raven! (Cant. 5:11)—There is no contradiction: one (verse refers to) (the court) in session, and the other (verse refers to) war. For the Master said: In (court) session none is more fitting than an old man, and in war none is more fitting than a young man.​

One passage says: His throne was fiery flames (Dan. 7:9); and another passage says: [I watched] until thrones were set in place, and an Ancient of Days (‘atiq yomin) took his seat! (Dan 7:9)—There is no contradiction: one (throne) for him [the Ancient of Days], and one (throne) for David: For it has been taught (in a baraita): one was for him, and the other was for David—these are the words of Rabbi Aqiva.

Said Rabbi Yose the Galilean to him: Aqiva, how long will you treat the Shekhinah as profane! Rather, one (throne) was for justice (din) and one (throne) was for mercy (tzedaqah)

Said Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah to him: Aqiva, what have you to do with the Haggadah? Cease your talk (about the Haggadah), and turn to (the laws concerning) Nega‘im and Ohalot!​

And likewise in Hagiga 15a:

Aher chopped down the shoots’: Of him the verse says, “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin” (Ecclesiastes 5:5). What does this mean? He saw that Metatron had been given permission [תושר] to sit and write the good deeds of Israel. He said, but it is taught that on high there will be no sitting, no conflict, no “back,” and no tiredness! Perhaps, G-d forbid, there are two powers [יתשתויושר]!​

In the first story, Rabbi Akiva interprets the 'ancient of days' and the 'one like a son of man' in the Book of Daniel as two distinct heavenly powers, both a kind of manifestation of God and one of the exalted figures (the one like "the son of man") being 'David', that is the Davidic Messiah.

Akiva is then immediately corrected by Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Eleazar who upbraid him for an erroneous exegesis of the passage involving the 'thrones' in Daniel's heavenly vision, explaining that two divine powers are not implied by the passage.

In the second story, the Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah has an ecstatic, mystical vision of the divine 'merkabah' or throne which he comes back from a 'heretic': namely, he comes to the conclusion that the angel Metatron might be one of 'two powers' in heaven alongside the God of Israel. Again, the Rabbis condemn him for lapsing into this binatarian heresy but unlike Rabbi Akiva, ben Abuyah remains in heresy.

We can see this same idea reiterated in the later merkabah literature, such as in the Book of 3 Enoch where the same story of 'Aher's' vision of "two divine powers" is given lengthier treatment:

Rabbi Ishmael said to me: The angel Metatron, Prince of the Divine Presence, the glory of highest heaven, said to me:

At first I was sitting on a great throne at the door of the seventh palace, and I judged all the denizens of the heights, the familia of the Omnipresent, on the authority of the Holy One, blessed be he...

But when Aher came to behold the vision of the Merkabah and set eyes on me, he was afraid and trembled before me...

Then he opened his mouth and said: “There are indeed two powers in heaven!”​

(continued....)

 

[Vouthon]

Compare the above with the 'data' from the New Testament texts concerning Jesus, such as:


1 Corinthians 8:6

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

​

The above statement is not thought by scholars to have been composed by Paul, rather they believe he was referencing an already well-known creed of the primitive church, which tells us that the earliest Christians had already come to regard Jesus as a pre-existent divine agent of creation co-eternal with God, here incorporating him into the shema.

There is a consensus in New Testament scholarship now that "high christology" emerged early, before the writing of the Pauline epistles (which are our first Christian documents). See the relevant chapters in Bart Ehrman's 2014 book, "How Jesus became God" for an accessible overview of this scholarly consensus.

For instance, Hurtado contends on pages 119 - 124 of his now standard treatment of the topic in the book, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity:

"…The overwhelming majority of scholars in the field agree that there are at least a few passages in Paul’s undisputed letters that reflect and presuppose the idea of Jesus’ preexistence…

Most scholars take these verses to reflect a belief in the personal preexistence and incarnation of Christ…

Paul’s formulaic statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6 indicates that already at that early point in the Christian movement believers were attributing to Christ not only preexistence or foreordination, but also an active role as divine agent in creation.…This is a suitable point at which to underscore certain key results of this discussion of Jesus’ preexistence…It appeared astonishingly early in the Christian movement. Second, the condensed nature of the references indicates that Paul was not introducing the idea but presumed acquaintance with it already among his converts…Third, these references include reflections of the idea that Christ was actively involved as divine agent in creation…

One final point: in these Pauline statements it is the historic figure Jesus who is referred to as preexistent…These passages directly attribute to Jesus personally a preexistence and a central role in creation…"​

 

[Muffled]

Hi there,

As a former Christian, having read the Old Testament and New Testament to completion and numerous books multiple times, it has always occurred to me that a few Old Testament scriptures that the New Testament says was fulfilled by Jesus or in some other way, seem to have been taken out of context.

Sometimes the writers would quote a single verse from a passage to prove a point and then when going back I would find that the context seemed very different.

