The Trinity and the Divine Son from Heaven

Oneness Pentecostals are very difficult to pin down on their doctrine. They will profess something at one moment, and then vociferously deny it the next.

One thing that I have seen them assert is that the deity of Jesus is the Father in Heaven, while the Son was His humanity on earth. Therefore, the Son began with His conception in the womb of Mary. That means, depending on how you look at that assertion, that they either deny the deity of the Father, making Him Jesus instead, or they deny the deity of Jesus, making Him nothing more than a vessel for the Father. I should say that Oneness deny both of those implications. However, they also deny the applicability of logic to their doctrine. It is just "human reasoning," they claim. The principles of logic violated by their doctrines are the Law of Non-Contradiction, which states that a thing and its contrary cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way, and the Law of Identity, which states that a thing must be itself, not something else, again at the same time and in the same way.

In John 6:62, that apostle quotes these words of Jesus: "Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?" They apply very specifically to the matter at hand. Jesus says that He was in heaven before His incarnation. Oneness claim that this is a reference to His deity as the Father. However, He explicitly refers to Himself as the Son in this verse, not the Father. Here is where the laws of logic apply: Oneness deny the Law of Identity by making Him something other than what He is -and says that He is - to avoid the implications of this verse. And they violate the Law of Non-Contradiction by making Him the Son and the Father at the same time, in violation of their own doctrine. I should repeat, however, that these logical problems don't bother Oneness, because they consider logic to be "human reasoning." 

In contrast, the Trinitarian violates neither rule. Since orthodox Christians hold that the Son has always been the Son, never the Father, both divine Persons keep their respective identities without contradiction. The Son was in Heaven from eternity as the Son. With Him was the Father, as the Father from eternity, just as we are told in John 1:1. Thus we maintain the full deity of both Father and Son, sacrificing neither in order to maintain a manmade doctrine.

God the Son, Our Savior Upon His Throne

Oneness Pentecostals claim that the Son of God began with the incarnation in the womb of Mary. They distinguish the Son from Jesus, whom they say was the Father before the incarnation. In other words, Jesus is God, but the Son is not. I don't claim to understand that.

However, such a doctrine ignores too much of the Old Testament, in which we see the interaction between the Father and Son in preparation for the incarnation and redemptive work of the Son. The most explicit is Psalm 45:6: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness." The value of this verse is that it is quoted in Hebrews 1:8 with this introduction: "But about the Son He says..." Thus we have inspired commentary telling us that Psalm 45:6 is the Father's comment to the Son, whom He addresses as "God." Oneness claim that it is a prophecy, not an actual address, but they provide no exegetical grounds for that assertion. The assertion is mere circular reasoning, required by their presupposed doctrine. It is not the result of any consideration within the text.

The problem with the Oneness doctrine is that it makes the Son of God just an idea in the Father's mind  in eternity. He wasn't a real person, until He was created in the womb of Mary. Thus, their doctrine boils down to the same doctrine as that of the Arians, that the Christ who walked among men was really just a created creature, not fully God in Himself, as orthodox Christians have always claimed. And that equivalency is actually entertaining, considering the contempt that Oneness express for Arians, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

However, they are both wrong. "Christ is a real savior, and not an instrument by which the sinner is enabled to gratify his pride. The Holy Ghost is a real sanctifier, and not an influence by which the energies of men are stimulated, and their better impulses roused into action. The Persons of the glorious Trinity have entered into a real covenant to redeem a Church from the lost multitude of the race, and are not the authors of paltry expedients or abortive efforts to coax men into what they find it impossible directly to effect" (James Henley Thornwell, "Theology as a Life in Individuals and the Church").

Moral Accountability: What is Atheism's Standard?

Is morality objective? By that, I mean, are there certain things which are wrong by nature, not because of some normative standard, regardless of the worldview or circumstances of the person committing the act? Most people, including atheists, would say so. The Holocaust was just wrong, for example. There is even a philosophy called Objectivism, based on that idea. I don't agree.

Logically, the concept of objective morality is self-destructive. It cannot be sustained by the worldview which advocates it.

In order to hold to a morality, we must assume accountability for our actions. Without accountability, we relapse back to subjectivism, every man doing what is right in his own eyes. But is accountability to something personal? Or to something impersonal? We must say to something personal, because the impersonal substance merely continues to function according to its physical laws, without regard to how some particles within it conceive their actions. What is the nature of the universe? Impersonal. Therefore, there can be no accountability to it. Yet, the accountability must still be to a universal, personal being, lest, again, we slip into subjectivism.

