The Father enjoys the bulk of the clear revelation of the Scriptures. As such the Father’s deity is never really questioned. I suppose this is a good thing. As far as our sin-touched eyes can see, such lack of investigation into the Father’s deity, though respectable, does have a disadvantage. It gives us a limping understanding of the divine nature in general. This is one of the drivers in the compounded misunderstandings related to this doctrine. When we get the Father’s deity right, we are on track to understanding the Godhead.
We had already spoken about the Father being Spirit in the previous article. He is Spirit. He is a Spirit being. Though words fail us to understand God, this is probably the closest we can come to an understanding of what the Father’s essence is. He is a divine Spirit being. Although there is a plurality of Spirit beings in scripture, the Father is ontologically higher than created spirit beings, because He is not created. He is an uncreated animate Spirit being. He is also a being that is believed to have a form. Whenever the Father is described, He is described as a being, in visions (Rev 4, Dan 7) of the prophetic books.
We then traditionally switch off here. But let’s surge forward in our study. Rev 4 describes the Father as one who looks like a jasper and sardines stones. Aside from the text obviously not affirming the full jasper and sardius substance of the Father by using the word “like”, we also know that the Father isn’t of jasper or sardius in reality. If it, so, then God’s essence would be that of a created precious stone. It would mean that these stones are a piece of God. It would mean that He is a little different from the idols who also are of precious stones and materials. It would also make Paul’s words in Acts 17 not true. It would mean that we can think of God as like unto gold, silver, and stone. So He can’t be. But the Scriptures say he is. There’s no contradiction here if you have been following the articles closely. Father is described as precious stones, but ontologically He isn’t. Interesting ne??
Also, notice that the Father is described as inanimate objects. No one would ever conclude that the Father is inanimate though (remember what we said in the two previous articles). The bible also says God is a strong tower. Also a shelter. Bless your soul, He is also a Rock. God isn’t all of these things in substance or essence, but the inanimate descriptions can be seen as a description of God’s acts towards us. Or else beloved, God is not a rock or jasper or even a tower.
This is where the ontological understanding of the nature of God, is so consistent and potent. The ontological argument leans on what something is in reality and not really what something is said to be. Why? We understand the differences in language and therefore thought patterns, also the use of common speech and figures, could pose a real challenge in taking words as they read in a text. It is easier to misunderstand what is said about God than to misunderstand God’s essence and nature. Because God is what He is and not necessarily what He says He is for the words He chose could just be Him describing Himself with things we know and are created. God’s essence doesn’t change, but the way God is described usually changes. .
When one knows this, one has a consistent and coherent understanding of the godhead across the board. Understanding whether a being is divine ontologically is the most full-proof way of accurately understanding the godhead. Now that it is clear that the godhead proof of the Father is not different from that of the Holy Spirit, we see harmony. All we’re left with now is Christ! The next article will deal with the deity of Christ.
Fullers' Soap 