Why I Cannot Accept The Trinity Doctrine: Old Testament

The God of Abraham Was Not a Trinity.

Last time, I tackled the Trinity from the perspective of the New Testament.

Taking on the Old Testament at the same time would’ve made the article overwhelming.

So this is now the third piece in my “Trinity / Heretic” mini-series.

If you missed the first two, here they are:

1 - According to most Christians, I’m a heretic

2 - Why I Cannot Accept The Trinity Doctrine: New Testament

I believe those already laid the foundation for why I believe that the Trinity doctrine doesn’t hold up under Scripture.

But I also feel it’s necessary, perhaps even more for myself than anyone else, to dive deeper into the Old Testament.

It’s where many trinitarian arguments go to hide: shrouded in mystery, read backwards through the lens of later theology.

So like the last article, this one took weeks, multiple rewrites, and a lot of wrestling. I don’t want to rush this. I want to get it right.

I also want to say, I’m building on the work of many biblical scholars over the centuries, I don’t get all the credit for what is shared here, I’m putting together my line of reasoning as to why I do not see the trinity doctrine in the Old Testament.

Let’s dive in.

---

1. “Hear O Israel” — The Shema and the Simplicity of God

It was only in recent years I even became aware of the term “The Shema”, despite knowing it’s phrasing, and it seems like a natural starting point in this discussion.

Often times, with trinitarian scholarship, there’s a lot of thought that goes into the interpretation of various wordings and Hebrew grammar, and while I’m very grateful to the many scholars who have dedicated their lives to the study of these things, I’m also someone who values great simplicity, and I do believe there comes a point where scholarly pursuit can almost become a god in and of itself.

(I recognize the potential for irony in that last statement since I have embarked on some degree of scholarly pursuit around this topic)

But, I think that before diving into Genesis or discussing the nuances of Hebrew grammar, it makes sense to begin with what Jesus called the greatest commandment.

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”
—Deuteronomy 6:4 (RSV)
Quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:29 (NASB95)

This verse, as I know now to be the Shema, was the theological anchor of Jewish monotheism. And it’s my understanding that it was recited daily by faithful Jews.

And notably, it’s the exact phrase Jesus quoted when asked what mattered most.

If there were ever a moment to reveal a more complex, tri-personal structure within God, this would have been it. But Jesus doesn’t expand or reinterpret. He affirms it exactly as written: The Lord is one.

Not “three in one.” Not “one essence with three persons.” Just… one.

So, I feel quite confident in saying the Shema does not allow for hidden plurality or what we could call “ontological gymnastics”.

While I can’t claim to be a mighty scholar of OT Hebrew, I do know the Hebrew word echad (one) is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament and never means a compound essence of multiple persons. It simply means: one.

I understand that some will try to argue that this term echad allows for compound unity (e.g., “one cluster of grapes” in Num. 13:23).

But in Deuteronomy 6:4, it doesn’t describe a group. It very specifically defines the identity of Israel’s God.

This verse was intended to distinguish Israel’s God from the polytheistic gods of the surrounding heathen nations. Perhaps we could say it was a spiritual battle cry of singular devotion.

The whole point was: “We don’t have many gods. We have One.”

And Jesus agreed.

---

2. Genesis 1 — “Let Us Make Man”: A Misread Plural

Now, it makes sense to go right back to the first chapter in the Bible. One of the most frequently cited Old Testament “clues” for the Trinity is Genesis 1:26.

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.’” (NASB95)

At first glance, the plural language might seem like God is talking within Himself, perhaps Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in conversation. But if we slow down and actually read what follows, something stands out.

The very next verse shifts immediately to the singular.

“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27, NASB95)

If Genesis 1:26 was revealing three divine persons acting together, why does the writer immediately collapse it back to one God acting alone?

With my bias towards simplicity, I believe there are simpler, well-known explanations for this plural.

Jewish scholars, and many Christian ones, have long understood this as a “plural of majesty”. As in, it’s a kind of formal, elevated speech used by kings.

