And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
(Genesis 1:3 ESV)
I think the Creation is one of the clearest pictures we have regarding the Father's declarative role within the Trinity. I don't know that I can add much more to illustrate this point without being redundant, so I'll leave it at this: God spoke, and stuff happened. In the first chapter of Genesis, all the things that God commanded into being "let there be..." immediately sprang into existence. That ought to be of great comfort to us doubtful folks. When we consider our Christian walk and ponder if we will make it to the end we ought to reflect back on Genesis and the hope of God's declaration. There was no bartering about what kind of light, or how bright it would be, not even when light would come into existence. We see God declare "Let there be light" and reality responds in submission to His authority. Not only that, but what God sees is good to his eyes. He didn't give us some half-baked creation. In it's original {pre-fall} state, everything that has been made met God's standard of goodness. Why it all seems messed up now is a completely different conversation, which we'll get to later.
I can see a question that begs asking in light of what I've just said. "How do we know that it's God the Father declaring creation and not the Holy Spirit, or the Son?" Let's look back at the preceding verses of Gen. 1:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2 ESV)
Before we get too far into it here we should pause and remember that the content of Genesis 1 is mysterious, and supernatural. That being said, I cannot provide a specific scientific or historical explanation about how this came to pass. I can, however, comment on it's plausibility. In my mind, creation comes down to a matter of will, and power. In order for existence to exist there would have to be something transcendentally powerful enough to make it so. Math testifies to this well, we all learn that 0 cannot multiply when we're in grade school. To put it more philosophically: "nothingness" cannot yield "something-ness" unless it's worked on by an external force with both the will to create, and the power to do so.
In verses 1 and 2 we see God, and the Spirit of God mentioned separately which, in my mind, draws one to see some sort of distinction in the two. Also, we see the Spirit of God acting in verses 2 [although I don't know the effect of the hovering], continuing on to verse 3 Moses refers back to God as the one that spoke things into being. Using the diction [albeit the translated diction] of Genesis, the lack of a qualifier to the term God (such as the Spirit of God) points us back to that which precedes the "Spirit of God" within the text itself.
We see the members of the Trinity further distinguished from one another in Genesis 3. Bear in mind, that in Genesis 1 we have seen God, and the Spirit of God mentioned in regards to creation. In Genesis 3, the third member is alluded to in God's curse upon Satan(the serpent).
The LORD God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
(Genesis 3:14-15 ESV)
This passage is widely known as one that foreshadows Christ's victory over sin and death. Again we see a slew of declarations, the final one being that of an imminent triumph of one sent by God to war with the serpent. This is where this idea gets a little interesting, because it spans the whole scope of scripture. As history progressed the "offspring of the woman" was more and more defined. Moses mentions him in Deuteronomy 15:18 as the "Prophet" that reflects himself except with greater authority, and Isaiah prophecies about him in chapters 52-56. In both cases, we see accounts of a man sent with the purposes of redeeming that which was lost. This distinguishes the Son from the Father and the Spirit in that he is mentioned as a man (not a spirit) sent by the Father to be a champion for the redemption of God's people and creation.
He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. (1 Peter 1:20-21 ESV)
I'm going to conclude with these verses because it both concludes my previous thoughts, and connects them to my next installment regarding the Son. Remember what I said earlier about the actions of one member of the Trinity illuminating the work of the others? Bearing that in mind, notice the language Peter uses. Christ was foreknown, and made manifest. This language is receptive. To be foreknown is to be determined by the knowledge (or consciousness) of another. This is even more true of the following phrase: made manifest. Such phrasing implies that Jesus was determined and incarnated by another.
