Many Trinitarians use their speculative reasoning to read into the text of Isaiah 45:11 in their attempts to find a pre-incarnate Son in the Hebrew Bible. Isaiah 45:11 reads, “Thus says Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel (Israel is the man also called Jacob), AND HIS MAKER (Israel’s Maker): “Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons, And you shall commit to Me the work of My hands.”
Some have alleged that the words, “and His Maker” is addressing a pre-incarnate God the Son. But how could an alleged timeless God the Son be said to have a maker while Trinitarian theology alleges that a God the Son timelessly existed without a beginning? I could stop right here and now because I have already exposed this false argument; yet I will cite the words of Trinitarian scholars themselves to expose this erroneous Trinitarian assumption.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary explains this passage as follows: “The Holy One of Israel; i.e. he who always does right, and with whom, therefore, it is absurd to find fault. His Maker; i.e. Israel's Maker, who has, therefore, the right to do with him as he pleases.”
It is hard to imagine how an alleged coeternal pre-incarnate God the Son could have a Maker and still be a true God Person. Wherefore, Isaiah 45:11 is not talking about one Divine Person as the MAKER (Creator) of another Divine Person as some Trinitarians and Arians have alleged. The passage is clearly speaking about Yahweh being “his Maker,” the creator of “Israel,” namely, Jacob.
In a similar way, Isaiah 44:6 (NASB) says, “Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel (the King of Jacob) and his Redeemer (Israel’s – or Jacob’s Redeemer), Yahweh of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me”. We know that God Himself changed Jacob’s name to Israel. This explains why God later spoke of Jacob by the name of Israel. Since Yahweh is spoken of twice as Israel’s King and Israel’s Redeemer (Jacob’s King and Jacob’s Redeemer), we know that the words “his Redeemer” is addressing Israel’s Redeemer (Jacob’s redeemer) rather than God the Father’s Redeemer.
The NIV Translation of Isaiah 44:6 shows that this passage is not the Father speaking about an alleged God the Son as “His Redeemer” (as God the Father’s Redeemer). The passage is addressing “His Redeemer”, namely, Israel (or Jacob’s) Redeemer.
Isaiah 44:6 (NIV), “This is what the LORD says-- Israel's (Jacob’s) King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.”
The NIV translates the Hebrew text as “Israel’s King and Redeemer,” so we know that this passage is not addressing God the Father’s King Redeemer. Since God the Father does not have a King or Redeemer over Him, we know that Isaiah 44:6 could not be addressing the Son of God as the Father’s King and Redeemer. Thus the whole Trinitarian argument completely collapses under the weight of the evidence presented by Trinitarian scholars themselves.
If anyone still thinks that “Israel’s King and Redeemer is addressing a God the Son, I encourage them to type in Isaiah 44:6 online at Bible Hub and check all of the free commentaries. I checked several of them and not a single one said that “HIS REDEEMER” is a reference to an alleged God the Son.
Another prime example where people often read a pre-incarnate Son into the text is in Isaiah 48:16, “And now the Lord God, and His Spirit, has sent me.”
The Pulpit Commentary suggests the probable meaning of Isaiah 48:16. “… here a fresh speaker is introduced … the prophet himself.” Here we can easily discern that God sent the prophet Isaiah by His Spirit. To read a God the Son into the text is blatant eisegesis of the inspired text. Notice that the prophet Isaiah wrote that “the Lord God … sent me.” Could God have sent a coequal God Person? If Isaiah was referring to a pre-incarnate Messiah (sent before the incarnation), then the Son would be an inferior and subordinate god person rather than a coequal Trinitarian God Person. Since no passage within the Hebrew Bible shows a pre-incarnate Son being literally made, being literally sent, or literally redeeming anyone as a Son before his virgin conception and birth in Bethlehem, we know that the Son could not have literally existed as a living Messiah before his virgin conception and birth at Bethlehem.