God, Time, and Eternity
Apr 22nd, 2005 by Hugh
I’ve long been fascinated by discussions on the relationship of God to time. Today I came across an article, God, Time, and Eternity, by William Lane Craig. It’s a pretty heady treatment of the subject, but it’s food for thought if your appetite is sufficiently large.
C.S. Lewis advanced the idea that God exists in an “unbounded Now;” that he lives outside of time, and everything that happens inside time takes place, to him, in the present tense. This comes up when you think about issues like predestination and open theism - it makes the whole question of “does God simply know the future (without controlling it), or does he only know it because he is going to do it?” go away. In this view, for instance, there is no “future” from God’s vantage point.
In the article I linked above, Craig advances a different argument. First, he says, the Bible is doctrinally silent on the relationship of God to time, so it is up to philosophers to use the tools of logic and reason to noodle the matter out. It’s worth digging into that as a premise, but let’s agree to play in that sandbox.
He draws out the distinction between Newtonian time and relativistic time.
Let’s stop right there. Fortunately, I’m married to a woman who challenges me when I’m not making any sense. In a very self-effacing but profound display of wise humility and clear thought, she will often ask me, “OK, but what does that mean in ‘dummy words?’”
“Newtonian” Time
In Newton’s world, time is a fixed foundation for all that his laws of physics attempt to address. It makes the very reasonable assumption that one second is always the same; that one second is never longer nor shorter than another. It works great when you’re dealing with everyday stuff, and a lot of really big things too! Newtonian physics gives you all the tools you need to address everything from “why do apples fall from trees?” to “how do the planets orbit the sun?” It’s fair to say that Newtonian physics is all we needed to land a man on the moon.
Relativistic Time
So Newton’s physics is good for just about everything, but it doesn’t work when you get to the really weird stuff like splitting atoms and traveling at the speed of light and all that.
Here comes Einstein. He said “guess what? One second isn’t the always the same as another second.” The squealing of tires was heard as a bus load of physicists drove off the road…
What he was saying was that time isn’t constant, but rather, its nature is relative to whatever you happen to be talking about. Time is just one more variable in the whole mess, like where you are, how fast you’re moving, etc.
It’s as if Newton said, “it takes one second for this apple to fall to the ground,” and Einstein came along and asked, “but what if one second to you isn’t the same as one second to the apple?”
Got Time?
All that to say this: a relativistic view of time means that measurements of time have no universal and absolute definition; the only thing “time” definitively gives you is a sequence.
So instead of saying “it takes one second for this apple to fall to the ground,” a relativistic view of time would have you say “In the beginning, the apple was in the tree. Next, the apple fell. Finally, it was on the ground. Some period of time elapsed in the middle of all that.”
You see what that does? All you can really say is that you had one situation on your hands, and then you had another situation develop, and that the second happened after the first.
Now What Was I Saying?
OK, back to Craig’s article. He says that this relativistic view of time is useful for talking about God’s relationship to time. Recalling that the relativistic view of time just deals with one situation giving way to another situation, Craig points out that Genesis 1 paints a picture of just such a scene. There was nothing, and then there was all this creation stuff.
You can try to think about what was going on “before creation,” but that may turn out to be nonsense. Relativity requires that you talk about time by picking a starting situation and an ending situation, and “time” is what separates the two. If you’re ending with creation, where are you starting from?
It’s kind of like the whole “what is the sound of one hand clapping” silliness - it takes two hands for there to be any clapping, and it takes two situations for there to be any idea of time.
So what is God’s relationship to time? Scripture tells us that God is unchanging in his essential qualities, but it also tells us that he does things. If he does something, that means there are at least two situations we can talk about: the state of affairs before he acted, and the state of affairs after he acted. That means we have a real measurement of a period of time, and that period of time describes something God did. So in that sense, God is “in time” in that time can be used to talk about him.
This has gone on longer than I wanted it to, so I’ll have to come back to this another time. But I have a lot more questions I want to think through here… without giving them away, what questions does this raise for you?
Hugh, This is a subject which has fascinated me for some time. In relatavistic time theory, had you considered the implication of creation’s initiation with “Let there be light.”?
If my admittedly limited understanding of Einstein is correct, the speed of light is the contant against which time is measured. Without light time cannot exist. Without time, distance does not exist.
Can the Creator of time be bounded by time? One would not think so. Thus, the eternal omnipresent nature of God is easily explained by this theory.
So also is God’s consistant unchanging nature. If God contradicted Himself, the resultant offset would cause creation (existance?) to go poof.
On “The Bible is doctrinally silent on the relationship of God to time.”
2 Peter 3:8 (NASB)
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Exodus 3:14 (NASB)
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
It seems to me that the Occam’s (sp) razor explanation for these two is that God is in the eternal present, unbounded by his creation, time.
Just a few of many thoughts.
