6

It is common to hear phrases such as "God exists outside of time" used to explain away anachronism or avoid addressing it altogether--for example, the idea that God has in the past progressed to become Who He Is today is sometimes dismissed as nonsensical because being "outside of time" is interpreted to preclude such contemplation. But if that were true, then why do Scriptures make reference to the acts of God within time, and ascribe causality at all to His acts and attributes?

We might take license from such expressions so as to hand-wave further understanding of the true nature of God out of our minds. However, numerous passages in the Bible describe God and His acts in time, including His progression and development. The law of causality is never violated. For example, Luke 2:52 states, "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." The central message of the Bible is that the Son of God came down from the presence of His Father, took upon Himself a tabernacle of flesh, and submitted to the Father in all things, including paying the price for sin so that we could be redeemed on conditions of repentance. For all we might say about being "outside of time", an assertion that God does not obey or is not consistent with laws of causation is clearly untenable.

What Bible verse or verses suggest that God "exists outside of time", or gives a sensible definition to what that might more appropriately mean? I am not asking for philosophical interpretations, lawyerisms or hand-waving references to what so-called "mainstream Christianity" teaches. I am asking what the Bible says.

Note that verses saying or suggesting that God has always existed or is eternal (which I accept) are not the same as saying He has never changed or is "outside of time". Such verses explicitly mention notions of time and causality as being valid and applicable to God as well as everything else.

eques
  • 3,099
  • 11
  • 19
pygosceles
  • 2,009
  • 6
  • 15
  • 13
    The question is making a false assertion. Just because Deity acts at a certain point of time and influences his own creation within time does not somehow 'bind' him to a self-imposed 'law of causality'. 'I am that I am' and 'with the Lord a thousand years is as one day and one is as a thousand years' are sufficient to disprove the false assertion that the question is trying to impose on the bible. – Nigel J Dec 20 '23 at 22:53
  • 3
    @NigelJ The question is essentially asking for Scriptural support for the notion that God exists outside of causality. If He exists "outside of time" in such a way as to defeat causality, that should be made known. Relation of two different ways of measuring time (God's time and Man's time) does not in any way contradict causality or even the relevance and applicability of time to the nature of God. God never had a beginning, but this does not logically equate to His existing "outside of time". All things that had no beginning are still existing in time. – pygosceles Dec 21 '23 at 05:45
  • 8
    You are denying that God is eternal. Eternity is not a long period of time. Eternity is other than time. God, himself, is the cause of everything else. 'Without him nothing came into being that did come into being', John 1:3. He is Alpha and Omega. The First and the Last. The beginning and the Ending. Those who worship him worship his eternal Being. – Nigel J Dec 21 '23 at 08:05
  • 5
    @NigelJ Where did he deny that God is eternal? He explicitly affirms that God never had a beginning. – LarsH Dec 21 '23 at 16:36
  • 3
    @NigelJ Not remotely. The eternity of God is perfectly consistent with causality and causation, otherwise there could have been no creation. The God of the Bible is both eternal and causally active. – pygosceles Dec 21 '23 at 16:46
  • Do you realize that the tone of this question comes across as pretty hostile? To me, anyway. – John Bollinger Dec 21 '23 at 20:09
  • 2
    @ john Bollinger - The tone could be a reaction of Mormonism to Christians who deny the idea that God "was once a man who Progressed to godhood." This is a major creed of the Mormon sect. The eternality of God would refute this idea. – ray grant Dec 21 '23 at 21:58
  • @raygrant The eternality of God refutes nothing of progression. Man is also eternal, and commanded to become perfect, the Scriptures say so. – pygosceles Dec 21 '23 at 22:36
  • 1
    @JohnBollinger If it is hostile to irrationality and unscriptural creeds, I will accept that this is so. It is not intended as hostile to any sincere soul. – pygosceles Dec 21 '23 at 22:36
  • 1
    @ pygosceles - Perhaps a lesson from Geometry might shed light. A Line is defined as " having no endings" and a Ray is "a segment that has a beginning and no end." God has no beginning or ending...and He changes not (James 1:17). He does not progress, but is perfect eternally. Human beings, on the other hand, have a beginning to their existence...and if born again, will go to heaven eternally. They grow in holiness and righteousness by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. But they do not "progress" to godhood. There is, and will always be, One God (1 Timothy 6:14-16) Peace. – ray grant Dec 21 '23 at 22:56
  • @raygrant No beginning and no end, and changes not, even taken together do not logically or in any way imply "I never changed". We say God is perfect; some say this to justify that He never changed. Yet He commands us to be perfect. How can we become perfect? By changing. Therefore being perfect in the present and forever into the future, and always having existed, do not contradict the possibility of having changed in the past. As mentioned, we have one earthly father, and one Heavenly Father. Yet the Son is also a Father. "Father" is an exclusive relationship but not an exclusive title. – pygosceles Dec 21 '23 at 23:34
  • 1
    It is not difficult to read Genesis 1:1-5 as God's creation of time (light and the first day). – Henry Dec 22 '23 at 00:11
  • 3
    Do you have any other verses in mind in reference to this “including His progression and development”, other than ones about Jesus’ development as a human (while being fully God)? It honestly feels like you’re asking others to defend the opposite of a position that you’ve not yet provided sufficient biblical support for. No snark intended at all, but I don’t think this is a good faith question in its current state, and needs edits providing a lot more support for its own argument. – bob Dec 22 '23 at 00:12
  • (By “not good faith” I just mean it hasn’t done due diligence before asking others to defend opposing positions) – bob Dec 22 '23 at 00:20
  • It’s proper to say God exists within and outside of time – Kris Dec 22 '23 at 00:31
  • 2
    @User14 Perhaps, but what is the meaning of that phrase, and what relation does it have to causality? – pygosceles Dec 22 '23 at 00:47
  • Have you not yourself read through the Bible, looking for exactly the evidence you Ask Members here to provide? Failing that, why would you Ask? – Robbie Goodwin Dec 22 '23 at 23:24
  • 1
    @RobbieGoodwin I have, and it does not say that God exists "outside of time" in a manner that I can reconcile with the implications intended by a theory that God violates causality. I am asking if anyone else knows of such an example that would expand my mind to understand what is meant by such a statement and how that could improve our understanding both of God and of causality. – pygosceles Dec 22 '23 at 23:38
  • If your reading of the Bible does not say God exists 'outside of time' what are you left with? What ice could 'God violates causality' skate on? Do you not think God is causality? How might expanding your mind improve 'our' understanding? Did you not just state, your Bible doesn't say God exists 'outside of time'

    What does that leave?

