Davis also notes that John of Damascus set forth another possibility, namely, that "time has always existed . . . yet is only measurable when things like the sun and moon exist" (Davis 23).
The Bible itself states that God is "from concealed time (OLAM) to concealed time" (Gesenius). Thorleif Boman also notes that OLAM denotes "boundless time."
Moreover, the Complete Word Study: Old Testament avers that OLAM in relation to God does not necessarily mean that God is outside of time:
"Temporal categories are inadequate to describe the nature of God's existence. The Creator has been from "everlasting to everlasting" (Ps 90:2). Even then, it [OLAM] still expresses the idea of a continued, measurable existence, rather than a state of being independent of time considerations" (The Complete Word Study: OT, page 2348).
MORE NOTES:
According to Boethius (in De Consolatio 5), on the metaphysical level, there is no such thing as "divine forevision" or foreknowledge. Boethius writes:
"If you will weigh the foresight with which God discerns all things, you will rightly esteem it to be the knowledge of a never fading instant rather than a foreknowledge of the 'future.' It should therefore rather be called provision than prevision because, placed high above all things, it looks out over all as from the loftiest mountain top."
In other words, while humans may rightly call God's knowledge of that which is future "foreknowledge," in reality, it is not foreknowledge, but intimate awareness of the present insofar as the present is nunc stans.
But why would an orthodox Christian be tempted to make
this move? There are at least two reasons that readily
spring to my mind. First, Boethius believes that if
God actually foresees future events or states, then He
also causes them. Second, Boethius reasons that
"Without doubt . . . all things which God foreknows do
come to pass, but certain of them proceed from free
will."
Boethius argues that something known "cannot be
otherwise than it is known to be," though free acts
viewed IN SE, "do not lose the perfect freedom of
their nature" (See William Hasker's _God, Time, and
Knowledge_, page 7).
Boethius is not alone in this regard since Thomas
Aquinas further writes:
"Hence what is known by us must be necessary even as
it is in itself; for what is future contingent in
itself, cannot be known by us. Whereas what is known
by God must be necessary according to the mode in
which they are subject to the divine knowledge, as
already stated, but not absolutely as considered in
their own causes" (S.T. I. 14. 13, Reply Obj. 3. See
also Hasker, p. 10).
Notice that Thomas too escapes the possible dilemmas
that may arise from positing divine foreknowledge by
appealing to the notion of God's eternal present. But
if God subsists in timeless eternity, above time,
which both Boethius and Aquinas believe, then He
doesn't really see future events or behold future
states before they occur, bnut as they occur.
16 comments:
Thanks, Edgar:-)
God's relation to time seems to be an impossible nut to crack. There seem to be essentially two possibilities, both of which are unintelligible to me:
1. God is timeless, and brought time into existence with the creation of the physical universe; or
2. Time, like God, has always existed.
Regarding #1, we have no clue what "timelessness" would be like, and regarding #2, we can't even begin to comprehend how "now" ever got here if time has always existed into the eternal past. How do you arrive at "today" if there is an actually infinite number of yesterdays? I haven't a clue:-(
~Sean K.
Look the fact of the matter is time exist because God either created it or allows it. I also think it is possible that time exist only for us. I know animals are not aware of time, they are not given understanding of it. So it does not exist for them. It is our memories that make us aware of events. Events take place, they end up in our memories. We are aware of past present and future, thus we have time. Once Jehovah set things in motion, from our stand point it becomes what is referred to as time. Is Jehovah outside of time, maybe from his viewpoint but for ours he was before he is now and he continues to eternity. It is not really measurable, it is only perceived by us. Jehovah gave us intelligences to grasp at such things, in conparison animal apparently do not grasp at it, they have only instinct, not intellegence. That is my point of view.
Philip: time could also be an aspect of God's nature; God could be everlastingly temporal. I'm not dogmatic about this point--I offer this suggestion as a possibility.