In this sense, it could be understood that God is addressing His heavenly court, the angels, as witnesses to His creative work. And in a sense, speaking to their (future) participation in this creation.

What’s really striking to me is that no Old Testament prophet ever pointed to this passage as proof of a multi-personal God.

And, further to that, Jesus Himself never once appeals to Genesis 1:26 when explaining His own relationship to the Father.

If the Trinity were hidden here, waiting to be revealed, we would expect Jesus or the apostles to highlight it. But they don’t. And I believe that matters greatly.

Genesis 1 is majestic and mysterious, but it does not require, or even suggest, a triune reading. It’s one God who creates, who blesses and who breathes life.

Reading the Trinity into this passage is something of a retroactive interpretation, not something drawn naturally from the text.

---

3. The Angel of the LORD — Not a Second Yahweh

Another place I’ve come to learn that people sometimes point to as evidence for the Trinity is the figure known as the Angel of the LORD.

This one might seem more subtle, but in several Old Testament stories, this messenger seems to carry divine authority. Sometimes he speaks as if God Himself is speaking.

For example, in Exodus 3, the Angel of the LORD appears to Moses in the burning bush, yet it’s also described as God calling to Moses.

It’s understandable why some might wonder: is this the pre-incarnate Christ? Is this a second divine person?

But when we read the full depth of Scripture, the picture stays simpler.

The Hebrew word for “angel” (mal’ak) simply means messenger. It doesn’t require that the messenger be a separate divine being of the status of God himself.

In fact, it’s consistent with a messenger who represents God so fully that to hear him is to hear God. This speaks to submission and agency.

And, further to that, we see this same pattern in the New Testament.

Jesus says, “Whoever receives Me receives the One who sent Me.” (John 13:20)

Submission and agency.

And when the Spirit speaks, Jesus says it’s not the Spirit’s own initiative, but the Father’s will carried out.

The Angel of the LORD is not God splitting into multiple persons. It’s God sending His word, His message, His power, often embodied through an agent.

Again, neither the Old Testament writers nor Jesus Himself ever point to the Angel of the LORD as evidence of a multi-personal God.

These moments show the closeness of God to His creation, but they don’t demand a Trinity.

---

Section 4: Isaiah 9:6 — The Misunderstood Titles

One of the most commonly cited Old Testament “proofs” for the Trinity is Isaiah 9:6:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given… and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (KJV)

At first glance, it seems to stack divine titles onto the promised child. And many see this as a slam-dunk for Trinitarian theology.

But let’s slow down.

Because once again, the original Hebrew, historical translations, and grammatical structure tell a different story.

---

The “Name” Is Singular

The Hebrew phrase “his name shall be called” is grammatically singular.
This suggests one name or title, not a string of divine identities.

In fact, many respected Hebrew scholars and early Jewish sources, like the Targum and Septuagint, read this differently.

The Septuagint, translated 2–3 centuries before Christ, renders it:

“His name is called Messenger of the Great Council...”

Not a list of four titles. Not “Mighty God” or “Everlasting Father.” Just one title, describing the child’s role, not his nature.

The Targum, an ancient Aramaic commentary, interprets this as:

“The Messiah in whose days peace will increase upon us, in the presence of the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Everlasting Father.”

In other words:
God is the Wonderful Counselor,
God is the Mighty One,
God is the Everlasting Father.
The Messiah lives and reigns in the presence of God, bringing peace.

---

Trinitarian Translations Shift the Emphasis

Most popular English translations (especially those produced after Trinitarian doctrine was formalized) use future tense verbs like “shall be called” to fit Isaiah 9:6 into a messianic prophecy mold that emphasizes Jesus as God.

But again, the original Hebrew doesn’t use future tense.
It describes a child who has been born, a son who has been given, and whose name is (already) called something.

If this were truly a direct prophecy about Jesus being “God the Son,” why wouldn’t the New Testament quote it?

Why don’t Paul, Peter, or even the gospel writers ever cite this verse as proof of Jesus' divine identity?

