I realize this is an analogy and, thus, comes with the standard caveat (i.e. it breaks down at some level), but I don’t think time was created. Consistorian’s take below is closer to my own understanding, though I might take issue with God as the originator of time rather than time simply being a part of God’s nature.
I have trouble with thinking of time as a “thing” at all. Isn’t it merely a way of describing something?
As a somewhat weak analogy, I don’t think we talk about whether or not God created “hot.” He created things of varying temperatures. Some of them we describe as hot.
I am not sure it is a thing in the way I am thinking. Justice is merely a property of actions that may or may not be present. If we say a judge rules unjustly, it’s not because there isn’t enough justice stuff floating around. It’s because that’s how his actions are described.
I think I’m being set up here because it’s an attribute of God, but since God has no parts, then His attributes by definition aren’t things, right? They’re just ways of describing His behavior.
Is it? Or is it just a description of a state? We say things like “transferring heat” but we really mean transferring energy. “Heat” just describes what the energy is doing at a given time.
But a given unit of energy can continually change form depending on various factors, can’t it? So heat isn’t a thing that is always heat. It is merely the way energy is being at a given time.
Agreed Jared, though I tend to take it a little further. God is the origin of time. That is, in creation, we measure time by observing the relations between moving objects (i.e., sun, moon, stars). But in heaven, time is measured by the relation between the persons of the Trinity. It’s not that there is something like a clock in heaven, but there is an everlasting (not eternal in the philosophical sense) reciprocity of love flowing between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is measurable. Hence, we do justice to ‘from everlasting to everlasting’ and ‘with God, a day… Read more »
Consistorian, In both your examples, time is a measurement of movement. I would guess that the only difference between a clock in heaven and a clock on earth is that the clock in heaven is always correct. I’m not sure I would want to say that time is something different for God than it is for us even though our respective experiences may be ontologically disparate. My understanding is that time is a component of existence, regardless of how (or whether) it is measured. The conceptual metaphor here is that “time is movement”; nothing can occur or be instantiated without… Read more »
Angels and demons seem to be in time more or less as we are but I don’t think time is part of God’s nature. It’s certainly not his natural habitat the way it is ours. We usually say he’s “outside” time but that just substitutes a spatial metaphor and space has the same issues as time. I think time and space are both part of creation, which means that they have their being in God. You could say that reality is God’s fantasy.
Time as a habitat is an interesting metaphor. You could say time is that in which we live, move, breathe, and have our being; then it starts to resemble an attribute of God, does it not? I think time is fundamentally necessary for being in relationship, otherwise how would the relationship proceed? Timelessness seems like an incoherent concept to me and I don’t think it’s just because I am “bound” by time. As image bearers, our tensed relationship with each other and the rest of creation is a reflection of God’s character and nature.
We certainly live, move & etc. in time but the same is true of air. The strangeness of the idea of timelessness seem rather an argument in favor than against.
I’ve had similar thoughts about the personal triune relationship. I don’t understand God as eternally static. If there was any proceeding or unfolding in the honoring and giving and receiving and glorifying within the Trinity, then this would seem to provide a reference point to establish a chronology or sequence of events, even if not time in the bounded, space-time sense that we experience. This would imply that chronology or sequence is of the essence of God and His being. Since God is not a singularity, or inert, or in stasis, there is unfolding and overflow, there is origination and… Read more »
katecho, Yes, this resonates with my own understanding. Time as we experience it has its grounding in the nature of the Trinity. The proposal that God is timeless, in the sense that he could, in theory, experience any moment of his creation as presently happening, does not seem like a viable proposition. A robust Christology seems to demand this position as well since how else could the Son become incarnate? I think the hangup may be in the language: we don’t want to say God is “bound” by time because that makes it seem like an outside imposition exists, as… Read more »
This is how most people think about it, no? As if time doesn’t exist in heaven? Or, more pointedly, as if time isn’t a part of God’s nature?
I think of it as God is the fullback carrying the football.
The football is creation.
One end of the football is the beginning of time; the other end is the end of time.
“Forever” is the length of the football.
Eternity is where God is; it includes God holding time–and Forever–in His hands.
From God’s perspective, He can be at any place at any time all the time, because He has it in His “grasp”
Also, He has a Larry Czonka’s face guard on His helmet.
timothy,
I realize this is an analogy and, thus, comes with the standard caveat (i.e. it breaks down at some level), but I don’t think time was created. Consistorian’s take below is closer to my own understanding, though I might take issue with God as the originator of time rather than time simply being a part of God’s nature.
I have trouble with thinking of time as a “thing” at all. Isn’t it merely a way of describing something?
As a somewhat weak analogy, I don’t think we talk about whether or not God created “hot.” He created things of varying temperatures. Some of them we describe as hot.
Hi Jane,
IIRC big-bang physics itself states that time did not exist before the big-bang.
Yes, but there was no big bang so that’s irrelevant.
Jane,
Would you say justice is a “thing”?
I am not sure it is a thing in the way I am thinking. Justice is merely a property of actions that may or may not be present. If we say a judge rules unjustly, it’s not because there isn’t enough justice stuff floating around. It’s because that’s how his actions are described.
I think I’m being set up here because it’s an attribute of God, but since God has no parts, then His attributes by definition aren’t things, right? They’re just ways of describing His behavior.
“hot” is not a thing but heat is.
Is it? Or is it just a description of a state? We say things like “transferring heat” but we really mean transferring energy. “Heat” just describes what the energy is doing at a given time.
Heat is energy. You may say heat is a way to describe energy, if we make heat analogous to time then time is a way to describe a dimension.
But a given unit of energy can continually change form depending on various factors, can’t it? So heat isn’t a thing that is always heat. It is merely the way energy is being at a given time.
Or am I wrong about that?
That’s mostly right, but as an analogy for time you have Heat>Time, energy>?
fwiw, I got the distinction between eternity and forever from Joseph Campbell.
…but an Alabama jersey & helmet!
Agreed Jared, though I tend to take it a little further. God is the origin of time. That is, in creation, we measure time by observing the relations between moving objects (i.e., sun, moon, stars). But in heaven, time is measured by the relation between the persons of the Trinity. It’s not that there is something like a clock in heaven, but there is an everlasting (not eternal in the philosophical sense) reciprocity of love flowing between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is measurable. Hence, we do justice to ‘from everlasting to everlasting’ and ‘with God, a day… Read more »
Consistorian, In both your examples, time is a measurement of movement. I would guess that the only difference between a clock in heaven and a clock on earth is that the clock in heaven is always correct. I’m not sure I would want to say that time is something different for God than it is for us even though our respective experiences may be ontologically disparate. My understanding is that time is a component of existence, regardless of how (or whether) it is measured. The conceptual metaphor here is that “time is movement”; nothing can occur or be instantiated without… Read more »
Angels and demons seem to be in time more or less as we are but I don’t think time is part of God’s nature. It’s certainly not his natural habitat the way it is ours. We usually say he’s “outside” time but that just substitutes a spatial metaphor and space has the same issues as time. I think time and space are both part of creation, which means that they have their being in God. You could say that reality is God’s fantasy.
Rob,
Time as a habitat is an interesting metaphor. You could say time is that in which we live, move, breathe, and have our being; then it starts to resemble an attribute of God, does it not? I think time is fundamentally necessary for being in relationship, otherwise how would the relationship proceed? Timelessness seems like an incoherent concept to me and I don’t think it’s just because I am “bound” by time. As image bearers, our tensed relationship with each other and the rest of creation is a reflection of God’s character and nature.
We certainly live, move & etc. in time but the same is true of air. The strangeness of the idea of timelessness seem rather an argument in favor than against.
I’ve had similar thoughts about the personal triune relationship. I don’t understand God as eternally static. If there was any proceeding or unfolding in the honoring and giving and receiving and glorifying within the Trinity, then this would seem to provide a reference point to establish a chronology or sequence of events, even if not time in the bounded, space-time sense that we experience. This would imply that chronology or sequence is of the essence of God and His being. Since God is not a singularity, or inert, or in stasis, there is unfolding and overflow, there is origination and… Read more »
katecho, Yes, this resonates with my own understanding. Time as we experience it has its grounding in the nature of the Trinity. The proposal that God is timeless, in the sense that he could, in theory, experience any moment of his creation as presently happening, does not seem like a viable proposition. A robust Christology seems to demand this position as well since how else could the Son become incarnate? I think the hangup may be in the language: we don’t want to say God is “bound” by time because that makes it seem like an outside imposition exists, as… Read more »