God and Time

[cv5]

What are your thoughts about God and time? I am interesting in discussing your thoughts and their implications on how we understand the teachings of Scripture.

Gen 3:9
And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Something else to think about: God NEVER asks a question that He does not already know the answer to.....

Entering into time, and engaging with His creation in a conversation is for THEIR SAKE.
Same goes for when God enters the realm of time......for judgement. God's judgement is good and merciful and just.

 

[cv5]

If it is clear to you that God is atemporal, then how would you respond to idea that God seems to genuinely interact with humanity in time. Is this just a pretense?

No. It is love. God's love for the world and the creatures that He created.

 

[cv5]

There is no single traditional and biblicak understanding that has always been anything. Immutability and changelessness in God are not biblical and are one tradition among many others that see things differently.

The appeal to mystery to plug holes in a bad theory never looks good.

The idea here is that God's CHARACTER and righteousness never changes.
IMO.....if there are supposed mid-course corrections, they are from our perspective, being inside of time.

God is infinite and outside of time. We really cannot (and will not.....literally ever) fully grasp His mind, purposes and will.
And thank God for that!

Something to think about: we are gifted with reconciliation aka eternal life. But however long we exist in fellowship, it will never be an appreciable fraction of infinity. On the contrary, it will be......practically a zero sum. Forever.

 

[PaulThomson]

God, and Jesus DEFINE Themselves as outside of time, unequivocally.
Their self-description as "I AM" clearly declares Them and Them alone to be the only Beings who exist eternally in the present. Who consequently know the end from the beginning.

Exo 3:14
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.' ”

Jhn 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am ("he" not in the text), ye shall die in your sins.
Jhn 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Not only that, They say that They ARE THE CREATORS of time itself. I am time and creation is the thrust here.

Rev 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Rev 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Nevertheless, the Trinity, Who created time, enter into Their creation, as a means to SAVE THEIR CREATURES.
An aspect of Their plan of salvation made before the foundation of time and creation, a plan made outside of time.

BTW.......God never needs new information......He has all of it already. Which is why Jesus is the ONLY One who can judge the world in perfect righteousness. He and the Trinity alone know everything there is to know about everything and everyone.

And yes, God created the lights which were a created cosmic clockworks......for OUR sake. For the sake of the creatures made of flesh.
I doubt that any of this newly created timekeeping apparatus is required for the angels.....it was created AFTER they had already been created.

Gen 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

I AM does not define one as outside of time. It defines one as in the present. To define themselves as exclusively outside of time, Jesus and God would need to say "I am exclusively outside of time."
To define themselves as both within and outside of time, Jesus and God would need to say "I am both within and outside of time."

 

[PaulThomson]

“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭13:8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

What is the immediate context of Hebrews 13:8 telling the Hebrews? What is the authors point in Heb 13:5-10?

 

[Omegatime]

God from even the creation made time for man which he uses for describing parables and even his coming. I can assure you that at the end of the 6000th day the rapture/resurrection will happen

 

[Pilgrimshope]

What is the immediate context of Hebrews 13:8 telling the Hebrews? What is the authors point in Heb 13:5-10?

That Christ Jesus doesn’t change since the beginning that statement doesn’t really need context does it ? If someone or thing is the same forever it means it doesn’t change forever

abut the context is always what led up to and comes after statements

“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭13:7-9‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The gospel of Jesus Christ whoch reveals him doesn’t change

 

[Chaps]

I appreciate your reply and the lively banter on this subject. However, in the end, with our limited knowledge, we are just floating ideas which we cannot prove - one way or the other. For the Lord Himself said:

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Jehovah.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

And again:

Isa 55:11 so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

As to the word "foreknowledge", one needs to understand that the Greek word is a compound word made of two parts. The first is "before" and the second is "to know". Many have a misunderstanding of this word as it applies to God. It does not mean that God knew something before it happened but rather God "knew" of it always. Therefore God knew it before it happened because He knows all things. Thus, "foreknowledge" as it applies to God, speaks to His "intimate" knowledge of a thing and not to it's relationship to time. Only when viewed by creation, would one say it to be before it happened. In God's Mind it has already taken place. Unfortunately, for us to discuss the subject, we have to use "time" words because this is all we have ever known.

But to further illustrate the point, Let's take this example:

Rom 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:

The Greek word here is: προέγνω which is an Aorist tense verb, thus pointing to past action. In this verse, it does not simply mean that God had some kind of knowledge of a person beforehand but rather that God had a "intimate" relationship with this person prior to creation. The Greek word used here, in it's context, doesn't simply mean "to know", as in knowledge but carries the meaning of intimacy - such as we would see in the OT. To know one was to be intimate with that one. Such as: Adam "knew" his wife.

Therefore, God had an intimate relationship with this person before He ever created this person. There was never a time when God did not know this person intimately and in knowing a person in this way is one and the same as the real thing in God's mind. Thus, in this way, time has no meaning to God as it does to us. In this same way, we see verses like:

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

How could individuals be placed into Christ even before God created or Jesus was born?

Rev_13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Or how could it be said, that the names are not written in the Lamb's book of life and that Jesus Christ was considered "slain" from before creation?

I hope you understand the point I am making. It is difficult to articulate all of the details.

Thanks for the response. I fully understand that these things are weighty and I dont pretend to understand all the ways of God or that we are really even grasping the words we use when we imagine things such as eternity. However, I think it is an important topic to contemplate because I see many Christians who make a lot of a priori theological assumptions because they have never considered various views on God and time. They just assume God is timeless and therefore that their particular views on divine sovereignty must be true and obvious to all. I think it is just important for everyone to see that there are various other ways to consider the topic that are equally valid.

I think you are making a common mistake regarding your interpretation of the Greek. I see this regularly with preachers who will take a verb tense or the way a word is used in a particular place and then unload all these kinds of meanings onto the word in other instances to validate a theological position. That is not how language works. It is not how Greek works and it is not how English works. For instance, just because I may use the word “sick” to mean something was awesome or amazing doesn’t mean that is how the word is always or even typically used. The tense or the prefix on the word gnosis does not determine that the word means “intimate knowledge.” I can say, “that skateboard competition was sick.” The past tense of the verb doesn’t indicate if i am talking about illness or awe. The context determines this. Greek is no different. If we are going to make the argument that the word “knowledge” is referring to intimacy as it is sometime used in the Bible regarding a husband and wife, we need to allow the context to determine that, not the prefix or verb tense.

I am not going to go into a big Greek word study on gnosis. Suffice it to say that it does indicate a fuller understanding or knowledge of something in comparison to the word oida. However, it is simply just wrong to suggest the aorist tense or prefix indicates an ”intimate relationship.”

As to your question on how individuals could be placed into Christ prior to creation or their birth….

I think the simple answer to this is that God determined the rewards of the faithful at creation and knew beforehand who would believe. The suggestion that the Greek implies that God had a special intimate relationship with some of His creation that He predetermined to save whereas others he had no such relationship before creation is simply not valid. It simply means that God had a deep and full understanding of the faithful prior to their birth. He knew who would be faithful, not because he loved some and not others, but because he had a deep understanding of the faithful and how their lives would play out. For instance, God encouraged Satan to consider Job. Not because God had predetermined to make Job a certain way and mandate his future actions and salvation. Rather, God saw the kind of heart, character and faithfulness Job possessed and understood his faithfulness was not based on God’s protection or special favors (as Satan claimed). Thus, because God foreknew what kind of person Job was, he knew that he could endure the challenges and temptations Satan would unleash on his life. In fact, I would argue that your view of divine predetermination is more in line with Satan’s accusations against Job (God you have special protection and favor with Job!). How Job would respond with God NOT providing special love, favor and protection on Job is the issue at hand.

In sum, you are overstating your claims. The word tense and prefix does not mandate divine predetermination and love for some in contrast of others. And theologically, I don’t think the Bible supports this idea of God having special intimate love for some prior to creation and not others. Rather, God has predetermined the rewards of the faithful and has known beforehand those who would endure the challenges and temptations of the world faithfully both by his preknowledge of events and the character of the individuals who would face those events.

 

[PaulThomson]

He is telling the church to observe and remember the behaviour (KJ English :conversation) of their teachers

Thanks for the response. I fully understand that these things are weighty and I dont pretend to understand all the ways of God or that we are really even grasping the words we use when we imagine things such as eternity. However, I think it is an important topic to contemplate because I see many Christians who make a lot of a priori theological assumptions because they have never considered various views on God and time. They just assume God is timeless and therefore that their particular views on divine sovereignty must be true and obvious to all. I think it is just important for everyone to see that there are various other ways to consider the topic that are equally valid.

I think you are making a common mistake regarding your interpretation of the Greek. I see this regularly with preachers who will take a verb tense or the way a word is used in a particular place and then unload all these kinds of meanings onto the word in other instances to validate a theological position. That is not how language works. It is not how Greek works and it is not how English works. For instance, just because I may use the word “sick” to mean something was awesome or amazing doesn’t mean that is how the word is always or even typically used. The tense or the prefix on the word gnosis does not determine that the word means “intimate knowledge.” I can say, “that skateboard competition was sick.” The past tense of the verb doesn’t indicate if i am talking about illness or awe. The context determines this. Greek is no different. If we are going to make the argument that the word “knowledge” is referring to intimacy as it is sometime used in the Bible regarding a husband and wife, we need to allow the context to determine that, not the prefix or verb tense.

I am not going to go into a big Greek word study on gnosis. Suffice it to say that it does indicate a fuller understanding or knowledge of something in comparison to the word oida. However, it is simply just wrong to suggest the aorist tense or prefix indicates an ”intimate relationship.”

As to your question on how individuals could be placed into Christ prior to creation or their birth….

I think the simple answer to this is that God determined the rewards of the faithful at creation and knew beforehand who would believe. The suggestion that the Greek implies that God had a special intimate relationship with some of His creation that He predetermined to save whereas others he had no such relationship before creation is simply not valid. It simply means that God had a deep and full understanding of the faithful prior to their birth. He knew who would be faithful, not because he loved some and not others, but because he had a deep understanding of the faithful and how their lives would play out. For instance, God encouraged Satan to consider Job. Not because God had predetermined to make Job a certain way and mandate his future actions and salvation. Rather, God saw the kind of heart, character and faithfulness Job possessed and understood his faithfulness was not based on God’s protection or special favors (as Satan claimed). Thus, because God foreknew what kind of person Job was, he knew that he could endure the challenges and temptations Satan would unleash on his life. In fact, I would argue that your view of divine predetermination is more in line with Satan’s accusations against Job (God you have special protection and favor with Job!). How Job would respond with God NOT providing special love, favor and protection on Job is the issue at hand.

In sum, you are overstating your claims. The word tense and prefix does not mandate divine predetermination and love for some in contrast of others. And theologically, I don’t think the Bible supports this idea of God having special intimate love for some prior to creation and not others. Rather, God has predetermined the rewards of the faithful and has known beforehand those who would endure the challenges and temptations of the world faithfully both by his preknowledge of events and the character of the individuals who would face those events.

I agree that it is not context that is determining for awelight that foreknew means has a deep intimate relationship with. before creation. A relationship is a two way thing, and someone who does not exist but is anticipated cannot have an intimate relationship with the person anticipating them.

 

[PaulThomson]

That Christ Jesus doesn’t change since the beginning that statement doesn’t really need context does it ? If someone or thing is the same forever it means it doesn’t change forever

abut the context is always what led up to and comes after statements

“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭13:7-9‬ ‭KJV‬‬

The gospel of Jesus Christ which reveals him doesn’t change

He is telling the church to observe and remember the behaviour/practice (KJ English :conversation) of the teachers who taught them the Gospel of grace and how Christ through their practice of the Way grace produced much good fruit. He encourages them that the Jesus who by grace made good and fruitful the lives of their teachers yesterday, is the same Jesus who by grace can make good and fruitful your lives today, and is the same Jesus who by grace will be able to make all believers from generations to come fruitful and good. So don't be side-tracked into follow a less gracious version of Christ than the one you have seen working in the church.

It is not an affirmation of a completely static divine nature which does not change in any way at all. He does not point the Hebrews to consider back to Adam and Eve and say, "Jesus Christ is the same at the foundation of the world, today and forever." The Son's way of working in people's lives has changed through the incarnation. But He has been working the same way in people's lives since His resurrection.

 

[awelight]

Thanks for the response. I fully understand that these things are weighty and I dont pretend to understand all the ways of God or that we are really even grasping the words we use when we imagine things such as eternity. However, I think it is an important topic to contemplate because I see many Christians who make a lot of a priori theological assumptions because they have never considered various views on God and time. They just assume God is timeless and therefore that their particular views on divine sovereignty must be true and obvious to all. I think it is just important for everyone to see that there are various other ways to consider the topic that are equally valid.

I think you are making a common mistake regarding your interpretation of the Greek. I see this regularly with preachers who will take a verb tense or the way a word is used in a particular place and then unload all these kinds of meanings onto the word in other instances to validate a theological position. That is not how language works. It is not how Greek works and it is not how English works. For instance, just because I may use the word “sick” to mean something was awesome or amazing doesn’t mean that is how the word is always or even typically used. The tense or the prefix on the word gnosis does not determine that the word means “intimate knowledge.” I can say, “that skateboard competition was sick.” The past tense of the verb doesn’t indicate if i am talking about illness or awe. The context determines this. Greek is no different. If we are going to make the argument that the word “knowledge” is referring to intimacy as it is sometime used in the Bible regarding a husband and wife, we need to allow the context to determine that, not the prefix or verb tense.

I am not going to go into a big Greek word study on gnosis. Suffice it to say that it does indicate a fuller understanding or knowledge of something in comparison to the word oida. However, it is simply just wrong to suggest the aorist tense or prefix indicates an ”intimate relationship.”

As to your question on how individuals could be placed into Christ prior to creation or their birth….

I think the simple answer to this is that God determined the rewards of the faithful at creation and knew beforehand who would believe. The suggestion that the Greek implies that God had a special intimate relationship with some of His creation that He predetermined to save whereas others he had no such relationship before creation is simply not valid. It simply means that God had a deep and full understanding of the faithful prior to their birth. He knew who would be faithful, not because he loved some and not others, but because he had a deep understanding of the faithful and how their lives would play out. For instance, God encouraged Satan to consider Job. Not because God had predetermined to make Job a certain way and mandate his future actions and salvation. Rather, God saw the kind of heart, character and faithfulness Job possessed and understood his faithfulness was not based on God’s protection or special favors (as Satan claimed). Thus, because God foreknew what kind of person Job was, he knew that he could endure the challenges and temptations Satan would unleash on his life. In fact, I would argue that your view of divine predetermination is more in line with Satan’s accusations against Job (God you have special protection and favor with Job!). How Job would respond with God NOT providing special love, favor and protection on Job is the issue at hand.

In sum, you are overstating your claims. The word tense and prefix does not mandate divine predetermination and love for some in contrast of others. And theologically, I don’t think the Bible supports this idea of God having special intimate love for some prior to creation and not others. Rather, God has predetermined the rewards of the faithful and has known beforehand those who would endure the challenges and temptations of the world faithfully both by his preknowledge of events and the character of the individuals who would face those events.

Good conversational points - you have raised in your response.

First, I think you misunderstood the point I was making about "foreknowledge". To be clear, the meaning of the Greek word is to "have knowledge of a person or thing beforehand. However, if God is said to have "knowledge" of the Elect beforehand, then the knowledge would be an intimate knowledge of them. I know that this is an intimate relationship because God determined, before He Created, to bestow His love upon the Elect in the beloved - Jesus Christ. ( Rom 8:38, 39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. ) Also, this is what Ephesians chapter 1 teaches.

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
Eph 1:5 having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:

There are four "pronouns" in these three verses.
1) Chose us...
2) That we should be holy and without blemish before Him in love...
3) Foreordained us...
4) Bestowed on us...

Who are the "us" and "we"?
In the "nearest" contextual sense - The ones He blessed - in Ephesians 1:3. But who are the "ones" in this epistle from the Apostle Paul? Just look to verse 1: Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints that are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus: Paul was not addressing the world here. He was addressing the "Saints" at Ephesus. Reminding THEM of their great blessing and reminding Them that Salvation came out of Eternity from God to those whom He chose. Yes, these verses have applications to God's chosen throughout time but unbelievers could never be said to be Saints. ( Oh, by the way - The term "Saints" supersedes the idea of "time". A believer could never be called a Saint in time because the word means "Holy one" and no believer is yet "Holy". However, it can be applied to a believer in time because they are "Holy" in Christ and in God's eternal Plan. Once again proving that what God Purposes shall come to pass. )

You say that God's "foreknowledge", is a knowledge of whom would believe in His Son, as He looked down the stream of time. By doing this - you run a foul of many Scripture verses - not to mention, you make God's choosing, before He Created anything, a "reaction" to what some of His Creation would do, rather than a Sovereign choice made by the Creator. Does God not have the right to do as He pleases? Again, look at Ephesians verse 5b: ".. according to the good pleasure of His will," Way to many verses that affirm God's Sovereign right to do as He pleases to mention here.

But to finally answer the question: Did God, in eternity, choose future believers and reward them or did He make a Sovereign choice? We only have to look at Paul's epistle to the Romans.

Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
Rom 9:12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

The Apostle had already established that it was God's Sovereign Choice at work and not our actions: Rom 8:28 And we know that the ones loving God, [He] is working together all things for good, to the ones being called according to his purpose. (Literal Greek translation of: Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τὸν Θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν·) So who are the ones receiving this blessing? The ones "being called". Why? Because they made a choice in future time and God knew this, even before He created or because He determined to do so in His eternal Purpose? What does the Scriptures say?

Rom 9:15, 16 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that hath mercy.

It is not an easy truth to accept but it should be considered and accepted because God is God. This fact alone says that He can do as He pleases.

 

[PaulThomson]

First, I think you misunderstood the point I was making about "foreknowledge". To be clear, the meaning of the Greek word is to "have knowledge of a person or thing beforehand. However, if God is said to have "knowledge" of the Elect beforehand, then the knowledge would be an intimate knowledge of them. I know that this is an intimate relationship because God determined, before He Created, to bestow His love upon the Elect in the beloved - Jesus Christ.

It is not clear why it is necessary for this foreknowledge to be an intimate knowledge of individuals who would become in Christ in future. If God had an intimate relationship with the Son before creation, and anticipated (another word meaning foreknew) before creation a family of sons and daughters conformed to the Son's image, a deeply affectionate feeling towards this family which would be in Christ is understandable. I can also understand God having an intimate knowledge of the character of the family members He was anticipating would one day be in Christ. But it does not require God to have an intimate knowledge of the identities of those who would one day be members of His family in Christ.

( Oh, by the way - The term "Saints" supersedes the idea of "time". A believer could never be called a Saint in time because the word means "Holy one" and no believer is yet "Holy".

Holy simply means set apart for some special purpose. Saints are "set apart" for the purpose of becoming conformed to the image of Jesus from the time they first believe. We become more set apart, more sanctified, more saintly as we grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no timelessness mystery that needs to be invented and appied to make sense of saints being imperfect and yet saints.

You say that God's "foreknowledge", is a knowledge of whom would believe in His Son, as He looked down the stream of time. By doing this - you run a foul of many Scripture verses - not to mention, you make God's choosing, before He Created anything, a "reaction" to what some of His Creation would do, rather than a Sovereign choice made by the Creator. Does God not have the right to do as He pleases? Again, look at Ephesians verse 5b: ".. according to the good pleasure of His will," Way to many verses that affirm God's Sovereign right to do as He pleases to mention here.

I would part company with Chaps regarding his apparently compatibilist paradigm, if that is his view. I don't think God needs to know all the future to be omniscient concerning all of reality and to know everything that is presently true and real.
Yes, God does have the right to do as He chooses. If He chooses He can create a world in which He and His creatures are participating together relationally to create a largely undetermined future. He can do that, and still be sovereign.

But to finally answer the question: Did God, in eternity, choose future believers and reward them or did He make a Sovereign choice? We only have to look at Paul's epistle to the Romans.

Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
Rom 9:12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

The Genesis passage says in its context, "Two nations are in your womb..." This is a determination by God as to which nation would be SERVANTS to the other nation. Notice, firstly, that it was presented as the election of Esau's descendants to service. It was not presented as the election of Jacob's descendants to privilege.

Secondly, we see from the rest of Genesis that Esau came to terms with his election to serve and preserve Jacob, and they had a good relationship in their own life-times.

Thirdly, it was the descendants of Esau who reneged on their patriarch's deference to Jacob, and sought over centuries to destroy Jacob.

Fourthly, the contexts of Malachi makes it clear that it was because of Esau's descendants' treachery that God hated them in the time of Malachi, not that God had hated Esau in the womb.

Fifthly, the context of Malachi makes it clear that Jacob was worse than Esau and was only spared because God was choosing to keep His covenants with Jacob's patriarchs. God did not need to keep His covenant with that nation, because that covenant had already been broken from the nations side; but he has mercy on whom He desires to have mercy, and He has compassion on whom He desires to have compassion.

So, there is nothing in the Rom. 9:11-13 text that should lead us to conclude that God as a reward for their future faith, in eternity chose those He saw would be future believers, knowing their identities in eternity. Nor is there anything in the text that should lead us to conclude that God in eternity sovereignly chose individuals he knew would exist and would remain without faith unless He sovereignly imparted faith to them.

Rom 9:15, 16 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that hath mercy.

It is not an easy truth to accept but it should be considered and accepted because God is God. This fact alone says that He can do as He pleases.

The context of this statement to Moses is that Moses asked to see God's glory and God refused his request, but nevertheless condescended to allowing Moses to see some of His glory. The context within Romans 9 of Rom. 9:15-16 is Paul reporting on how God dealt with Pharaoh.God went through a series of making demands of Pharaoh, striking Pharaoh's kingdom when Pharaoh hardened his heart and refused the demands, Pharaoh asking for relief, God having mercy on Pharaoh and lifting the plagues, Pharaoh hardening his heart further and refusing the demands, God striking Pharaoh's kingdom, Pharaoh pleading for mercy, showing mercy, Pharaoh hardening and reneging....

The idea that God withholds mercy at one time from this person means He does not show mercy to the same person at another time, even soon after, and the idea that mercy in Rom 9 means salvation from the second death, is just not derived from the text of Rom. 9.

I think the message of Rom. 9 may be that God is known to grant mercy on His terms to even the worst offenders, if they repent, even fleetingly, so seek Him for mercy on His terms while you can and you are likely to get it in the measure you need it.

 

[Burn1986]

An interesting philosophical concept to consider is the notion of God’s relationship to time. Many Christian are quick to claim that God is not subject to time. This view is known as atemporalism. At first glance, this view seems sound as it affirms God’s immutability, highlights God’s omniscience and seeks to exalt God as one who sits over the constraints of time.

However, there are some serious concerns with this view. First, if this view is correct, God exists in a constant state of stasis. Everything would be a frozen present to God. Thus, creation, redemption and recreation would all be simultaneous events for God. In fact, it would call into question the very concept of God creating the world ex nihilo. For, how could God create the universe which had not previously existed if, for God, there could never be a first moment of creation. Second, the biblical notion that God became flesh would also be called into question as, there would never be a moment for God when God was not Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, this notion would cause us to reconsider God’s interactions with humanity we see in Scripture that is replete with warnings, answered prayers, forgiveness, anger, love and other acts which indicate God is responding and interacting with humanity based on human actions in time. This view is also popular among Calvinists as they use this philosophical notion as justification for God‘s predetermination of the elect and damned based on his sovereign declaration rather than human response. It would only make sense that if everything is a frozen constant to God, then the moment of creation would also be the moment of salvation. God knowing everything prior to creation would have created the world in such a way as to have predetermined all outcomes.

A second view on God‘s relationship with time is temporalism. This view suggests that God exists in time. In the same way humans are subject to time, so is God. Yet for God, his past is infinite as well as his future. In some ways, this fits many of the Biblical descriptions of God’s interaction with time as he is referred to as one who is “from everlasting to everlasting,” “the first and the last,“ and “before all time and now and forever“ (Jude 25). This is not to say that God is subject to time, as if he is inferior to time itself. Rather, that time is part of God’s essence or being. Theologians from this view hold a range of different theological positions from Reformed theologians, Arminians and openness theologians.

A third view would argue that God is metatemporal. Similar to the temporal view, this view claims that God does exist in time. However, God does stand outside the human timeline. This view holds that there is created time and uncreated time. God stands outside the created timeline of the universe he made, but still exists in his own time which is part of his very essence. Thus, God does interact with humanity based on the flow of time and God, himself, along with his thoughts and actions do have a past, present and future. So the encounters with humanity along time are not merely anthropomorphic as atemporalists would argue, but are genuine responses to past and present actions.

What are your thoughts about God and time? I am interesting in discussing your thoughts and their implications on how we understand the teachings of Scripture.

Well obviously our thoughts about God and time are just spit balling next to yours. We haven’t thought about it that much for sure. You do have one or two guys (like the guy above me) that have written a whole lot of paragraphs so that’s something. Cool stuff though

 

[Chaps]

I would part company with Chaps regarding his apparently compatibilist paradigm, if that is his view. I don't think God needs to know all the future to be omniscient concerning all of reality and to know everything that is presently true and real.
Yes, God does have the right to do as He chooses. If He chooses He can create a world in which He and His creatures are participating together relationally to create a largely undetermined future. He can do that, and still be sovereign.

Paul, thanks for your post. I always enjoy reading your thoughts on these matters and agree with much of your writing.

I do think it is possible that God limits some of His future knowledge of events, but my gut reading of Scripture is that God‘s foreknowledge does consist of full awareness of future events. Here are some verses that guide my thinking on this matter:
1 John 3:20 - God “knows all things.”
Ps. 147:5 - God’s understand is “beyond measure.”
Heb. 4:13 - God’s eyes sees everything that is hidden and exposes all.
Matt. 10:30 - God knows even the number of hairs on our heads.
Job 34:21 - God sees all the steps of man.
1 John 3:20 - God knows “everything.”
Jer. 17:10; 1 Sam. 16:7 - God knows what is in our hearts and minds.
Is. 41:21-23 - God knows all past events and declares “things to come.”
Is. 44:7-8 - God knows “what is to come, and what will happen.”
Ps. 139:4 - God knows the words we will speak before we speak them.
Is. 45:20-21 - God declares the present from long ago.
Is. 46:9-10 - God declares “the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done.”
Rom. 8:29 - God foreknows the saved and those who will be conformed to the image of Christ.
Acts 2:23 - All the works of Jesus were planned out according to the foreknowledge of God.
Gal. 3:8 - Scripture foretells of the Gentiles being saved by faith in Christ.

There are other Scriptures that could be mentioned, but this illustrates the point. God could limit his foreknowledge, but there is nothing to indicate Scripturally that this is the case. Scripture indicates that God knows what will happen, plans His salvation around his knowledge of those future events, knows completely the thoughts, motivations and intentions of human beings, and sees with complete clarity the ultimate end of all things from their beginning.

For me, I do think God’s foreknowledge reveals that God sees the certainty of future events. However, that knowledge does not make things happen or make them certain. It simply means He has total understanding of how events will play out throughout the course of human history. I cannot read these texts without concluding that God’s omniscience is absolute.

As for texts that indicate God repents, is sorry, relents, has pity, or changes his mind, I would say that these actions are not based on ignorance but based on his feelings in the present moment. God’s actions are conditional as he has genuinely and sovereignty granted human beings freedom of choice. He has allowed human beings to choose and set up conditions by which He will respond to our choices.

 

[Chaps]

Good conversational points - you have raised in your response.

First, I think you misunderstood the point I was making about "foreknowledge". To be clear, the meaning of the Greek word is to "have knowledge of a person or thing beforehand. However, if God is said to have "knowledge" of the Elect beforehand, then the knowledge would be an intimate knowledge of them. I know that this is an intimate relationship because God determined, before He Created, to bestow His love upon the Elect in the beloved - Jesus Christ. ( Rom 8:38, 39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. ) Also, this is what Ephesians chapter 1 teaches.

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
Eph 1:5 having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:

There are four "pronouns" in these three verses.
1) Chose us...
2) That we should be holy and without blemish before Him in love...
3) Foreordained us...
4) Bestowed on us...

Who are the "us" and "we"?
In the "nearest" contextual sense - The ones He blessed - in Ephesians 1:3. But who are the "ones" in this epistle from the Apostle Paul? Just look to verse 1: Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints that are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus: Paul was not addressing the world here. He was addressing the "Saints" at Ephesus. Reminding THEM of their great blessing and reminding Them that Salvation came out of Eternity from God to those whom He chose. Yes, these verses have applications to God's chosen throughout time but unbelievers could never be said to be Saints. ( Oh, by the way - The term "Saints" supersedes the idea of "time". A believer could never be called a Saint in time because the word means "Holy one" and no believer is yet "Holy". However, it can be applied to a believer in time because they are "Holy" in Christ and in God's eternal Plan. Once again proving that what God Purposes shall come to pass. )

You say that God's "foreknowledge", is a knowledge of whom would believe in His Son, as He looked down the stream of time. By doing this - you run a foul of many Scripture verses - not to mention, you make God's choosing, before He Created anything, a "reaction" to what some of His Creation would do, rather than a Sovereign choice made by the Creator. Does God not have the right to do as He pleases? Again, look at Ephesians verse 5b: ".. according to the good pleasure of His will," Way to many verses that affirm God's Sovereign right to do as He pleases to mention here.

But to finally answer the question: Did God, in eternity, choose future believers and reward them or did He make a Sovereign choice? We only have to look at Paul's epistle to the Romans.

Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
Rom 9:12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

The Apostle had already established that it was God's Sovereign Choice at work and not our actions: Rom 8:28 And we know that the ones loving God, [He] is working together all things for good, to the ones being called according to his purpose. (Literal Greek translation of: Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τὸν Θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν·) So who are the ones receiving this blessing? The ones "being called". Why? Because they made a choice in future time and God knew this, even before He created or because He determined to do so in His eternal Purpose? What does the Scriptures say?