Therefore, we are, indeed, accountable to a universal, personal being, who is apart from the physical universe. Can there be any more-basic definition of deity? But that cannot be just any deity. Allah is completely independent of, and disconnected from, the physical creation. So is the god of modern Judaism. It is, in contrast, only the triune God of the Bible who can meet the definition of this logic. Why? Because He alone, though distinct from the physical universe, has entered it in the incarnation. He alone has united His transcendence with a true human nature, so that He has bridged that inherent gap between Himself and us.

In spite of the claims of the Objectivists, there is no morality apart from God. He defines it, and it is to Him that we are accountable for our actions, giving both objectivity and universality. And it is Him that we have offended by our moral failures: "Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear" (Isaiah 59:2). But He is merciful, and has provided a way to bridge that gap again, through His incarnation in Jesus Christ: "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (I Peter 2:24-25).

The Eternal Begetting of God the Son

One of the erroneous doctrines of Oneness Pentecostalism regarding Jesus is that His sonship began with His incarnation in the womb of Mary. Before that, His preexistence was as the Father. In contrast, orthodox Christians hold that His sonship was eternal. That is, that God the Son has been such from all of eternity.

The most explicit biblical reference to that truth is from Psalm 2:7: "The Lord said to Me, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten You.'" Oneness people cannot deny the reference of this verse, because we have the inspired interpretation of it in Hebrews 1:5, applying it to the Father's message to the Son.

Instead, the Oneness try to avoid the implications of the Psalm by pointing to its use of "today," which, they claim, must refer to a particular time. However, that assertion ignores the use of "today" in the Bible, especially in the Psalms, and as it is adopted in Hebrews. For example, we read in Hebrews 4:7, from Psalm 95:7, "He appoints a certain day, 'Today,' saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, 'Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.'" Here, it occurs three times, "a certain day" and "today" twice. About what day is the Psalmist talking, Oneness apologist? Well, every day, obviously. There is no day when we are allowed to harden our hearts.

Thus, the question about Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5, what day is the Father begetting the Son? Well, every day!

Having had this conversation with Oneness, I know their next quibble is, How can a father beget the same son every day? Of course, merely asking that question reveals what a carnal view they have of God, as if He fathers children like a human father does. Sometimes they will even demand, Well, then, who was His mother? Of course, the first response to that is to point out that their carnal demands are to the author of the Scripture, God Himself, not to me. But then, again, I cannot but notice what a carnal view of God they reveal, acting as if God reproduces, or that deity has parents. That is the Mormon doctrine, not anything that should be expected from the God of the Bible!

The Promise of a Church in the Intra-Trinitarian Covenant

We are taught to pray by claiming the promises of God - and I consider that a good thing. In fact, I believe that is what is meant by John, when he tells us to pray according to God's will (I John 5:14). One of the things that amazes me about this is that Jesus followed the same principle.

In two places in Isaiah, the Father promises a people, a posterity, to the pre-incarnate Son. In Isaiah 42:6, He says, "I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take You by the hand and keep You; I will give You as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations." The promise is even grander in Isaiah 49:6: "It is too light a thing that You should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make You as a light for the nations, that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth." The first could refer just to the Jews, but the second expands the promise to the Gentiles, as well, to give a fuller glory to the Son.

The Son responds in Isaiah 8:18, "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion." And again in Psalm 22:22: "I will tell of your name to my brothers." As the Father glorifies the Son with a posterity, so does the Son glorify the Father to that posterity. These last two verses are explicitly applied to the Son in Hebrews 2:12-13.

In the New Testament, we see Jesus claiming these promises of the Father in the Gospel of John. He refers to "those You have given me" in John 10:29: "My Father has given them to Me" [i. e., His "sheep"]. He makes similar remarks several times in John 17:4, 6, 9, 11-12, and 24. 