In some cases I have found that this was a misunderstanding of the context on my part.

Would you guys say that the NT writers definitely take certain quotes out of context from the OT?

@Harel13

I believe it is possible but I would have to look at each one closely. The most notable one is that Jesus is Immanuel. I believe that one is correct.

 

[Muffled]

Oh, definitely. I know your subject is the Tanach, but Christians will also quote-mine out of other Jewish texts.

I believe that is just a biased view based on having a different religion.

 

[Muffled]

Yeah, but it's no biggie. It's a different religion. When Christians claim that it's the same religion and we Jews are just doing it wrong... that's where quotes and context become important to me.

Otherwise, c'est la vie.

I believe it is never a question of what religion it is as far as God is concerned. He simply prefers you to see things His way rather than your own way.

 

[Harel13]

I believe that is just a biased view based on having a different religion.

No kidding?!

You may be unaware, but this thread was originally Jews-only, until greater forces decided to open it to the public. As such, roughly 99% of my posts on this thread were made based on those original circumstances.

 

[Vouthon]

@pcarl Continuation of what I wrote above:

In terms of Metatron's presentation in the Sefer Hekhalot:


Andrei A

The significance of Metatron’s figure among the angelic hosts can be briefly and accurately summed up in his title the Lesser YHWH,[1] which occurs with abbreviations several times in 3 Enoch, including passages found in Synopse §15, §73, and §76. In Synopse §15, Metatron reports to R. Ishmael that the Deity proclaimed him the junior manifestation of his name in front of all the angelic hosts: “the Holy One, blessed be he, fashioned for me a majestic robe…and he called me, ‘The Lesser YHWH’ (N+qh ywy) in the presence of his whole household in the height, as it is written, ‘My name is in him.’”[2]

As with Metatron’s other offices, this designation as the lesser Tetragrammaton is closely connected with the angel’s duties and roles in the immediate presence of the Lord. Scholars have thus previously noted that the name the Lesser YHWH, attested in 3 Enoch (Synopse §15, §73, and §76) is used “as indicative of Metatron’s character of representative, vicarius, of the Godhead; it expresses a sublimation of his vice-regency[3] into a second manifestation[4] of the Deity in the name[5] YHWH.”[6]

The sharing of the attributes with the Godhead is significant and might convey the omniscience of its bearer. Peter Schäfer observes that in Sefer Hekhalot, Enoch-Metatron who stands at the head of all the angels as “lesser YHWH” is the representation of God. Endowed with the same attributes as God, Metatron, just like the Deity, is omniscient.[9] Another important attribute that the Deity and the lesser manifestation of His name share is the attribute of the celestial seat, an important symbol of authority.​

This kind of 'binatarian' heresy, which the Talmudic Rabbis fought against as a violation of monotheism, is thought by many scholars to lie at the roots of the New Testament 'high christology' (with Jesus assuming the role other heretical Jews like Aher gave to 'Metatron' as the "Lesser Yahweh" who represented God) and it is a separate matter from later Nicene Trinitarianism (which relied upon Greek philosophical categories of ontology, in part, for its articulation), which had no analogue in Second Temple Judaism.

In origins, the 'two powers' heresy was a Jewish heresy (much 'broader' than just early Christianity, which was but one 'binatarian sect' amongst others) - not a Christian one like the later Trinitarianism.

Alan F. Segal, a late Jewish scholar of the Second Temple era, studied the emergence and prevalence of this heresy in-depth in his now classic treatment of the topic, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports (1977); as did the Talmudist scholar Daniel Boyarin in various studies (including this essay) and most recently the late antique scholar Professor Peter Schafer in his new study, Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (2020) from Princeton University Press:


Two Gods in Heaven

Drawing on an in-depth analysis of ancient sources that have received little attention until now, Peter Schäfer demonstrates how the Jews of the pre-Christian Second Temple period had various names for a second heavenly power—such as Son of Man, Son of the Most High, and Firstborn before All Creation. He traces the development of the concept from the Son of Man vision in the biblical book of Daniel to the Qumran literature, the Ethiopic book of Enoch, and the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. After the destruction of the Second Temple, the picture changes drastically. While the early Christians of the New Testament took up the idea and developed it further, their Jewish contemporaries were divided. Most rejected the second god, but some—particularly the Jews of Babylonia and the writers of early Jewish mysticism—revived the ancient Jewish notion of two gods in heaven.
​

If people want to understand how something like 'New Testament' Christianity could emerge from Second Temple Judaism, these are the authoritative studies to read concerning the broader category of Jewish 'heresy' from which early Christianity developed.

 

[1213]

...Chapter 8, the following, shows the fulfillment of this prophecy. The young woman isn't a virgin, because she is a prophetess, Isaiah's wife (verse 3). She gives birth to Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz , who is Immanuel in this context.

So, is Immanuel like a title, or something else, because person’s name is actually Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz?