A discussion on time and eternity

Vigiliae Christianae 28, 161-168; © North-Holland Publishing Company 1974 A DISCUSSION ON TIME AND ETERNITY BY 2232 MENER NG EP AY A ALELTERING tt. P., “Hiv more Ete oùx Av 6 Tlés. A discussion on lime and eternity : VChr XX VIT 1974 181-168. | Les attaques parlées par Alhannse contre Arius et les Ariens sur l'éternité du Fils ressemblent À celles que les Pintoniciens « orthodoxes +, par exemple un Proclus, ont portées contre un | Atticus sur l'éternité du monde, Recent research into the philosophical background of the theology of Arius suggests that Arius may have been influenced by Platonists like Atticus, since Arius shares with Atticus the emphasis on the divine will! and since Arius’ claim that there was once when the Son was not finds its obvious parallel in Atticus’ (and Plutarch’s) doctrine that the world has a beginning in time.” The present paper intends to pursue this matter a little further by comparing the discussions between Athanasius and the Arians about the generation of the Son to discussions held in Platonism about the creation of the world. It will appear that these discussions concentrate to a large degree on the analogy between time and eternity. This need not surprise us, since Plato's view on time as an image of eternity was well known. This view immediately raises the question whether eternity somehow resembles time and whether temporal vategories can be applied to eternity. Let us first examine Athanasius’ use of images taken from created reality when he speaks of God. Athanasius states time and again that God is not like man (or like creation in general).* nevertheless he uses images taken from creation when speaking about God. At the same time he vehemently rejects all images which could suggest any corporality or 1 See G.C. Stead, The Platonism of Arius, Journal of Theological Studies 15 (1964) 16 ff. 2 See F.Ricken, Nikaia als Krisis des altchristlichen Platonismus, Theologie und It should be noticed that the emphasis on the divine Philosophie 44 (1969) 321 ff. will and on the temporal beginning of the Son or the cosmos are according to Athanasius connected with each other: The world has, as a product of God's will, a temporal beginning, see e.g. Contra Arianos (henceforth abbreviated as C.A.) 3, 60, 61, the Arian statement that the Son owes His being to an act of will by the Father is identical with the statement that there was once when the Son was not, sec C.A.3, 59, 61,66. 5 See Plato, Timaeus 37 D: Kai SuixocuOv Gua obpavav moet [sc. 6 yevvnoas natip] pévovtos alwvog Ev Evi Kat’ dpı9uöv iobouv aiwviov eixdova, tovtov Öv En XPÓVOV OVOMÚKULEV. See e.g. C.A. 1,21, 23, 27, 28; 2,34, 35: De syn. 42; De deer. 10, 11, 12, 20, 24.

pera VIRA charges the Arians of inferring oF at) a about at God» ; Is major aiyentien is obviously that this way speaking of psychic reactions i whose generation of the nk that God is a being in time and space ein ol de Ben pavo therefore takes place in time and excludes the ns nastus does not en all human images of God. Te me me RA an area rene is an act of nature not of ae as hanasius sees it) generation in man Athanasius rejects om O | eliberation.® {t is in the same context that 10 Ciad dee cpr of psychic reaction (like that of man) pve Ba Da nu "i product of any deliberation which can again disa rates 15 God n io as it appeared.’ ~ Although Athanasius, when ously podias ine n, n uses images taken from human life. he obimages, though mien si from the non-human created reality. These Che arrébutiss pe inner separi have the advantage of avoiding particularly likes (as did some theologians before sm ) th ity to God. He sun its riverTM as illustrati rn of the and its light‘ and the well and astio Renee ons of he Father and the Son, since these images is obvious that Pond e relation between the Father and the Son. It es which do of such. imag ul useeternity caref a so e pin any in adict contr not Plotinus!! Unlike eable Athanustus does not celich iod"s unchang es for God (the