These verses describe what I have called the Intra-Trinitarian covenant. It is also called the covenant of redemption. There is more to that covenant than I describe here; I am merely describing one aspect of it. It is the basis of our salvation. The Father elected a church from all eternity, and gave it to the Son for redemption. I don't describe it here, but the Holy Spirit is also involved, undertaking to apply the redemption to the elect. This covenant, however, as much as we benefit from it, is not about us. it is about the glory that each Person of the Trinity gives to the others. I compare it to life insurance. Since it only pays upon the death of the party insured, he receives no benefit from it; rather, the benefits go to the beneficiaries, who are third parties to the contract. In the same way, the elect are the beneficiaries of the intra-Trinitarian covenant: we were not consulted, nor is it for our glory, but from it we receive redemption from our sins.

This covenant goes against two false doctrines. The first is that the love of God and the atonement of the cross are intended for everybody, but not necessarily effectual to anyone. The second is far more heinous, i. e., the doctrine of the Oneness pentecostals, who deny the Trinity, deny the person of the Father and the Holy Spirit. All three Persons of the Trinity are, and have always been, involved in our salvation. Without the Trinity, therefore, there can be no one saved.

This doctrine is described in the Westminster Confession of Faith (VIII:1): "It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and men, the prophet, priest, and king; the head and Savior of the Church, the heir or all things, and judge of the world; unto whom He did, from all eternity, give a people to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified."

The Pre-Incarnate Sonship of Christ: A Message for Oneness Believers

According to Oneness Pentecostals, the baby in the Bethlehem manger was the revelation of God the Father in the flesh as Son. That is, there is no separate Person of the Son. The Son is the flesh, while the Father is the deity. They challenge orthodox Christians to show where Scripture reveals a pre-existent Son. That is the question I wish to address.

In the Old Testament, I would refer first to Psalm 2:7-9: "The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.'" This passage is applied to Christ in Hebrews 1:5. And secondly, II Samuel 7:14: "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son." This text is also referred to Christ in Hebrews 1:5, though it was originally spoken of Solomon, as a type of Christ.

In the New Testament, we can look at Galatians 4:4: "When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the law." Notice that God sent His Son; He didn't come forth as His [own] Son! Thus, not only must the Son have already existed, but there is a distinction between the Father Who sends and the Son Who is sent.

Thus, we can see in just these three places, two in the Old Testament (but cited in the New) and one in the New Testament, that the Sonship of Christ didn't begin at His incarnation, but was an eternal aspect of His existence. This is not an exhaustive list, but suffices to demonstrate that the Oneness view misrepresents the teachings of Scripture.

The Deity of Christ in the Epistle to the Colossians

 
In this Epistle, it is striking how many times that the Apostle Paul reminded the Christians at Colossae that Jesus their Redeemer was and is the God of the universe, incarnate in the flesh as a man like us.

Col. 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

Col. 1:19: "In Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell."

Col. 2:9: "In Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."

Three times in the first two chapters, Paul reminds them of the incarnation of God, that the Jehovah of  the Old Testament had lived among us as a man in Jesus Christ. Why the urgency? The answer is evident in the context of the three verses. In Col. 1:23, Paul warns these believers, "if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard." And in Col. 2:8, he says, "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

So, soon after the first two verses, and immediately before the third, Paul warns the Colossian Christians about being diverted from the Gospel of salvation in Christ.

I don't know the historical context in which this epistle was written, but its implications for Christians today are clear. These verses tell us that it is no random chance that the false teachers attack us at exactly this point, the full deity of Jesus Christ. We face a three-pronged attack of Arians who teach that Christ is a subordinate, created being, e. g., the Jehovah's Witnesses;  tritheists who try to tell us that Christ is just one more godling in our sky, e. g., the Mormons; and the Sabellians (also called Modalists), who tell us that Christ isn't God in His own right, but merely one facet of a shifting godhead, e. g., the United Pentecostal Church.

I am amazed at God's preparation of His scriptures, two-thousand years in advance, to give us the guarding principles that we need today to deal with false teachers. I am just saddened that these sects continue to grow, indicating that professing Christians are failing to heed Paul's message.

The Anti-Traditional Essence of the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation

According to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist (or communion, or Lord's Supper, depending on one's tradition) are physically transformed in substance, though not in form, into the literal flesh and blood of Christ by the words of institution, i. e., when the priest says the words "this is my body" and "this is my blood." This change in substance is called "transubstantiation."

The Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong explains this mystery by analogy to the Incarnation. He says (in his book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism) that the relationship of the elements before and after their transubstantiation is like the union of deity and humanity in the Person of Christ. The Catholic Encyclopedia also explains the doctrine in incarnational terms. I do not know whether that makes it official dogma, but I am responding to it as such, until shown otherwise.

That analogy presents a serious problem, even worse that the error of transubstantiation itself.

I agree with the Catholic Church that Christ is one Person, uniting in Himself the deity of the Second Person of the Trinity and the humanity born of the Virgin Mary. We also agree that these two natures are distinct, though not separate, not mixed or confused, but each retaining its respective nature. This is formulated in the Chalcedonian Creed. For me, the official statement is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith VIII:2, "So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion."

In contrast, in the Fifth Century, a man named Eutyches argued that the Person of Christ was of one nature, which was both divine and human.This doctrine is known as Eutychianism, in his honor, or Monophysitism. It is the official doctrine of the Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac churches, but is rejected by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, as a perversion of the Person of Christ, in that it turns Him, not into God or man, but rather into a hybrid which is neither fully one or the other. This was the historical situation which resulted in the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Do you see why I bring this up? If Jesus is fully human, as both I and the Catholic Church affirm, then He has a body with the essential attributes of any other human being. That includes two things, off the top of my head, which are relevant here: first, that He can only be physically in one place at a time, and second, that His flesh is itself, neither transformable into something else, nor subject to transformation from something else. One aspect of that is the question of where Jesus now is. So, where does the Bible say that is? Heaven (Luke 24:51 and Rom. 8:34)!

The Church of Rome, on the other hand, claims that the flesh of Christ is wherever His deity is, which is, of course, everywhere! Is that not the teaching of Eutyches? Is that not what was rejected by Chalcedon, almost sixteen centuries ago? Yes, it is! The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation intermixes the humanity and divinity of Christ, so that each shares in the attributes of the other.

Rome claims that their doctrine is from "tradition," yet it wasn't formally adopted until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Thus, the orthodox doctrine which was expressed in the Fifth Century was denied by Rome in the Thirteenth. That, to my mind, puts the lie to Catholic claims of tradition, not that tradition would have justified a doctrine of such superstitious and idolatrous implications. It also indicates that no person, claiming the Name of Christ and housing the Holy Spirit in his heart, can participate in a Catholic eucharist, as if it were the same thing as true communion in the body and blood of Christ.

The Prophet Isaiah and the Pre-Refutation of Mormon Polytheism

"Before Me no god was formed,
   Nor shall there be any after Me."

The phrase quoted here is the last couplet of Isaiah 43:10. This profession of monotheism is a repeated theme in this section of the book of Isaiah (chapters 40-48). In 40:18, the prophet asks, "To whom then will you liken God?" And God Himself repeats the question in verse 25: "To whom then will you compare Me, that I should be like him, says the Holy One." And again in 41:4: "I, the Lord, the first, and with the last I am He." In 42:8, He says, "I am the Lord; that is My name; My glory I give to no other." In 43:10, He repeats the declaration quoted above: "Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be after Me." But then He continues in verse 11, "I, I am the Lord, and besides Me there is no

savior." In 44:6, we find, "I am the first and I am the last; besides Me there is no god." And verse 8, "Is there a God besides Me? There is no Rock; I know not any." In verse 24, he proclaims, "I am the Lord, who made all things, Who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by Myself." In 45:5, He tells us, "I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no god." In verse 21, "There is no other god besides Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides Me." In 46:9, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me." And finally, in 48:12, "I am He; I am the first, and I am the last."

Why have I made such an extensive list? Because Mormons claim that there are many gods; Jehovah, they say, is god only here on earth, in reward from the god of his home world. They often try to wriggle out of the idolatry label. However, here is the evidence from the mouths of their own past leaders. To my mind, this feature alone makes them pagans, regardless of their claim to be "the Church of Jesus Christ" or protestations of commonality with Christians. Of course, while a sufficient justification, their polytheism is not the only reason that I insist that Mormonism is an anti-Christian cult.

Why do I consider these quotes from Isaiah so important? Well, look at what else God claims through that prophet. In Isaiah 43:25, God also says, "I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins." And in 45:22, "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other." In other words, Jehovah, the solitary God of the Bible, reserves to Himself the power to save all those who confess Him alone. Whoever makes up a god of his own imagination, as the Mormons have done, is lost, forever judged for his sins. I want Mormons to come to recognize that they follow a false god so that they can repent, and return to the true and living God of the Bible.