    – Robbie Goodwin Dec 23 '23 at 00:19
  • 1
    @RobbieGoodwin God causes things, but it is abundantly apparent why it would be confusing to a proselyte to say things like "God goded things." No, God is not causality. They are distinct concepts. It would not be expanding my mind to conflate them. It would diminish understanding and darken our minds. The Bible does not appear to say anywhere that God "exists outside of time" in a way consistent with the mindset that this implies a loss of causality. – pygosceles Dec 23 '23 at 00:32
  • @RobbieGoodwin What does this leave? That God is in eternity, and directs time, but even God, in eternity, uses immutable causality as a tool, for example to create worlds. – pygosceles Dec 23 '23 at 00:33
  • 1
    If that's what you mean, why are you Posting it in Christianity, rather than somewhere to do with linguistics, semantics or the like?

    Again, how are your mind ('my mind') and 'our minds' comparable?

    Do you insist you speak for everyone, or could you stop equating your mind ('my mind') and 'our minds' or do you see another useful option?

    – Robbie Goodwin Dec 23 '23 at 00:39
  • @pygosceles. Just a short response for you to please read Job 38. I think you will find that God puts things in perspective to Job. – Mr. Bond Jan 03 '24 at 22:39
  • @Mr.Bond It is true that God is greater than our imagination, but that is not a proper response to how our inadequate or nonsensical imaginations might limit Him. God is great enough that He can give an intelligent answer whereas the manmade philosophies can not. – pygosceles Jan 03 '24 at 23:29
  • 1
    @pygosceles. First of all it was God who was doing the speaking and not the imaginations of men. Secondly, from what God stated Himself clearly demonstrates He exist outside of time. Thirdly, don't you think God gave an intelligent answer to Job? Afterall, God said to Job where were you when I created? It's a rhetorical question that does not require an answer. A little common sense goes a long way. – Mr. Bond Jan 04 '24 at 00:55
  • @Mr.Bond But you are using the words of God to try to defend an extrapolation or imagination of men, are you not? If you think you have a good answer to the above question specifically, you are invited to put your response into an answer instead of attempting to answer or critique in a comment. It is not common sense at all to say that because God is eternal, causality no longer applies or consequence can be violated, which is more what the OP is about. "Where were you when..." is inherently a time and causal concept. – pygosceles Jan 04 '24 at 01:20
  • I'll pass! NigelJ gave you more than adequate answers so I will leave it at that. – Mr. Bond Jan 04 '24 at 01:31
  • @Mr.Bond Circular definitions are far from adequate. Common sense says so. God makes far more sense than that. – pygosceles Jan 04 '24 at 01:42
  • I thought we couldn't have questions of "does the Bible teach X" since different denominations would say different things, but we could have "What is the biblical basis for X" and "what is the biblical basis for Not X"? – eques Jan 04 '24 at 23:31
  • @eques I believe it is sufficiently clearly worded as a biblical basis question, although I might update this. I'm not sure I am seeing a difference between asking if the Bible teaches X and asking for an overview of positions about Biblical basis for a claim. – pygosceles Jan 04 '24 at 23:40
  • Denomination overview questions are allowable, true with some caveats, but asking if the Bible teaches X is not because different theological frameworks can conclude opposite, thus the question cannot be answered within the framework of this site – eques Jan 05 '24 at 13:08
  • @eques If that is so, then how are there so many questions about "Does Christianity teach X?". Such are inviting even more of subjective response than "Does the Bible say X?" Who gets to decide what Christianity teaches? No one can change what the original text of the Bible said or what the intent of the writers was. I believe it is entirely appropriate to request an overview of beliefs regarding whether the Bible teaches or provides support for a particular concept. See the responses for the way the question has been understood, many are approaching this as a biblical basis question. – pygosceles Jan 05 '24 at 15:56
  • "Who gets to decide what Christianity teaches?" that's exactly the point. This is a site about Christianity, not a Christian site. It allows discussion of all topics that vaguely fit under Christianity according to a broad definition. But "is there a biblical basis" is off-topic; "What is the Biblical basis" is not. – eques Jan 05 '24 at 19:58
  • @eques They are the same question in this context since this question specifically asks what is the Biblical basis for the notion being described. – pygosceles Jan 05 '24 at 21:01
  • @eques You could suggest an edit to the title if you feel that would reflect this better. – pygosceles Jan 05 '24 at 21:01
  • 1
    @pygosceles the question(s) in the body might be on-topic. – eques Jan 05 '24 at 21:37

11 Answers11

9

It is common to hear phrases such as "God exists outside of time"

I prefer to put it a different way: time is an attribute of the created universe. If we then accept that God created the universe it follows that God must exist outside of time, because that's part of his creation. But that does not preclude him acting in or on the universe, including time, as he chooses.

That time is part of creation is not expressly stated anywhere in scripture, but it makes abundant sense to me on its own, and I have always found it entirely consistent with scripture. It is part of my personal theology, and I'm inclined to think that it is also the underlying belief of many who go directly to "God exists outside of time".

used to explain away anachronism or avoid addressing it altogether--for example, the idea that God has in the past progressed to become Who He Is today is sometimes dismissed as nonsensical because being "outside of time" is interpreted to preclude such contemplation.

Perhaps "anachronism" is not the word you're looking for. I don't see anything anachronistic about that idea. Or its converse.

I do see that the idea is inconsistent with Malachi 3:6 ("For I the Lord do not change [...]"). And inasmuch as we identify Jesus with God, it is also inconsistent with Hebrews 13:8 ("Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever"). And Hebrews 1:12 / Psalm 102:27 ("But you are the same, and your years have no end.") If we accept scripture as authoritative then it is quite sufficient on its own to reject the proposition that God changed over time to become who he is today.

But if that were true, then why do Scriptures make reference to the acts of God within time, and ascribe causality at all to His acts and attributes?

I don't see any inconsistency there. What do you imagine would prevent God, creator and master of the universe, from acting in a way that we perceive as an event at a particular point in time? Why should such an event not have causative effects?

My limited, human analogy is of God as a painter and the universe as His painting. He exists outside the painting, but he can act on it and within it by adding new brush strokes, painting over parts, or anything else he wants. The painted subjects perceive only what is actually in the painting. Can God not paint manna on the ground in one corner without covering the whole canvas with manna?

We might take license from such expressions so as to hand-wave further understanding of the true nature of God out of our minds.

And you know the true nature of God better than I do? Rubbish. I do not insist that I must be right, but I totally reject your apparent assumption that I must be wrong. I do not "hand-wave further understanding" via my theological views, and I find the suggestion rude.

However, numerous passages in the Bible describe God and His acts in time,

Yes. nothing in my theology is inconsistent with that.

including His progression and development.

You'll need to be more specific about what you mean there.

The law of causality is never violated.

I'm not sure what "the law of causality" is supposed to be, but I guess you mean something along the lines of events having causes in the past that lead to effects in the future. That's hardly a law, though. It's an interpretation. A definition.

And I don't see the significance you're attributing to it. If God acts in a way that we perceive as an event at a particular point in time, and if we perceive that having effects propagating through time according to some idea of causality, then how is that inconsistent with God existing outside time? All I see there is that time and causality are properties of the universe.

For example, Luke 2:52 states, "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." The central message of the Bible is that the Son of God came down from the presence of His Father, took upon Himself a tabernacle of flesh, and submitted to the Father in all things, including paying the price for sin so that we could be redeemed on conditions of repentance.

Yes. And?

The Bible teaches that Jesus was both God and man. To reconcile the gospels with scriptures such as Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8, I think we need to understand Luke 2:52 and similar scriptures as describing Jesus-as-man, not Jesus-as-God. And if you find that a bit unsatisfying then please understand that so do I. Jesus's dual nature is a mystery that is fundamentally beyond human understanding.

For all we might say about being "outside of time", an assertion that God does not obey or is not consistent with laws of causation is clearly untenable.

I'm getting the idea that you take issue with some specific assertions that you have not disclosed. Perhaps those are indeed inconsistent, but I see nothing inconsistent with the general idea that time is an aspect of the universe, created by God, and that God therefore exists separate from and outside it. In particular, that does not preclude God from acting in and on the universe at particular points in time (as humans perceive it), nor does it preclude any such actions producing effects that propagate through time in the universe in a way that we identify with "causation". We perceive only the universe, not whatever is beyond.

Nor does the fact that God sometimes works in ways that we perceive to be consistent with causation imply that he never works any other way. If he did, how would we describe it? How would we even perceive it?

What Bible verse or verses suggest that God "exists outside of time", or gives a sensible definition to what that might more appropriately mean? I am not asking for philosophical interpretations, lawyerisms or hand-waving references to what so-called "mainstream Christianity" teaches. I am asking what the Bible says.

So you get to present an argument, but we are not to present a counter-argument? You are unwilling to hear positions on the matter that have emerged from the work of generations of theologians and philosophers? I'm sorry, but I reject those ground rules. I do agree to base the discussion on the Bible, however, to the extent that it speaks to the matter.

Note that verses saying or suggesting that God has always existed are not the same as saying He has never changed or is outside of time.

I agree that "God has always existed" is a different proposition than "God has never changed", but both are supported by scripture. You seem to acknowledge that scripture supports the former, and I presented some verses supporting the latter above.

Such verses explicitly mention notions of time and causality as being valid and applicable to God as well as everything else.

Do they?

Such verses describe God's nature and attributes using human language that is contextualized to and a product of our universe, of which time is indisputably a characteristic.

In what way do you think they should be expressed differently if God is indeed outside time? Would they say that God has not always existed? Would they say that he has changed over time? Short of being more explicit about God's relationship with time, how would scripture distinguish?

Are you supposing that God could not interact with the universe in a way that humans perceive as an event at some particular time? (How limiting!) Are you supposing that such an event should not produce observable effects that propagate through time? (Why?) Are you supposing that God does not also influence the universe in ways that we don't perceive as such events? (How would we know?)

God being outside of time resolves some troublesome issues, such has how to reconcile God's omniscience with man's free will. That does not prove anything, but it's a reason to favor the idea. In the end, though, it makes little practical difference. I don't see any reason to think that there's anything you interpret as God being subject to time that I cannot interpret as God choosing to act in the context of time, without being bound to do so. In that sense, mine is a bigger God than yours. A less comprehensible one. But his love toward me and his desires of me and the salvation he extended to me through Jesus are the same either way.

John Bollinger
  • 416
  • 2
  • 6
  • This is a great answer. – justhalf Dec 22 '23 at 06:18
  • 2
    "[T]ime is an attribute of the created universe." That's a definition. Your strongest argument for that is, "it is part of my personal theology," indicating that I could at least believe the same without immediately dying or imploding because of it. Not an especially strong case. – jpaugh Dec 22 '23 at 23:37
  • You're right, @jpaugh, it's not a strong case. It's a good thing, then, that I am not attempting to persuade the OP -- or you -- to believe as I do. I apologize if that was unclear. – John Bollinger Dec 23 '23 at 03:02
  • 1
    Then how does this make for a good answer? – Jason_c_o Dec 23 '23 at 04:01
  • 1
    @Jason_c_o, it responds to the actual question -- "What Bible verse or verses suggest that God "exists outside of time", or gives a sensible definition to what that might more appropriately mean?". It is primarily descriptive of that position and its (limited) scriptural basis. If the criterion for a good answer to this question is that it must make a convincing case for or refutation of the position, then the question does not afford any good answers and should be closed. – John Bollinger Dec 23 '23 at 13:58
  • @JohnBollinger I'd like to be persuaded to something like this; and I find that it slightly dissuades me that another brain can't come up with a better reason than my own. :-) – jpaugh Dec 26 '23 at 19:48
  • @jpaugh, perhaps it would help you frame the question for yourself to try to come up with arguments that would persuade someone such as me to reject the position I've described. Or perhaps you could consider why you feel you would like to be persuaded yourself. Is there something unsatisfactory about what you're presently inclined to believe instead? – John Bollinger Dec 26 '23 at 21:19
  • @ John Bollinger This is truly a great discussion, but I will try to inject a line of thought that may shed " light " on your existing views. God is light. God is love. God is a consuming fire. God is wisdom. God is SPIRIT! How can we understand all the mysteries of the Spirit, when we don't first understand all about the flesh... Now to the point. God in his natural state is at the speed of light. Light is the measuring standard for time. Being in flesh, aka having mass makes us subject to gravity, time and space. Since God in his natural state is not in material form, he might be said tbc – RHPclass79 Jan 21 '24 at 03:07
  • @John Bollinger Your answer was on the right track. It has been proven the faster we travel the slower time is . Who knows what being at the speed of light in a natural state might entail. Jesus told Nicademus, " If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" This contrast material things to spiritual. Flesh and blood cannot exist in Heaven nor the presence of God. Einstein got his theory from the Bible. – RHPclass79 Jan 21 '24 at 06:57
8

Time and Eternity Could Co-exist? (Fefferman's answer) Did not Einstein's research on Relativity show that "time had a beginning" as well as the physical universe had a beginning!? If time was created it could not refer to one of God's attribute. That would violate the Law of Non-contradiction. (Time could not be created by a Being who is already time-bound.)

From eternity to eternity you are God! (Psalm 90) What greater statement could be made, regardless of the limitations of human vocabulary, than this, to describe the existence of God unrelated to time! Since time was created---by God---He exists outside of time. (See Law of non-contradiction). The second half of the verse of Psalms 90 does not deal with His existence, but His Providential oversight of His creation. (1,000 years) "Notions of time and causality" fit in this category. They do not speak to His eternal existence but His deeds within the universe which is bounded by a thing called time.

The Tanach (Holy Scriptures) is clear on this issue. And as well, the New Testament of Christianity: Since the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9); Time shall be no more (Revelation 10:6)

ray grant
  • 2,255
  • 4
  • 20
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Ken Graham Dec 22 '23 at 12:04
7

Eternity is not a long period of time. Eternity is other than time.

God, himself, is the cause of everything else. He is neither a part of, nor is he subject to, some greater thing called 'causality'.

'Without him nothing came into being that did come into being', John 1:3. (EGNT interlinear literal translation.)

He is Alpha and Omega. The First and the Last. The beginning and the Ending. Revelation 22:13.

Those who worship him worship his eternal Being.

Time began when God acted in such a way as to start 'the beginning'.

Nigel J
  • 25,017
  • 2
  • 26
  • 63
  • 7
    Unfortunately this doesn't answer the question, which asks whether there is biblical support for the statement that God exists outside of time. Asserting that "eternity is other than time" might support that statement, but where does the Bible say "eternity is other than time"? – LarsH Dec 21 '23 at 16:39
  • 3
    Revelation 10:6 states that 'there should be time no longer'. If time ceases and eternity continues . . . . then they are different things. And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: Revelation 10:6. – Nigel J Dec 21 '23 at 18:22
  • 1
    At least that's in the Bible. Yes, the word in Rev. 10:6 is khronos (Χρόνος), which does generally mean time. But the statement that the angel swore in that verse is usually understood (and translated) to mean that there would be no more delay before "the mystery of God would be fulfilled" (v. 7). It's like saying I don't have time, or we're out of time ... it doesn't mean that time in general will cease to exist. – LarsH Dec 22 '23 at 03:03
  • 2
    @LarsH I do not accept that interpretation. Time shall cease when this present creation ends in conflagration and all that is left is a lake of fire. Then shall there be new heavens and new earth and eternal glory. There is no sun there. The light is the glory of the Lord himself. Without a sun, there is no time. – Nigel J Dec 22 '23 at 06:46
  • 1
    It's true that the sun (along with other lights) was created to mark the days and seasons (Gen. 1:14). But that doesn't mean time requires a sun. If there is no time without a sun, how were there three days of creation before the sun was created? – LarsH Dec 22 '23 at 10:51
  • 2
    @LarsH True. But there was created light. In eternity, there is only the glory of God. – Nigel J Dec 22 '23 at 10:56
6

... even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. - Psalm 90:2

Everlasting is how the KJV renders עֹלָם    עוֹלָם (‛ôlâm    ‛ôlâm).

This Hebrew phrase is variously rendered as "eternity to eternity" (HCSB), "once upon a time to kingdom come" (MSG), "beginning to end" (NLT), "before time was and forever" (BBE), "from forever in the past to forever in the future" (CEB), "from eternity past to eternity future" (CJB), and others. By far, the most common rendering is "from everlasting to everlasting".

The word itself indicates the vanishing point; the horizon, and even more than that, a continual approach to that horizon since the horizon can never actually be reached. It is essentially saying "to the horizon and again". That is, if you can actually reach the horizon then lift up your eyes to the horizon from that position and keep approaching. It is a statement of temporal unreachableness; of eternity.

"...even from the unreachable horizon of the past to the unreachable horizon of the future, thou art God."