The part that has long bugged me about saying that Jehovah is timeless is that it entails complete immutability. If God is timeless, he is emotionbless (it seems), he does not respond to prayers, he does not change at all. God also has no past or future, and it's questionable that God has a present, if he is not temporal. Insight (I:526) states:
"It is because of God's will that all things 'existed and were created.' (Re 4:11) Jehovah, who has existed for all time, was alone before creation had a beginning.—Ps 90:1, 2; 1Ti 1:17."
Duncan:
Are elephants or dogs intelligent? What about dolphins? Do elephants or dogs (etc) have a conception or awareness of time? I believe the answers to these questions are highly debatable. But I tend to believe that animals do not conceive anything since they have no way to form concepts without having a lingual apparatus like ours.
"We also possess a keen sense of time and a perception of eternity. King Solomon wrote that God 'has planted eternity in men's hearts.' (Ecclesiastes 3:11, The Amplified Bible) Under normal circumstances we want to keep living indefinitely. We want life with no expiration date. There is no indication that animals have such a yearning. They live with no awareness of the future."
From Awake 12/07
Hi Sean,
Some time theorists distinguish between a) metaphysical time and b) cosmic time or space-time. The first didin't necessarily have a beginning although the second kind of time evidently did. There's a huge body of literture on the subvject as philosophers and theologians try to define time: so do physicists. There is no one accepted definition of time, and even our experience of time is difficult to articulate. That is why I'm not dogmatic about these matters.
Robert J. Spitzer (based on a number of experiments in science/physics) make a strong argument (IMO) for the objective existence of cosmic time. But I admit that not everyone is going to concur with his analysis.
Regarding your last set of questions, I will point out that they show why I find it difficult to believe in a timeless God. It's possible for a timeless God to answer prayers; however, it is not possible for a timeless God to respond to human prayers. A timeless God--as far as we know--does not change.
Duncan, I would like to more fully address some of these points later. But for now . . .
It depends on what you mean by "intelligence." In one sense, a dog might be intelligent or an elephant, but in another sense, neither creature would be. However, I particularly focused on concept formation--not intelligence per se. And in order to form concepts in the physical realm, it seems that one needs a natural language and speech in order to form concepts. A thing also needs a brain like ours with the type of neocortext that we have.
Humans who are born deaf or mute still might have Chomsky's language acquisition device, and they certainly still have the kind of brain needed to form concepts and learn a language. They also have a conception of time.
We must also make a distinction between conceive and comprehend.
On the issue of animals and thinking, Fred Dretske argues that animals do not have beliefs; therefore, they have no knowledge of the distinction between real and rational numbers. Fido does not know he will be 8 years old next Sunday; nor does Kitty believe in a transcendent reality.
See https://books.google.com/books?id=JMJhcBYWAWQC&pg=PA86&dq=dretske+fred+animals+and+thinking&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAGoVChMIheOb-vyIyQIVxegmCh27fAtY#v=onepage&q=dretske%20fred%20animals%20and%20thinking&f=false
I should have said that Dretske thinks animals don't have certain kind of beliefs--the beliefs that permit them to know abstractions like I mentioned above.
I don't have any major disagreement with that point. Speaking of Gesenius, I believe he makes a similar observation.
You express concern that a timeless God would be emotionless and unable to respond to human prayers. However, this is a misunderstanding of the classical theistic view of God's timelessness and immutability. The idea of God being timeless means that God exists outside of time, not bound by past, present, or future. In Boethius and Aquinas’s understanding, God is not subject to temporal change, but that does not mean He is emotionless or indifferent. God's immutability means that His will, nature, and purpose do not change, but this does not imply that God cannot relate to His creation in meaningful ways.
God’s timelessness allows Him to see all events—past, present, and future—as a single, eternal "now." This eternal perspective means that God does not REACT to events as we do in time; rather, He knows and wills everything from eternity. His immutability does not preclude a personal relationship with His creatures, as this relationship is willed from eternity.