---

“Everlasting Father” — Doesn’t Fit Trinitarian Claims

Ironically, even if we grant the traditional rendering, one of the titles here creates a major problem: “Everlasting Father.”

If this is describing Jesus, and He is the Son, why is He being called the Father?

Trinitarians believe in distinct persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

So calling Jesus the Father muddies their own system.

But in a non-Trinitarian view, the logic is clearer:

• The child is given authority and peace (v.7),

• His role represents the Father's will,

• And he is named in relation to God’s character, not equated with God’s essence.

---

A Simpler, More Coherent Reading

Rather than try to cram Trinitarian assumptions into a poetic Hebrew text, it’s better to let the verse breathe.

The child in Isaiah 9:6 is:

• A ruler appointed by God

• Acting in God’s name and authority

• Bringing peace and justice on God’s behalf

He is not called God.
He is named in honor of God’s nature, because he reflects God’s mission.

The entire passage (Isaiah 9:1–7) is focused on hope, government, and peace, not mystical metaphysical theology.

And when read in that context, Isaiah 9:6 becomes a beautiful prophecy of God working through His appointed Messiah, not a coded Trinity declaration.

---

Section 5: Daniel’s Vision of the Son of Man

One of the strongest Old Testament passages used to suggest a divine Messiah is found in Daniel 7, where Daniel sees “one like a son of man” approaching the “Ancient of Days.”

Here’s the passage:

“I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Honor, and a kingdom…”
— Daniel 7:13–14 (NASB95)

Jesus frequently referred to Himself as the Son of Man, connecting Himself directly to this vision.

But let’s pause and ask a few simple questions.

Who is the Ancient of Days?

It’s clearly God. The one seated, eternal, glorious.

The one on the throne. The one giving authority.

And the Son of Man?

He approaches. He is presented. He is given dominion.

He does not take the throne. He does not approach as an equal.

He is exalted by another.

This matters.

It tells us something simple and profound: the Son of Man is not co-equal in status or authority. He is elevated because the Ancient of Days chooses to elevate Him.

That doesn’t reduce Christ’s glory. It clarifies its source.

What the Text Does Not Say

It doesn’t say “the second person of the Trinity approached the first.”

It doesn’t say they shared one divine essence.

It doesn’t describe a pre-existent, co-equal Son returning to a throne He had always shared.

Instead, it describes honor bestowed, authority received, and a clear distinction in role and rank.

If the Trinity were true, this would have been the perfect moment to depict it. But it doesn’t.

It shows us what is consistent across Scripture: Jesus is God’s appointed ruler. The Lamb who was slain. The King who was exalted.

Not the co-author of the plan.

The recipient of it.

Trinitarian Responses and the Problems They Face

Some might say, “Well, this is simply Jesus in His messianic role. In His humanity, He’s subordinate. But in His divinity, He’s equal.”

But Daniel’s vision isn’t about Jesus during His earthly ministry. It’s not limited to time and space. This is a heavenly vision. And even in that setting, the hierarchy remains.

Others may argue this simply depicts the Son’s mission, that He always had authority, but this is a public declaration of it.

But the text doesn't say “acknowledged.” It says “given.”

This vision shows Jesus receiving power, glory, and a kingdom. These are not things He is reclaiming, they are granted.

And this theme continues across the New Testament:

• “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” (Matt. 28:18)

• “Then the Son Himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him.” (1 Cor. 15:28)

Authority is not assumed. It’s given.

And in the end, Jesus returns it to the Father.

---

Daniel 7 Fits Perfectly, If We Let It

Daniel’s vision is not Trinitarian.

But it is profoundly biblical.

It shows us exactly what we’ve seen again and again:

• The Father rules.

• The Son is exalted.

• The Spirit empowers.

There is unity. There is divine purpose. There is honor. But there is no confusion.

The Son is not equal to the Ancient of Days. He is lifted up by Him.

This is the same picture we see in the Gospels, the letters of Paul, and the book of Revelation.