This is what is being conveyed here; that there is no reachable point in either past or future where God is not God. It may include either an infinity of time in both directions (for those who hold that time was not created but has always been) or the ungraspable concept of actual timelessness (for those who hold that God is outside of time and created time). Either way the verse is declaring that God did not have a beginning but has always existed and has always been and always will be God.

The theological concepts of God being eternal and immutable are tied in here. He has never not been God whether inside of time or outside of time. Entirely ruled out are the notions of a "time" before God was God and, in connection with that, of God becoming God.

Related: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/43597/32868


Related note:

Jesus growing in wisdom and stature is not an example of God "progressing and developing". The Word, who was with God and who was God, emptied Himself and became flesh. He grew in wisdom and stature as a man. This is not development toward divinity but development as humanity. It is not God developing but God condescending. He cannot develop and progress as God because He is God from everlasting to everlasting.

Mike Borden
  • 16,820
  • 2
  • 18
  • 50
3

There are hundreds of bibles verses that speak of God's eternity, but the phrase "outside of time" is not mentioned. That issue is resolved with reference to philosophy, not the bible per se. In defining the issue, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:

The claim that God is timeless is a denial of the claim that God is temporal. First, God exists, but does not exist at any temporal location. Rather than holding that God is everlastingly eternal, and, therefore, he exists at each time, this position is that God exists but he does not exist at any time at all. God is beyond time altogether.

A Bible verse cited in favor of God existing outside of time is Isaiah 57:12:

For thus saith the high and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. KJ21

Here, God lives "in eternity," which may support the idea that God is "outside of time." On the other hand, Psalm 90 says:

From eternity to eternity you are God. 3 You turn humanity back into dust, saying, “Return, you children of Adam!” 4 A thousand years in your eyes are merely a day gone by.

In this verse, although God's sense of time is very different from ours, he does not seem live outside of time. The ratio of God's time to ours is 1 day to 1000 years.

Of course, both of these verses are open to interpretation. The ratio mentioned in Psalm 90 may not be literal, and - conversely - other translations of Isaiah 57 say that God "lives forever" or "dwells eternally," not that he lives "in eternity." Moreover even if "in eternity" is the best translation this still does not say "outside of time," because time and eternity could co-exist.

Conclusion: No bible verse says directly that God exists "outside of time." The issue must be settled through philosophy and theology, not by a definite biblical proof-text.

Dan Fefferman
  • 6,535
  • 4
  • 27
  • "From eternity to eternity you are God." Lovely verse! "The ratio of God's time to ours is 1 day to 1000 years." A wonderful observation. "time and eternity could co-exist." Also a wonderful observation. – pygosceles Dec 21 '23 at 06:03
  • 4
    2 Peter 3:8 NKJV: "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So the ratio is not literal, otherwise it would be contrdictory. – Seggan Dec 21 '23 at 18:32
  • @Seggan ... or the ratio is being expressed in both directions (it's a symmetric relationship), in which case it could be literal without being contradictory. But it doesn't seem like a literal number is the point here. – LarsH Dec 22 '23 at 11:21
3

Does the Bible say that God exists outside of time?

God cannot be subject to time.

He knows the future, and every detail of the future. The future to us is not future to him:

"I declare the end from the beginning, and ancient times from what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and all My good pleasure I will accomplish.' " Isaiah 46:10

He names Cyrus 150 years or so before he becomes king of Persia. Isaiah 44:28-45:1.

"From everlasting to everlasting you are God".

If there is change in God, if there is progress, then before he created the Universe, how old was he when he became, say more powerful, or more kind, or more godlike in some way or other.

Could he have lived a trillion years and then improved in his character or godlikeness? He is from everlasting to everlasting. It is illogical and wrong to speak of God's age. It is illogical to speak of change in God: God has always been and there is no logical reason why he should change now, which couldn't have happened a trillion years ago, or a trillion trillion years ago.

God is of infinite age. A trillion trillion years ago God was still of infinite age. So he is no older now than he was a trillion trillion years ago. That is what is implied by "from everlasting".

There can be no improvement nor any decline in God because there is nothing outside of himself that affects him, and any change would have happened an infinite time ago.

If God were subject to time then he could not have made the Universe, because he would always be waiting for an eternity before he could make it. If God is subject to time then the Universe could not start.

God does not violate cause and effect. God is the Ultimate Cause of all things. The Universe need not exist, but God cannot not exist. The Universe cannot have always existed because then we would have to be waiting forever before this moment can arise. The whole of eternity has to be traversed before we can reach Now. And since eternity cannot be traversed inside time then God must have a nature which traverses eternity (outside of time).

So when God's word says "I am the LORD, I change not", Malachi 3:6, this agrees entirely with both logic and intuition.

God cannot be subject to time, he is outside of time.

Secondly, God cannot change because he is infinite in all his attributes: he is infinite in wisdom, power, holiness, justice, and mercy. He is the Truth. If he has changed then he was not the Truth before or he is not the Truth now.

You cannot reach infinite wisdom by addition of more wisdom. The same is true for all his other attributes. It is impossible to grow into infinite anything.. the only way to be infinite in anything is be infinite by nature always.

Andrew Shanks
  • 7,398
  • 18
  • 38
  • To reiterate a point in the question, "If there is change in God, if there is progress..." is not relevant to the question. The question pertains to the assertion that God exists "outside of time" in such a way as to violate causality, or contrary to the possibility that He may have changed in the past. – pygosceles Jan 04 '24 at 01:46
  • Whether there is change in God is precisely relevant. Change implies time. Eternity does not. – eques Jan 04 '24 at 18:51
3

Time, space and matter are all attributes of creation. They all have to come into existence simultaneously because if you have matter where (space) will you put it? And if you have matter and space, when (time) will you put it? Time is an automatic dimension of creation, and if it's part of creation, then its creator must be doing it from outside.

It's simply a question of what, when and where? The what is the object to be created and the where is the space the what will occupy and the when is the point in linear time the first two will occur.