A timeless God can certainly respond to prayers. From God’s perspective, our prayers are part of the eternal order He knows and governs. God does not change in response to prayers because He eternally knows all things and has included our prayers in His divine plan. Thus, while it may seem to us that God "changes" in response to a prayer (granting a request, for example), in reality, God has always known and willed this outcome. Aquinas clarifies that God's eternal knowledge includes His eternal willingness to act in response to prayer.
God's eternal nature means that He is fully aware of every prayer at all times and knows exactly how to answer them in a way that aligns with His perfect will. Therefore, the idea of a timeless God responding to prayers is not contradictory but aligns with the belief that God’s eternal knowledge encompasses all events, including prayers.
You also suggest that a timeless God would be emotionless. This reflects a misunderstanding of how classical theism views divine emotions. In Scripture, when God is described as having emotions (such as anger, sadness, or joy), this is often understood as anthropomorphism—language that attributes human characteristics to God to help us relate to Him. God’s actions in time, such as showing mercy or responding to sin, are not changes in His emotional state but are expressions of His eternal will and love. Classical theism teaches that God is perfect and unchanging in His nature; thus, His love is constant, not fluctuating like human emotions.
God's immutability does not mean He is devoid of love or personal engagement. On the contrary, God’s love is PERFECT and unchanging. His actions in time, such as responding to prayers, or guiding human history, are expressions of His constant, eternal love. The fact that God is outside of time means that His love is not subject to the ups and downs of emotional change; it is always fully and perfectly expressed.
You refer to ideas from Stephen T. Davis and John of Damascus that explore different views of time, including the idea that time could be an eternal aspect of God’s nature or that God could be "everlastingly temporal." The classical theistic view, championed by thinkers like Boethius and Aquinas, posits that time is a created reality, not part of God’s nature. God exists outside of time (in eternity) and created time as part of the universe. God's relationship to time is not one of subjection but of sovereignty—He transcends time while governing it. This view helps avoid the contradictions and limitations associated with positing a God who exists in time and is subject to temporal change.
Davis’s speculation that God could be "everlastingly temporal" diminishes God's transcendence and brings unnecessary complications regarding divine immutability. If God were temporal, He would be subject to change, which would contradict the doctrine of God’s perfect and unchanging nature. Classical theism maintains that God’s eternal nature and immutability are essential attributes of His divinity.
As you noted, Boethius and Aquinas teach that God’s eternal knowledge is not like human foreknowledge. God does not "foresee" events before they happen; He knows them in His eternal "now." This means that God’s knowledge does not imply causality or fatalism. God knows our free choices because He is outside of time and sees all moments simultaneously, but this knowledge does not determine those choices. Human free will remains intact.
You express concern that a timeless God knowing all things might entail determinism, implying that human free will is compromised. However, this is not the case. God’s timeless knowledge does not remove human free will. Boethius and Aquinas argue that God's knowledge does not cause events to happen; rather, God knows what free creatures will do because He sees all of time as present to Him. Free acts remain contingent and are not rendered necessary simply because God knows them.
Think of God's knowledge as similar to an observer watching a parade from a high vantage point. The observer sees the entire parade—beginning, middle, and end—simultaneously. The parade participants, however, experience the event in sequence. In the same way, God sees our lives from an eternal perspective but does not interfere with our free decisions.
In conclusion, the classical understanding of God’s timelessness is not in conflict with His personal involvement in the world, His responsiveness to prayer, or His immutable nature. God’s transcendence over time means that He governs time and history from an eternal vantage point, knowing all events—including free choices—without determining them. God's love, wisdom, and power remain fully expressed, even as He interacts with His creation in ways that are meaningful to us. The concerns about God's timelessness leading to emotionlessness, fatalism, or the inability to respond to prayers stem from misunderstandings of classical theology. God's timelessness, far from limiting His engagement with creation, ensures that He remains the sovereign, loving, and all-knowing Creator who perfectly governs the universe.
Post a Comment