As a side note, I also want to point out to the followers of the Watchtower that they, too, follow a false god. Twice, in the passages I quoted above (Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12), God, Jehovah, refers to Himself as "the first and the last." Jesus applies those same words to Himself three times, in Revelation 1:17, 2:8, and 22:13. Jesus my Redeemer is the incarnation of that Jehovah  who proclaims Himself to be God alone in the prophecies of Isaiah. My prayer for you, too, is that God will open your eyes to the superstitions of the Watchtower Society, and lead you to the true Jesus, Immanuel, God with us, that you may be saved. In order to truly witness for Jehovah, you must confess that He is incarnate in Jesus Christ!

Matthew 26:39, The True Humanity of Christ

"And going a little farther He fell on his face and prayed, saying, 'My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.'"

Early in the Second Century, immediately following the time of the Apostles, a heresy arose called Docetism. The Docetists held that the human body of Christ was an illusion, since (they claimed) the divine cannot possibly be united with flesh. This was a precursor of Gnosticism. We really don't see this heresy around much, though aspects of it pop up here and there. For example, Sabellians (represented mainly by the United Pentecostal Church) deny the Trinity, claiming that the three persons are actually merely modes of the one God. Since they hold that there is no Second Person of the Trinity, then obviously He could not have been united with a human nature. And Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the resurrection was only spiritual, not a literal resurrection of the flesh of Jesus. While neither of these is strictly Docetism, there are obvious parallels.

However, consider the Scripture above. We see Jesus showing true fear, real human emotion, in the face of His impending suffering and death. Trepidation cannot be a quality of His divine nature. Therefore, we see experiential evidence of His true humanity. He was a man, regardless of what Sabellians or Docetists can protest. And as a true man, in addition to His true divinity, Jesus can therefore sympathize with our own fears and sufferings (Hebrews 4:15). That is great personal comfort that we can take from the high theology of the dual nature of Christ!

Zechariah and Biblical Repentance

"The Lord was very angry with your fathers. Therefore say to them, Thus declares the Lord of hosts: Return to Me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. Do not be like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried out, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, Return from your evil ways and from your evil deeds.’ But they did not hear or pay attention to me, declares the Lord. Your fathers, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever? But My words and My statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers? So they repented and said, 'As the Lord of hosts purposed to deal with us for our ways and deeds, so has He dealt with us.'"
- Zechariah 1:2-6

The Prophet Zechariah shared the ministry with the Prophet Haggai in the period immediately following the return of the Jews to the land of Israel after their exile in Babylon. In a curious aside, archeologists may recently have found his tomb!

As I have noted before, repentance is a prominent theme among the writings of the Jewish prophets. When I consider the claim of classical dispensationalists that the Gospel isn't found in the Old Testament, I often wonder whether they are reading the same Bible that I am. But I digress...

Matthew Henry paraphrases verse 2, "Turn you to me in a way of faith and repentance, duty and obedience, and I will turn to you in a way of favour and mercy, peace and reconciliation." I think Henry brings out the essence of repentance: it isn't merely a sorrowing over one's sins, though that is part of it, but rather a change of course, a turning away from one's old path to a new path in fellowship with God. The Westminster Confession of Faith, in the chapter on Repentance unto Life, states it wonderfully (XV:2): "By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments."

Zechariah illustrates where Judas failed to repent. The story is told in Matthew 27:3-10. In verse 3, we see that Judas "changed his mind." But what does he then do? Plead for the forgiveness of God and the disciples? No, as verse 5 tells us, he committed suicide. In other words, Judas certainly sorrowed over his sin, but he didn't depart from it to walk in a new way. That is what distinguishes his sorrow from repentance.

Returning to Zechariah, we see that God has punished the forefathers of the prophet's audience, and this remnant acknowledges the justice of God's judgment (verse 6), a step that Judas failed to take. Then in verse 12, a new character appears, the Angel of the Lord, who pleads, "O Lord of hosts, how long will you have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which you have been angry these seventy years?" Along with most orthodox readers, I consider this Angel to be the preincarnate Second Person of the Trinity, because He is frequently addressed alternatively as the Lord Himself. Here, He intercedes on behalf of Jerusalem, acting in His role as Mediator. This is another essential difference between sorrow and repentance: true repentance relies on the intercession of Jesus Christ, the Mediator. Repentance doesn't restore or create holiness; rather, it serves as a step in applying the imputed righteousness of Christ, which alone restores our standing before God the Father.