Mary
  • 766
  • 1
  • 3
  • 11
  • "They all have to come into existence simultaneously" - How is simultaneity or causality for that matter a concept in the absence of time or causation? "When?" continues to be a question that makes no sense at all to me if we strip eternity of the causal quality that we observe in time. This answer appears to make reference to time in answering the question of how God could exist outside of time. Is that the case? Is time being referenced to determine when time was allegedly created? – pygosceles Dec 24 '23 at 18:33
  • @pygosceles, time space and matter have to be created together which means God exists outside – So Few Against So Many Dec 24 '23 at 18:38
  • But does that claim violate causality? If so, how? And if God did suddenly decide to poof things into existence, would that not be proof that He had in some very real sense changed? – pygosceles Dec 24 '23 at 18:40
  • 3
    God is good and he created and cannot change. He can do all that and remain the same as the beginning – So Few Against So Many Dec 24 '23 at 18:56
  • If God suddenly decided to create one day (at the "beginning") but didn't before then, is that not proof that God changed? – pygosceles Dec 25 '23 at 16:00
  • 2
    @pygosceles What do you mean "one day"? You are starting with the premise that He is in time. That is the position you are arguing for and therefore can not be what you argue from. Furthermore, the Bible clearly states that the first day was not even "when" Creation began. The first day was when light and dark could change, and so change occurred. Therefore, there were no days before it. – Mary Jan 07 '24 at 15:27
  • @Mary How would you describe it otherwise? Creation clearly began on a day. Can anyone so much as ask a question of what God was doing before He created this world, without resorting to concepts of causality and sequence that are familiar to us in this world because of our experience with time? Importantly this is not saying that what preceded Creation (and what follows the end of the Earth) is necessarily congruent with our notions of time. But if there were no days before it, then what was before it? – pygosceles Jan 08 '24 at 00:30
  • 1
    @pygosceles What do you mean it began on a day? Does the Bible say it began on a day? No, it does not. And does the Bible say that something was before it? Then why do you leap to the question of what that thing that may not exist was before establishing whether it existed? – Mary Jan 08 '24 at 01:26
  • 1
    @Mary, and I agree beginning is not a day rather a point in our time that decided to call light out of darkness – So Few Against So Many Jan 08 '24 at 02:18
  • 1
    In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It does not say and morning came and night came, first day. No it just says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and then the day counting comes later – So Few Against So Many Jan 08 '24 at 02:24
  • @Mary It is a sensible and intelligent question to ask. What came before the first day of Creation? If the question is dismissed as "not allowable" or "nonsensical", you drive sensible and intelligent people away from Christianity. It is also nonsensical to expect that God did not exist before the Creation. If there was nothing but God before the Creation, that is the functional equivalent of God not existing before the Creation. But even opining on that question admits that it is sensible to discuss what was before the Creation of this world and its heavens. – pygosceles Jan 08 '24 at 16:51
  • @FewAgainstMany-Israel Interesting that counting is said to have begun "after" something else occurred. Is time a function of its measurement? Does it require an instrument to note the passage of time? Can events occur without being measured by a system of time? – pygosceles Jan 08 '24 at 16:54
2

What is the Biblical evidence that God exists outside of time?

Before going on, I would like to explain briefly the difference between eternity, aeviternity, and time.

Aeviternity generally refers to time as experienced by the Angels, since they outside of time in correspondence to our physical universe. As to what is the difference between time, aeviternity and eternity, I will let St. Thomas Aquinas speak:

Aeviternity differs from time, and from eternity, as the mean between them both. This difference is explained by some to consist in the fact that eternity has neither beginning nor end, aeviternity, a beginning but no end, and time both beginning and end. This difference, however, is but an accidental one, as was shown above, in the preceding article; because even if aeviternal things had always been, and would always be, as some think, and even if they might sometimes fail to be, which is possible to God to allow; even granted this, aeviternity would still be distinguished from eternity, and from time. - Question 10. The eternity of God (Summa Theologiae)

Time as we understand it in Christian notion has a beginning and an end. Aeviternity of the Angels has a beginning, but no end. Eternity has neither a beginning or end!

The psalmist in Psalm 90:10 uses a simple yet profound analogy in describing the timelessness of God: “For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”

What is God’s relationship to time?

We live in a physical world with its four known space-time dimensions of length, width, height (or depth) and time. However, God dwells in a different realm—the spirit realm—beyond the perception of our physical senses. It’s not that God isn’t real; it’s a matter of His not being limited by the physical laws and dimensions that govern our world (Isaiah 57:15). Knowing that “God is spirit” (John 4:24), what is His relationship to time?

In Psalm 90:4, Moses used a simple yet profound analogy in describing the timelessness of God: “For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” The eternity of God is contrasted with the temporality of man. Our lives are but short and frail, but God does not weaken or fail with the passage of time.

In a sense, the marking of time is irrelevant to God because He transcends it. Peter, in 2 Peter 3:8, cautioned his readers not to let this one critical fact escape their notice—that God’s perspective on time is far different from mankind’s (Psalm 102:12, 24-27). The Lord does not count time as we do. He is above and outside of the sphere of time. God sees all of eternity’s past and eternity’s future. The time that passes on earth is of no consequence from God’s timeless perspective. A second is no different from an eon; a billion years pass like seconds to the eternal God.

Though we cannot possibly comprehend this idea of eternity or the timelessness of God, we in our finite minds try to confine an infinite God to our time schedule. Those who foolishly demand that God operate according to their time frame ignore the fact that He is the “High and Lofty One . . . who lives forever” (Isaiah 57:15). This description of God is far removed from man’s condition: “The length of our days is seventy years—or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10).

Again, because of our finite minds, we can only grasp the concept of God’s timeless existence in part. And in so doing, we describe Him as a God without a beginning or end, eternal, infinite, everlasting, etc. Psalm 90:2 declares, “From everlasting to everlasting You are God” (see also Psalm 93:2). He always was and always will be.