Divine), but selects a small number el i the ine of imag se, Sul his major theological purpo viz., to show that God is bin ve Sier . abiy ange unch und | n en nally s to us, confirmed by the These more general obegi zio are, It seem way in which Athanasi as note te oùk n slogan sayiv that vw Anamean . It isSonnot dies Av 6 Yiós there was wi uni whether Arius s to a time when the n was not, since he also says that the Son was created See e.g. C.A. 1,21; Ad Ser. 4,6. sr C.A.1,26,27:3, ais 67. a This means that some aspects of the human act of bet , tat 2,17; 3,32; De deer. 12: cf. C.A. 1,29 so ek C.A. 1,12, 13, 14, 20, 25, 27; 2,31, 33, n Seren. g2 i he generation of the Son, other aspects cannot. os CA. 1.14, 19, 275 Ad Ser. 2,2 , H. Armstrong who observ th tr 36: Ad Ser.2.2- De decr. 20, 24. SESS from | the reaim of theee senses to expressqa intelligible reality with more originality and force than Piotinus, a philosopher has ever used i > the same time an acute critic of his ima es po nar ES ss EM . on ridge History of Later Greek and Earlv n di = Piilosophy, edited by A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge 21970) 220-221 and 240. A c De fir pow: Fa portant images used by Plotinus is provided by H me ts e nos, in Paulys Realencyclopádie 21,1 (1951) 526-527 ls 163 the that time has been made throughwith or generated before all time,!® and Ariu ed aint acqu that s must have been Son.!® These statements showstat in the Timaeus that time was madng.e Plato’s well-known doctrine theed cos Arius is obviously tryi by the Demiurge together withof Plato's,mosto." spea nevertheless, about whilst maintaining this tenet the Logos’ in tempk,oral categories, since ‘before the cosmos’ and “before categories. the word noté are temporal10 eternity.1$ both the past tense ñv and tens iv cannot be applied According to Plato the past einde by ed resemble the attempt madehad This attempt made by Arius lddoeshas a begi cus nning in ume. If Atti Atticus 10 show that the wor world began with time. he would have wanted to show only that the thought, but his vus belief that the conformed to general Platonichim deviate from thevbvi er of the Tinueus world started in time makes — wants to defend lett nst non-Platonic (which he — strangely enomughthe mainstream of Platagai philosophy. In onic interpretations)" and fro have said on this matter we turn te Albinus order to see what Atticus may o says d. Albinus states that when Platted defence of the eternity of the worlbein g this ought not be interpreOtay dias that the world has come into ld was not 16 meaning that there was once a time when the wor VGTEOV autot. mM: AVTOZ OUT UKO RickenTM rightly refers to thinote ypóvov Ev © OUK iv è xéopos. ginn yevnróv eivar TOV KOGHOV, oby to the Arian statement qu retNVe passage in Albinus as a strikinguldparabellel noticed that Arius does not Sas bte aux Av 6 Yio:. But it sho note ypóvos Óte OVK AY 6 Yiós. whilst it is obvious that Albinus attacks HV è KOOLOS, In the Praga view which says WV NOTE ypovog Evebi©usOÙK this latter sentence does not ments of Atticus preserved by Eus 100 said this disertis verbis (since itVEV) appear, and Atticus may not 38havB:e ypo vos 8 obv pet oùpuvoù yEYO , obviously contradicts Timaeus : De syn. 46: 12 See e.g. Arius, Urkunde (Opitz) 1,30, and Athanasius, C.4.1.14 ef. infra 165. » C.A. 1,12, 13; De decr. 18. op. cit., 26. 4 Timaeus 38 B, cf. G.C. Stead, be applied to eternity, not the past and the future, 15 Only the present tense can ry (as is se often is m fact a 7)hete188rodo odoxy which mon cus’ Platonic orth 182 On Attiorth f. (195 29 y) see H. Dörrie in Gno the case with odox 16 See Albinus, Epitome 14,3. ns may havecus,beenas Arius Christia h earlier than , op. cit.,of329.thouMuc 17 F.Ricken ted by Atti esen repr about theattacoscksmostheasstatement that the kind principight was once influenced bym Orig who 4,4,1 en is quoted by Athanasius intherDee deer en, De ionisfro . 27). appears fro when the Son was not (this sect m Orig see Timaeus 37 E-38 A.

but certain statements made HN MOTE OTE OYK HN O YIOL by Atticus imply something very similar. He By applying temporal categories to God before the creation or generation oral category implies that there despite his assertion that the Son was created before all time, he must states firmly that the Demiurge made the COSMOS OUK Svra np bite oy Especially the word rpötepov as a temp was a time before cosmos." To understand Atticus” thou ghts we should not only rely on the frag ments of his writings pres erved by Eusebius. but also on the references to Attic us in Proclus' commentary on In explaining 71imaeus 34 AJB: EK ecos loov Kai ÖAov the Ti aeas oùtos ôn rac bvtos dei Aoyi opòc Seoù Aoyiodeis Aciov Kai Ouuzòv cased TE nepi tóv more EOOLEVOY Beòv Kui tékeov ¿e TEAEWV OWL Proclus attacks Atticus’ view ETOV COE énoinosy that the word rote refers to a temporal beginning and a part of time. From this attack on Atticus by it may be deduced that accordin g to Atticus it was Possible to Proclus tex from the point of view of the creating Demiurge: gota noté Bre da: Ò Köono;. and this, though from a nv ROTE OTE OUK HV Ó Köcn os. different angle, is the same as If the word note is here mean senting a part of time this is the same KOGHOS. and on belonging to the move It logical difficulties in his effort to béginnin manoeuvres the cosmos is himself into apply temporal categories to the great ‘before cosmos’. Very similar difficulti es occu r in Arius’ doctrine of the Logo 16 s.*2 Atti ticus, fragment 4,7 (ed. Baudr y). Proclus, with j a reference to Aristotle's the word TPOTE o POY belongs to time. see In Tim. 37 D/E Pi € ”im. 34 A/B: to dé au note ECÓMEVOY Ob 1h: Kutü ypóvov éotiv Rs re shine ” WG oiera n ATTIKOS ... ÉOTIV oùv TÓ roté rotto ob 4pavou HOPLO V Janni oe attack defin a ition of f time, t says i that On i ns i a î Atticus nHioupyias. Proclus says, /n Tim. 37 The word üpu sugge sts that D'L: 008 üpu xpóvo s alc Atticus must Kind of time before the creat ion of the world. have said: There See Proclus, In Tim. 28 B, 37 D/E. rien ih Ste, Lie be fm a background to Arius’ theology not only with its ee ie Ka ne the cosmos is i eel pe ; i i e CORTDS, y will be, This in found elsewhere hpi alc9ntòg ... ee cola en whom he Övönarı uôvov deos. In but also with its reference to an reference in to the the cosmos Timaeus as Hovoyevhc &v. as a deity well, see inferior which 92 C: owes öde è This finds its parallel says: OSE Beds dindivoc Eorıv è in Aóyos. oma Ka Papini om nm eae Ae po h pi is, as In Arius’ theolo gy, no differ ence \ an 1 as 6 yevvnoas nathp, make ‘ -8. 37 C/D where s (nor?) time, a little furth Demiurge planned to generate time. Similarly beginning, and furthermore how far Athanasius' thoughts on the eternity of God find parallels in the writings of the Platonists. By comparing Arius to Atticus and Athanasius to the ‘orthodox’ Platonists we do not suggest that Arius had read Atticus and that Athanasius had a detailed knowledge of post-Plotinian Platonism. If we follow the assumption (which is widely adhered to) that Athanasius was farniliar with the had a fairly detailed knowledge of Platonism. since Eusebius quotes long vo times. one belonging to the cosmos Is obvious that Atticus (within Platonism heretical) doctrine that the world has a temporal passages from the Platonists (in the case of Numenius and Atticus HY è KOopos.'TM Proclus tells us ment of chaos out of which created.” It is interesting to see in how far Athanasius’ attack on Arius and the Arians resembles the attack made by the ‘orthodox’ Platonists on the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius, then there can be no doubt that he tain his doctrine of the temporal of the world, Supposed there were two have intended to say that there was once a time when the Son was not." to say Atticus may in fact not have said this, but some thing slightly that Atticus, in order to main of the Son he exposes himself to the criticism made by Athanasius that. t as repreas HY MOTE Ypòvoc Ste OvK different: fiv Rote ypovog tic Ste OUK 165 e the Demiurge. j refe > ld tak d the Arius ena ani an ne of the Son that He was generated Gypovws and created mp0 uiwvwv (= npô xpovuv, as appears from what he says a few sentences earlier), see Athanasius, De syn. 16. Athanasius, however, sharply distinguishes between “to generate’ ‘used only for the Son) and ‘to create’ (used only for the world). 22 Athanasius accuses the Arians that by applying temporal categories like ‘once’ ‘when’, ‘before coming into being’ to the Logos they suppose time before the Logos, despite their claim that time has been made through the Logos, see C..4. 