Then in verses 16-17, Jehovah responds to this intercession: "Therefore, thus says the Lord, I have returned to Jerusalem with mercy; my house shall be built in it, declares the Lord of hosts, and the measuring line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem. Cry out again, Thus says the Lord of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity, and the Lord will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem.’"

Here are the steps that Zechariah shows for true repentance: sorrow for sins, a new path of obedience (not that this can be done infallibly, since the person is still a sinner), dependence on the intercession and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, and a restored relationship with God. Leaving out any step necessarily overthrows the reality of the others.

The Pre-Incarnate Mediatorial Role of Christ in the Old Testament

“The Lord was very angry with your fathers. Therefore say to them, Thus declares the Lord of hosts: Return to Me, says the Lord of hosts, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. Do not be like your fathers, to whom the former prophets cried out, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, Return from your evil ways and from your evil deeds.’ But they did not hear or pay attention to Me, declares the Lord. Your fathers, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever? But My words and My statutes, which I commanded My servants the prophets, did they not overtake your fathers? So they repented and said, As the Lord of hosts purposed to deal with us for our ways and deeds, so has He dealt with us.” The word of the Lord came to the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, saying, “I saw in the night, and behold, a man riding on a red horse! He was standing among the myrtle trees in the glen, and behind him were red, sorrel, and white horses. Then I said, ‘What are these, my lord?’ The angel who talked with me said to me, ‘I will show you what they are.’ So the man who was standing among the myrtle trees answered, ‘These are they whom the Lord has sent to patrol the earth.’ And they answered the angel of the Lord who was standing among the myrtle trees, and said, ‘We have patrolled the earth, and behold, all the earth remains at rest.’ Then the angel of the Lord said, ‘O Lord of hosts, how long will You have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which You have been angry these seventy years?’ And the Lord answered gracious and comforting words to the angel who talked with me. So the angel who talked with me said to me, ‘Cry out, Thus says the Lord of hosts: I am exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion. And I am exceedingly angry with the nations that are at ease; for while I was angry but a little, they furthered the disaster. Therefore, thus says the Lord, I have returned to Jerusalem with mercy; My house shall be built in it, declares the Lord of hosts, and the measuring line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem. Cry out again, Thus says the Lord of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity, and the Lord will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem.’”
- Zechariah 1:2-17

One of the errors which has been perpetrated down through history is that the mediatorial office of Christ began at His ascension. After all, wasn't His mediatorial work based on His crucifixion and resurrection? And, of course, it was. However, I believe that the Scriptures teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was active in mediating between God, i.e., the First Person, and His people throughout history, including the Old Testament dispensation, looking forward to His mediatorial sacrifice. This is the basis of His priestly office.

We see that work here in Zechariah 1. The section begins with a record of God's judgments on Israel for her idolatry, See especially verse 6. Then the Angel of the Lord appears in verse 8 (revealed as such in verse 11).

I agree with the traditional understanding that the Angel of the Lord (specifically, not angels in general) is the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity, due to the interchange of His identity with that of the Lord in various parts of the historical portions of the Old Testament. See, for example, Genesis 16:7-11, compared with verse 13. The Angel of the Lord is described distinctly, yet identified with Jehovah, a classical representation of these two Persons of the Trinity.

Now, back in Zechariah 1, we see the Angel speaking up for the remnants of Judah. In verse 12, He asks, "O Lord of hosts, how long will You have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which You have been angry these seventy years?" And immediately we see a change in the countenance of Jehovah. Where we saw His wrath, as described above, now contrariwise in verse 13 we read, "and the Lord answered gracious and comforting words to the angel who talked with me." From wrath to grace and comfort, merely in response to the Mediator's interposition.

For us, we should find much comfort here. We see the covenantal faithfulness of Christ, revealed even centuries before He was born in the manger. And we see the righteous wrath of God, which we have every reason to fear, turned aside by our theanthropic Mediator. What peace that should be to each of His people! And for those who hold erroneous views of the person of Christ, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, the Word witnesses against you, and you cannot hope in the mediatorial work of that Christ Whom you malign!