And it’s the same story Scripture tells from beginning to end… if we’re willing to let it speak.

---

Section 6: Echoes in the Psalms and Prophets

The Old Testament contains dozens of passages pointing to the coming Messiah. Trinitarians often treat these as cryptic references to a second divine person hidden within the Godhead.

But the texts themselves don’t support that view unless you import the Trinity back into them.

Let’s look at some of the key passages.

---

Psalm 2 — The Installed Son

"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have fathered You.’"
— Psalm 2:7, NASB95

This Psalm is messianic. It speaks of God's chosen King, installed on Zion. The LORD (Yahweh) speaks to His Son, affirming a begetting.

A beginning, a granting of identity and authority.

Not eternal co-existence. Not co-equality.

Begetting implies origin. Appointment. Delegation.

This matches the New Testament’s language:

"God raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son; today I have fathered You.'"
— Acts 13:33, NASB95

The apostles didn’t quote this to prove Jesus’ eternal deity.

They quoted it to show that God had raised Him up and exalted Him.

That’s a very different message.

---

Psalm 110 — David’s Lord

"The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.’"
— Psalm 110:1, NASB95

This is another heavily quoted messianic passage in the New Testament.

But what does it actually say?

• The LORD (Yahweh) speaks.

• To my Lord (Adonai).

These are not the same being.

Some Trinitarians point out that "Adonai" can refer to God, but it can also refer to human or angelic superiors, depending on context. David is acknowledging someone greater than himself, yet distinct from Yahweh.

Jesus quotes this Psalm to stump the Pharisees. Not to declare a co-equal Trinity, but to challenge their assumptions about the Messiah’s origin and authority.

In context, this verse shows divine appointment, not divine identity.

---

Isaiah’s Servant Songs

Throughout Isaiah, the servant of the LORD is presented as someone distinct from Yahweh, yet chosen and empowered by Him.

"Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him..."
— Isaiah 42:1, NASB95

• The Servant is upheld by God.

• The Servant is chosen by God.

• The Servant receives God's Spirit.

This mirrors the baptism of Jesus in the New Testament, where the Father speaks, the Son is baptized, and the Spirit descends. It’s not a Trinity, it’s a divine commissioning.

Again, the roles are clear.

"The LORD has called Me from the womb..." (Isaiah 49:1)
"The LORD God has opened My ear; and I was not disobedient..." (Isaiah 50:5)

This Servant hears, obeys, and is sent. He is not co-equal in essence. He is faithful in function.

---

What Do These Echoes Reveal?

In all these passages, the pattern is the same:

• God appoints.

• God speaks.

• God exalts.

The Messiah is honored, but never as Yahweh Himself.

This is not theological sleight of hand. It’s plain text. But once the Trinity is assumed, these verses are bent to fit it.

Instead, we should let them stand.

They testify to a God who sends, a Son who obeys, and a Spirit who empowers.

No creeds required.

---

Conclusion: Scripture Has Spoken, But the Story Isn’t Over

We’ve walked through the foundational texts of the Old Testament, line by line, and I believe the case is clear:

There is no Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures.
There is One God: The Father.
There is One Messiah: The Son whom He sent.
And there is One Spirit: His presence and power at work in the world.

The more I search the Scriptures, the more I see simplicity where man has introduced complexity, clarity where creeds have layered confusion.

But if the Bible never describes God as a triune being, the question remains:

Where did the Trinity doctrine actually come from?

How did it become the central litmus test of Christian orthodoxy?

Why was it not taught by the apostles, and yet demanded by councils centuries later?

And what price did people pay for challenging it?

That’s where we go next.

Because we’ve examined the Scriptures, and now it’s time to examine the history.

The next piece in this series will explore how the Trinity doctrine rose to dominance, not through quiet consensus, but through controversy, imperial power, and yes, even bloodshed.

Truth does not require coercion.

And doctrine does not become sacred just because it’s old.

So let’s keep going.

Not to tear down, but to seek truth, wherever it leads.