1,13, cf. 1,14: Kav yap tó ôvoua tod ypovov mpooroiobpevor poßeicdu SiG tou: Oveidilovras avtovs Aéywor mpd xpóveov adrov givar, GAZ” ôuux Gm Siaothwata tiva Sid50ucv, év ols un elvai adtèv pavrálovtal, OLSEN Attov ypovovs onpuivovie:, Kai a/oyiav nepi tov Sedov eloüyovtes, peyádos doeBodborv. Athanasius’ attack seems justified by what we read in an Arian quotation given in C.A. 2,24, which reads that God first made the Logos. and then, with the Logas as mediator, the rest of creation. Here the creative activity of God is represented as taking place in time. Athanasius insists that in God there is no ‘follow up’ of will and action, but that in God's eternity will and action coincide, see C.A. 2, 31, cf. E. P. Meijering, Irenaeus’ relation to philosophy in the light of his concept of free will, Romanitas et Christianitas, Studia J. H. Waszink ,., oblata (Amsterdam 1973) 224, - In his attack on Atticus’ doctrine of a kind of time before the world Proclus says, Jn Tim. 37 D/E, that either this time contains past, present and future, in which case it is no different from time belonging to cosmos, or it contains only present, in which case it ought not be called time, but eternity. Proclus insists that before the world there can have been no past and future and therefore no time, Proclus obviously wants to show against Atticus that God's creative activity does not take place in time (similar to Athanasius when he wants to show against the Arians that God's creative activity and God's generation of the Son do not take place in time). Similarly Plotinus says that the cosmos has no temporal beginning and that Plato’s remarks in the Timueus which seem to imply a temporal beginning of the cosmos ought not to be taken literally, see Enmcad 3,7, 6,50 ff.

E. P. MENERING Eusebius is still our main source of knowledge). What we do suggest is that (with or without direct detailed knowledge of the Platonists) the Arians and Athanasius started from positions which can be compared to those held by Atticus and the ‘orthodox’ Platonists and that they advance their arguments in a way which underlines their kinship with positions held within Platonism. Therefore we feel entitled to compare Athanasius ‘now’. God is ‘everlasting’.2” Sometimes he even uses temporal categories for God which he elsewhere, in a different context. rejects.?! we find the same picture as with the use of images taken from created reality: Athanasius makes careful use of certain temporal categories when speaking about God's eternity (sometimes. but not always, admitting that these are inadequate) whilst rejecting all temporal categories which contraby the Arians against the 6peotoios.” Furthermore Athanasius clearly dict his basic belief that God is the eternal and unchangeable Being. Here again he differs significantly from Plotinus. Plotinus freely uses temporal categories when speaking about eternity, but at the same ume makes it clear that all these categories are inadequate (including the valegory dei). - The fact that God is the eternal Being implies, according to Suggests that the Arian statement is in conflict with reason. when he Athanasius, God's perfection, which can not be subjected to any progress inter alia with Proclus, of whose writings he can have had no knowledge , for chronological reasons. Arian statements like hv note Ste oùk fiv è Yidg are not found in Scripture, observes Athanasius.” hereby clearly returning a charge made says that no Greek or Barbarian would dare say of the God he confesses that He was not before He was made.” The fact that Athanasius regards these statements as both unbiblical and conflicting with reason implies that he attacks the Arians not only with suitable Biblical texts but also with reasonable arguments: in fact he often produces Biblical texts in order to prove his reasonable arguments. Time has been created through the Son“? and is part of created reality." in time. Therefore there can be no ‘progress’ in God in the sense that God ‘started’ as a novas and ‘ended up’ as a Tpau:.* The discussions about the eternity of the Son within the early church and about the eternity of the cosmos within Platonism show the great logical difficulties in using images with reference to the Eternal and the Divine. These difficulties arise for everybody. They obviously are dif- God is above creation and time: temporal categories like ‘once’. ‘once ferent according to the different theological or philosophical purposes there was not”. ‘before coming into being’, and ‘when’ cannot therefore be applied to God.” A consistent application of the rule that no temporal pursued: categories can be applied to God would lead to a completely negative theology, a kind of theology Athanasius obviously does not adhere to. of the Creator, therefore he has to separate the world as much as possible from the Creator. To him, most suitable way of doing this is to state Just as he uses certain images taken from created reality as an illustration of God, he also uses certain words which must be called temporal cate- 2% gories when he speaks about God's eternity: God is ‘always’,"8 God is 31 2 See C.A. 1,10, 11, 22; De deer. 18; Epist. ad Afros 6. = See e.g. De syn 39. 