Thanks Doug!
I’ll respond in drips and drops as I have time - but let’s start with the “Creator of time being bounded by time” thing.
I’ve long held that God can’t be bound by time. But I’ve been forced to “nuance” that by considering that time may be an aspect of God’s character.
I’ve recently been introduced to Gregory Koukl of Stand to Reason; he raises questions such as “can God count?” In order to count, you must proceed in a sequence; “two” follows “one,” etc. Note what just happened: you use the language of time in addressing a sequence. Cutting to the chase, there is a logical sense in which God “changes” over time in that he does things. Those things may be counting numbers, creating the heavens and the earth, or dying on a cross: but they are done in a “timely” fashion.
In passing, here is a link to an article Koukl wrote on the topic.
I don’t think that’s incompatible with the idea that God is unchanging in his essential qualities; that is, his essential qualities never change while his “accidental” qualities are fair game for discussion in a temporal sense. That’s kind of unsatisfying to leave it at that, but hopefully I can come back and expand there.
I really want to come back and explore the “Bible is doctrinally silent” question. It seems to me that has to be the governing principle in considering the questions we’re raising… like I said, we can agree to “play in the sandbox” for discussion’s sake, but we really ought to achieve clarity on that point.
More to come…
Hugh
It seems to me that the Kouki link is a bit like a flatlander explaining that 3 dimensional being cannot exist. However we will be force into the same problem because we simply have not the language or reason to express ourselves outside time.
When does God “do” something? Does it become done when he thinks it, When he says it? When it becomes concrete. Philo of Alexandria ca 30 B.C. observed that a city may be said to exist when an archetect plans it and that so it is with the Creation. It existed before it was concrete. “In the beginning was. . .”
Before we get to “Scripture is Doctrinally silent.” Should we explore how Scripture can say something that is not doctinal?
I don’t take the view that a timeless being cannot exist - a la the “flatlander” idea - but it’s more like trying to draw a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional surface. You can craft a representation, but it’s not the way it really is.
When you wrote “When does God ‘do’ something,” the first thing I noticed is the language of temporality in the word “when.” Whether you are indexing relative to God’s thought or God’s utterance, both of those can be reckoned as time-indexed events. For this discussion, it seems to me that the important thing is not whether the thing is simply conceived, merely started, or totally finished, but that something happened at all.
On the last point, I don’t think Scripture specifically sets apart some subjects as “not doctrinal.” The “doctrinally silent” proposition was William Lane Craig’s, not mine, but here’s what I take that to mean: if the Scripture doesn’t specifically set forth a position of truth about something, it’s “doctrinally silent.” For example, the Scripture is doctrinally silent about the Internet. However, the communication that takes place over the Internet is certainly subject to the doctrinal statements set forth in Scripture. Likewise, if Craig’s statement that “the Bible is doctrinally silent on God’s relationship to time” is correct, that does not mean that the Scripture has nothing to say about time or about God’s nature - just that it doesn’t fill us in on the mechanics of it, much the way it doesn’t fill us in on the mechanics of creation.
That whole question really deserves a discussion of its own. I admit the state of my own answers to the question are somewhat unsatisfying… but let’s clarify some common ground that would seem to be rooted in bedrock:
Whatever God’s relationship to time is, he is sovereign over it: time cannot be greater than God. Any sense in which God “submits to,” or is “bounded by,” time, is analogous to the sense in which God is “bounded by” goodness, “bounded by” justice, or “bounded by” truth. That is, if God is limited in any way by time, it must be because it is an essential part of his nature.
Does that seem valid?
You are exactly correct with the three dimensional drawing analogy. I too was struck by the word “when” as I wrote it. (Note that as is also a time word.) We are so sequenced in time and bounded by time that our own thoughts and words are hardly able to escape. Thus the recognition that we too are flatlanders.
Actually, I think the concept that God by his will “submits to” or “is bounded by” presuppose some answers. How do you think it would change our discussion if we phrased the question, “What is time’s relationship to God?”
Is it more useful to reach conclusions about the Creator based on observations about the creation or to reach conclusions about creation based on knowledge of the Creator?
When God calls himself the “I AM”, it tells us something about both Him and the creation. It tells us that God is eternally present. He is not only omnipresent but also omnitemporal. That he acts in time sequentially should be no more surprising or dificult to rationalize than that he also chooses to act in the physical world he created. What can we conclude about God’s relationship to the physical world because he held back the Red Sea? Can we conclude any more about God’s relationship to time because in our observations he chooses to act sequentially?
The third paragraph compels a response: you must reach conclusions about creation based on knowledge of the Creator. That said, one means of knowledge of the Creator is His creation. In any case, the principle of sola scriptura must govern.
Time’s relationship to God? I like the way that turns the question; it calls out the sovereignty of God and highlights his role as the author of time.