So, what is time? To put it simply, time is duration. Our clocks mark change or, more precisely, our timepieces are benchmarks of change that indicate the passage of time. We could say, then, that time is a necessary precondition for change and change is a sufficient condition to establish the passage of time. In other words, whenever there’s change of any kind we know that time has passed. We see this as we go through life, as we age. And we cannot recover the minutes that have passed by.

Additionally, the science of physics tells us that time is a property resulting from the existence of matter. As such, time exists when matter exists. But God is not matter; God, in fact, created matter. The bottom line is this: time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing. Since there was no matter, and because God does not change, time had no existence and therefore no meaning, no relation to Him.

And this brings us to the meaning of the word eternity. Eternity is a term used to express the concept of something that has no end and/or no beginning. God has no beginning or end, but He cannot be wholly defined by eternity, especially as a measure of time. (God is eternal, but eternity does not equal God. Similarly, God is all-powerful, but power does not equal God.) Eternity is one of God’s attributes, but, having created time, He is greater than time and exists outside of it.

Scripture reveals that God lives outside the bounds of time as we know it. Our destiny was planned “before the beginning of time” (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2) and “before the creation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3). In other words, the physical universe we see, hear, feel and experience was created not from existing matter, but from a source independent of the physical dimensions we can perceive.

“God is spirit” (John 4:24), and, correspondingly, God is timeless rather than being eternally in time or being beyond time. Time was simply created by God as a limited part of His creation for accommodating the workings of His purpose in His disposable universe (see 2 Peter 3:10-12).

Upon the completion of His creation activity, including the creation of time, what did God conclude? “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Gen 1:31). Indeed, God is spirit in the realm of timelessness, rather than flesh in the sphere of time.

Ken Graham
  • 71,079
  • 6
  • 53
  • 173
2

James 1:17:

all good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change.

Therefore, because He does not alter, "the idea that God has in the past progressed to become Who He Is today" is not feasible.

That He is outside time is a conclusion from such things, not the reason to accept them.

Mary
  • 766
  • 1
  • 3
  • 11
  • You have identified the critical element in the question being asked - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints beliefs about the god they call Father. – Lesley Jan 07 '24 at 08:34
  • "there is no alteration" -> "there was no alteration" is a logical leap, and I do not follow. How can one conclude He is "outside time"? This explanation is lacking. The present tense is used to describe His nature. Therefore are His attributes immune to sequence? What is meant by "outside time"? This is part of the question. – pygosceles Jan 08 '24 at 00:33
  • @Lesley I am not understanding your comment here. What is that critical element? – pygosceles Jan 08 '24 at 00:33
  • @pygosceles What tense are you expecting to be used? Which tense would you admit disproved your case? – Mary Jan 08 '24 at 01:27
  • 1
    @pygosceles - The critical element is that "the idea that God has in the past progressed to become Who He Is today is not feasible." According to the Christian Bible "there is no alteration or shadow caused by change" in the Lord God Almighty, the Creator and Sustainer of all life. – Lesley Jan 08 '24 at 11:20
  • @Lesley "is X" -> "always was X" or "is not X" -> "never was X" is again the syllogism that I do not see justified anywhere in Scripture, or in rationality for that matter. – pygosceles Jan 08 '24 at 16:55
  • @Mary Obviously, logically, if the Holy Scriptures unambiguously stated that "God never changed" or "God always was perfect", then I would accept that as true. But simply, they don't, anywhere, that I know of, despite having searched them again and again and again throughout my life. They state Who He Is today and always will be into the future, which does not preclude how He came to be that way or that He ever progressed. Logically, He can be unchanging, without shadow of changing, the Lord God Almighty, the Creator and Sustainer of all life, and have done something to become so. – pygosceles Jan 08 '24 at 17:06
  • @pygosceles Forgive me but am a mathematical dunce and I have no concept of greater than, lesser than, the meaning of X or of Y or of Z or anything to do with mathematical or philosophical ideas. I won't be responding with any more comments. – Lesley Jan 08 '24 at 17:14
  • @Lesley I used -> (an arrow) to stand in the place of "therefore" or "implies". "Is X" means "always was X" is not a truthful statement, nor is "is not X implies never was X" a truthful statement. Both statements are false, but I am being asked to believe that they are not only true, but that they are obviously and unquestionably true. I am asked to believe that "is" has identical meaning to "was", but that makes no sense. I thought all Christians dealt in truth? – pygosceles Jan 08 '24 at 17:22
  • @pygosceles - Thanks for explaining. I would refer you to the answer given by Mike Borden (-: or should that be :-) ??????? – Lesley Jan 08 '24 at 17:31
1

We need go no further than Moses' encounter with God in Exodus, Chapter three, to understand why saying God exists outside of time is quite biblical.

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation" (vss. 13-15 NIV).

Theologians like to say that God exists in the eternal present. The great "I AM" of Exodus 3 reveals that God is the eternally present One. Since there was never a time when He was not God, we must say that His existence was, is, and always will be eternal, and what is eternal cannot be measured in time.

God's image bearers exist in the realm of time and space. God Himself exists in a completely different realm of existence; namely, the eternal, which is timeless and omnipresent. That Jesus chose to inhabit a spiritual body forever is a miracle of the first order. Having been conceived by the eternal Spirit of God, Jesus was and will always be the God-man.

Jesus caused quite a controversy when he said to the Jews who accused him of being demon-possessed, “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58 NIV, my emphasis). In fact, the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus to death!

In short, both YHWH and Jesus claimed to exist eternally, and for that reason they exist outside of time. In obedience to his Father's will, however, Jesus in the fullness of time chose to be born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem those who are born under the law (Galatians 4:4-5).

rhetorician
  • 9,801
  • 21
  • 30
-2

Time is frequently used in Scripture in a singleton sense without an article (in the English KJV), but it is also frequently used with the indefinite article ("a time", as in Joshua 8:14, Judges 9:8, Ezra 4:10, Nehemiah 2:7, Psalm 32:6, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8, Daniel 7:25, Revelation 12:14 and dozens more). "A time" in every such instance refers to a span or period of time, an era, or a deadline.