1,18: "EAAñvov yap Ida tadtu, dote yevnmnv eigayeıv is used for the creation as an indication of its temporal beginning. # See e.g. C.A.1,11 (many more quotations can be given). Ibid, bid. In C.A.1,29 Athanasius says that God created the world when He saw that the suitable moment to do so had come. He does, however, add the restriction that are inadequate, cf. E. P. Meijering, Orthodoxy and Platonism in Athanasius, Synthesis Tprdda, Kai Toig yevnroic adtv ouvebioadteiv, cf. C.4.1,17 and Ad Ser. 4.7. This contradiction shows that Athanasius sometimes argues ad hoc. 2 See e.g. C.A.1,12, 13, 76 See C.A.1,11-13, ** Unlike the Platonists Athanasius does apply the past tense ñv to God's eternity. This is, of course, caused by John 1.1 "Ev apy? Av è Aòbyo;: Athanasius sces the Av which is used for the Logos as an indication of the Logos’ eternity, the a0 this is an inadequate way of speaking. When in C.A.2,57 he says that God started to create, he is clearly using temporal categories without. however, saying that these 2 C.A, 1,10, This remark is incompatible with what Athanasius claims elsewhere, viz., that it is typical for the Greeks to believe in a deity which somehow (at least partly) has come into being. see C,A, | Atticus wants to show that the world is dependent upon the providence &y&vero which (Leiden 21974) 86 ff. thesis? ni tO où noté yev dv, Nu mad 3,2, 4 ff.: ötav di tó i “mca | | AÉYLTOUL. vopiterv Sei cagnveias Tis av, Evexa A Gv È Narpi, obK tot N Sa meme Ei yap ola ardiog otveativ 6 Adyosdà 10YÉYOVEV Gercanny LY Tpıäs ütôtog: 4.2.0 povas pév AV mpotepov, Ex MPOTIHRNS Kai mpoldvtos tod ypòvov kat’ abtobs NLENGE Kui GUVÉGEN tic Scoz.oyiuc n 7 E Kai noté pév ¿direis Topic, note de nA PNT demís piv mpiv yévntal a nanpne Se, Ste yeyove. Cf. C.A. 1,14,18,20, 21: Ad Ser. 4.7. Plotinus, me re m eternity implies perfection, being in time implies imperfection. sec Ennead I di Nav oùv Kai dv kai Kata rav ovK ÉVOEËS Kai OÙ tabın HEY TAPES, Won bt ; Ù = h toradrn vas. TO yap tv xpóvo, Kav TÉÁELOV A, de Soxel, olov re here wurî téActov, Seduevov kai tod Enerta, ÉMAEITOV th YPÒVW OÙ betta ... È

firmly that the world has a temporal beginning. hereby showing that God is before and therefore above the world. But this brings him into conflict with Plato’s doctrine that time was made together with the world, which implies that one cannot speak of any ‘before’ the world. Proclus has no difficulties in demonstrating the invalidity of Atticus’ theory of a special type of time before the world.% — Arius and the Arians want to stress the ontological superiority of the Father above the Son. They can only do this by using terms which imply a temporal priority of the Father to the Son, and this brings them into conflict with their belief that time was made through the Son, which means that there can be no temporal priority to the Son. Athanasius has no difficulties in demonstrating the contradictions in the Arian position.** — Athanasius. in order to maintain the ontological equality of the Trinity, denies any change in the eternal God, but this brings him into conflict with the belief in contingent acts of God spoken of in the Bible and the Creed. 11 is difficult to see how an absolute unchangeability of God can be harmonized with contingent acts of God which somehow must imply a change in Gad, since God does something which He did not (want to) do before.** — The great genius Plotinus has the least difficulty, since he obviously possesses the noble liberty to create the most suggestive images for the Eternal and the Divine and to criticize his own images at the same time.” But the price he pays for his safe position is high (some would say: too high): a theology which is, in the end, completely negative. Oegstgeest, Remonstrant Manse. Oranjelaan 11 St 35 » See supra 164, 165 n.21. See supra 165. See on this matter more extensively E. P, Meijering, Wie platonisierten Christen? Zur Grenzziehung zwischen Platonismus, kirchlichem Credo und patristischer Theologie, Vigiliae Christianae 28 (1974) 15-28. ® See e.g. the way in which he talks about time as ‘having fallen out of eternity’ Ennead 3,7,11,7 ff. On Plotinus’ views on time and eternity see W. Beierwaltes, Plotin über Zeit und Ewigkeit. Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Frankfurt a/M. 1967),