Finally, the idea that “he chooses to act sequentially…” is mildly problematic. I’m not aware of any evidence that he can choose to act non-sequentially any more than he can choose to, say, act untruthfully.
Also, what would it look like to act non-sequentially? It can’t mean that he just uses a different sequence - it must somehow entail a notion of simultaneity, but even that doesn’t eliminate any notion of sequence.
There’s a saying I heard somewhere - “time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.” I guess I’m asking, what would it look like if everything happened all at once?
More writings on eternity from William Lane Craig can be found here.
That guy is deep.
Interesting discussion that I’m finally caught up on. I’m a bit of a fence-sitter on the matter. Here are a couple of points.
In comment #1, Doug referred to God as creating time. This presupposes that time is a created thing. If time is viewed as logical sequencing, then time would be no more created than say the laws of logic. We don’t talk about God being “bound” by the laws of logic because they flow from His very nature. When I’m leaning to the temporal side, this is the way I view time.
Also, I think we sometimes confuse timelessness with eternality. God is clearly eternal, but I’m not sure that this implies that He is necessarily atemporal.
Fundamentally we build all our knowledge of God from scripture. We try to reconcile scripture with itself in the way that at the same time both is least complicated and resolves most questions. This is an application of Occam’s razor, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”
Genesis 1:1 requires that God was extant and capable of action at the instant of the “Beginning”.
Genesis 1:1 (NIV)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
John 1:1 goes further and requires that Jesus, the Word, and God as separate parts of the one Trinity were both extant prior to the “Beginning”. Note the language, “In the beginning was. . .”
John 1:1 (NIV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
As indicated in my first comment we see that God calls himself the “I AM”, and that to him a day and a thousand years are the same.
On numerous occasions, God acts sequentially in the Bible. Two that come immediately to mind are the Creation itself being 6 days and resting on the 7th and the plagues God sent on Egypt ending with the first Passover.
We also know that God acts non-sequentially:
Isaiah 46:10 (NIV)
I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
Making known the end from the beginning sounds non-sequential to me. What do you think, Hugh?
This same verse clearly requires that God be both omniscient and all powerful. Although I assume we can agree that God is omniscient and all powerful, these characteristics are important to the discussion on time’s relationship to God.
God also created all things (Eph. 3:9). Actually take a look at Eph 3:1-9 in light of our discussion.
Eric, you are clearly not satisfied that this one scripture means God created time. I don’t blame you. However, in the first comment I make the point that if I understand relativity, then without light there is no time. Since God created light (Gen. 1:3.), I view that God also created time.
I suggest that these scriptures are best resolved by the conclusion that God created time and is unbounded by time being eternally present in the “now” at all times.
Yes, Hugh, this does require that all things happen all at once for God. But is that not also required by omniscience? How can everything be known at once sequentially?
Omnipresence is also explained by God being eternally present in the now at all times. Without time, distance is irrelevant because effectively distance is sequential.
Omnipotence is the logical extension of omnitemporalism and creation of all things,
Omnitemporalism requires consistency. (God does not change:
Malachi 3:6 (NIV)
“I the Lord do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
If God did change or “correct himself,” would not the action negate itself instantly at all times and, to use a highly logical term, “go poof”?
Although I do not say that to explain all these scriptures (other than “let there be light”) God must be unbounded by time, I do however say it is perhaps the most consistent and simple explanation. It would take someone with greater knowledge of the Theory of Relativity than I to resolve the question of time existing without light.
I fear I’m jumping in over my head as we get deeper into this topic, but here goes anyway…
First, I completely agree about building our knowledge from Scripture and defaulting to the simplest explanation, except that I’m not sure that God ever sets out to reveal the His relationship to time in His Word. Maybe that’s a sign that this is not a fruitful quest.
When God calls himself the “I AM,” and that to Him a day and a thousand years are the same, I see this as referring to God’s non-contingent nature and His eternality (from His perspective, 1000 years is a drop in the bucket).
I’m no expert on the theory of relativity, but if time (as defined in relativity) is a measure of ones perspective on the rate of change (sequence of events), then perhaps without creation we would have no light and no observers to measure time, but I’m not sure that this really tells us anything.
I believe that God’s omniscience flows from His sovereignty and the fact that He is the creator. He knows what will come to pass because everything that comes to pass does so by His decree.
I’m generally a classic theist (holding to God’s perfection, immutability, sovereignty, and all of the omnis), but of my biggest problems with a nontemporal view of God is that… If from God’s perspective, there is no time, then there is no time when the universe did not exist. That is, God knows no ‘before He created the world’ because time was not created until He created the universe. This leaves us with an eternal universe, which does not square with the Genesis account of creation.
I’m not sure I’m convinced in the temporal view of God, but the nontemporal view has enough that is hard to reconcile that I’m investigating it some. If only there were more hours in the day read all of the books that have piled up on my nightstand!