Apparent singleton uses are rare and will be addressed shortly.

First, it does not make sense to say that "time does not apply to God" or that "causality does not apply to God". He would have had to have caused causality before He could cause causality, which is simply circular reasoning and is absurd on its face. God is not absurd. His ways are higher, not lower, than our ways. Without the eternality of causality, it would be impossible for God to have created, or to have condescended and participated in time with all of its constraints and demands. This was and is no illusion; otherwise we make the prophecies of Isaiah and every Messianic saying a deceit. God not only became subject to time, but the Son of God subjected Himself to our time in order to redeem all Creation that pertains to it.

In Hebrew, there is no indefinite article comparable to what we often see in English, further complicating attempts to differentiate between seeming singleton time and instances of time.

In terms of causality, the nature of time can easily be visualized and understood using a computing metaphor:

while(True):
with newHeavensAndEarths() as heavens_and_earths:

    redeemAndPerfect(heavens_and_earths)

Of course God is able to (and does) create many different worlds in parallel, but this serial example is sufficient to understand the nature of time and causality relative to eternity.

Those familiar with the computer science concept of scope will have a head start in understanding this. A scope in computing is essentially the lifetime of a piece of data or of a function. Scope begins when a data item is created or allocated and ends when it is destroyed or deallocated, or when a function begins and ends. According to the strict definition, all functions begin and end. All scopes except the so-called "global" or "universal" scope will have a definite beginning and a definite ending in all useful programs. Scope is visualized in the above program by the indentations. An indentation denotes the beginning of an inner scope, and an unindentation denotes the end of that scope, and the dissolution (but not annihilation) of what was created within it. Scope essentially means that an item is created within a certain context and does not exist outside of that context.

"Time" is analogous to the inner loop where new heavens and new earths are created, and God does His work on each of them. Within that inner loop or scope, time is measured according to the system or systems in which the work occurs.

Eternity is likened to the outermost loop, which has no end (and unlike a computer program, also has no beginning). One could replace this with "always and forever" or some such thing. Suffice the analogy to say it is recognized as an infinite loop.

By this very simple example we can see certain properties, for example that there are many different times, each pertaining to and measured by its own heavens and earth, and each has a definite beginning and ending. Of course I am not saying that Creation is a simulation; it is not a simulation and is very real. Crucially this analogy allows us to dispense with nonsensical notions such as that universal progression (which we might call universal time) or causality itself was "created". Existence itself makes no sense if we dispense with causality, and Creation would have been impossible.

When time is referred to in the singleton sense in English renderings of Scripture, it refers to global time, not universal time. In other words, it refers to the time of this Earth, not God's time.

with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8).

This shows that although progression is measured with respect to a different system in God's eternal realm, it is not devoid of progression, causality or forward movement, which are properties of the time we are familiar with. All things that are earthly are types and shadows of the heavenly.

A second analogy is a watchmaker. God is likened to a watchmaker creating, tuning and winding up watches. When a watch has wound down or worn out, it needs re-winding or repair or replacing. "A time" in the singleton or even global sense therefore always refers to time as measured by and within a specific system.

This allows us to make sense of this verse in Revelation that states that "time will be no longer":

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: (Revelation 10:6)

That is to say, the grandfather clock of this Earth around its Sun will cease, and our appointed time of probation will have ended. The Greek text shows this instance of time, rendered in English in a singleton sense without an indefinite article, is the same word as occurs elsewhere in the New Testament to specify "a time" (indefinite, non-singleton usage). Thus "singleton time" is an illusion imparted by the English language, the King James translators, or our own modernist projections of meaning. Proving the pattern of the Watchmaker or the Programmer creating new things and assigning each its time within the infinite scope of eternity, we further read:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; (Revelation 21:1)

Therefore God, while He lives in eternity, uses eternity everlastingly to create, finish and perfect His works in various frames of time. God existed before and will remain into eternity outside of our time when it has ended but He is not immune to causality. He never had a beginning and will have no end. Even though the heavens and Earth shall pass away, we will continue also. We are eternal beings; the Scriptures say so, for otherwise we would cease to exist when this Earth's time is ended. But the Scriptures say that such an idea is false, and that all will continue to exist forever, either in a state of endless misery or in a state of never-ending joy according to our works done in the time appointed to us, and the desires we grew and exercised during that time.

Neither the ubiquitous passages in the Bible referring to God as the Creator (nor any other passages) indicate that God does not use time, does not respect causality, or exists "outside time" in a sense interpreted to violate progression, causality, or time in His sphere. We might appropriately call His time Celestial time. Per all of our observations, I cannot say it ever goes backwards. The eternality of God cannot contradict His causality, nor does anything preclude the continuation of further Creations.

It is true that for our purposes who dwell here on this Earth, our time will run out, and we must stand to be judged before God and enter into an unchangeable eternal state.

Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? are not his days also like the days of an hireling? (Job 7:1)

This life is our time of testing, and it will surely end.

Of that rapidly approaching day, the Lord says:

the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Revelation 22:10-12)

God having foreknowledge is not at all incompatible with scoped time in eternity, and the immutability of causality, nor is it incompatible with our ability to choose. If God wanted to redeem all of His children and could do so by having Adam and Eve go back in time and preventing them from partaking of the forbidden fruit, I suppose He could have done so, but He didn't, doesn't, and by all appearances never will, which strongly suggests there is an unmovable reason for that. In the end, it is necessarily true that God's own time respects causality and the course of eternity is irreversible, otherwise there could be no such thing as the eternal and final judgment of which the Scriptures continually warn.

enter image description here

pygosceles
  • 2,009
  • 6
  • 15
  • 2
    You have effectively defined "eternity" as "time but at a higher level" but that's exactly the point -- most wouldn't define eternity that way. – eques Jan 04 '24 at 18:54
  • 1
    Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Ken Graham Jan 12 '24 at 22:30