Rom 9:15, 16 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that hath mercy.

It is not an easy truth to accept but it should be considered and accepted because God is God. This fact alone says that He can do as He pleases.

Awelight, I appreciate your thoughts and insightful response. I do not disagree that God’s foreknowledge applies to us a people. I would just not limit it to ONLY that. I think it also includes future events and is not limited to his knowledge of us as people. In my post above, there are plenty of texts that indicate God has foreknowledge of people, their motivations and their heart. Yet foreknowledge also includes knowledge of future events. Acts 2:23 reads, “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” Thus, I think it is safe to say that we are “predestined” not only because God knows the faithfulness of the elect, but also because he sees how his plan of salvation will play out. Thus, we are destined for glory BOTH because God has a full understanding of the heart of his people and sees how their free-will choices of faith will play out in accordance with the plan he has set forth in Christ. So, I agree with you that God can do ”as he pleases,” however, I think the clear teaching of Romans 9 is that it has pleased him to save people based on their choice to put their faith in Christ rather than predetermining their salvation (which is what Israel believed and what Paul is denouncing).

I agree wholeheartedly with PaulThompson when he says that Israel was chosen for service, not for salvation. I think Paul’s point about God‘s use of Pharoah also illustrates the point. Just because God chose to use Pharoah does not mean he is obligated to save him. God’s choice of selecting Jacob’s lineage for service rather than Esau’s does not mandate the salvation of Jacob’s lineage nor the damnation of Esau or his lineage.

Paul understood this full well. Even he, being chosen to be an Apostle and to preach the message of Christ to the Gentiles declared, “No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.” - 1 Cor. 9:27 Being chosen to serve in a unique role in God’s plan of salvation has never been a predetermination of salvation for the one chosen. We see this in the OT with prophets who, though they were chosen, were sometimes unfaithful to their calling (such as Balaam) as well as in the NT regarding both Israel and some Christians who had significant roles in God’s redemptive history but ultimately turned away from the grace provided to them.

“But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principle of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.”

”I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

 

[awelight]

It is not clear why it is necessary for this foreknowledge to be an intimate knowledge of individuals who would become in Christ in future. If God had an intimate relationship with the Son before creation, and anticipated (another word meaning foreknew) before creation a family of sons and daughters conformed to the Son's image, a deeply affectionate feeling towards this family which would be in Christ is understandable. I can also understand God having an intimate knowledge of the character of the family members He was anticipating would one day be in Christ. But it does not require God to have an intimate knowledge of the identities of those who would one day be members of His family in Christ.



Holy simply means set apart for some special purpose. Saints are "set apart" for the purpose of becoming conformed to the image of Jesus from the time they first believe. We become more set apart, more sanctified, more saintly as we grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no timelessness mystery that needs to be invented and appied to make sense of saints being imperfect and yet saints.



I would part company with Chaps regarding his apparently compatibilist paradigm, if that is his view. I don't think God needs to know all the future to be omniscient concerning all of reality and to know everything that is presently true and real.
Yes, God does have the right to do as He chooses. If He chooses He can create a world in which He and His creatures are participating together relationally to create a largely undetermined future. He can do that, and still be sovereign.



The Genesis passage says in its context, "Two nations are in your womb..." This is a determination by God as to which nation would be SERVANTS to the other nation. Notice, firstly, that it was presented as the election of Esau's descendants to service. It was not presented as the election of Jacob's descendants to privilege.

Secondly, we see from the rest of Genesis that Esau came to terms with his election to serve and preserve Jacob, and they had a good relationship in their own life-times.

Thirdly, it was the descendants of Esau who reneged on their patriarch's deference to Jacob, and sought over centuries to destroy Jacob.

Fourthly, the contexts of Malachi makes it clear that it was because of Esau's descendants' treachery that God hated them in the time of Malachi, not that God had hated Esau in the womb.

Fifthly, the context of Malachi makes it clear that Jacob was worse than Esau and was only spared because God was choosing to keep His covenants with Jacob's patriarchs. God did not need to keep His covenant with that nation, because that covenant had already been broken from the nations side; but he has mercy on whom He desires to have mercy, and He has compassion on whom He desires to have compassion.

So, there is nothing in the Rom. 9:11-13 text that should lead us to conclude that God as a reward for their future faith, in eternity chose those He saw would be future believers, knowing their identities in eternity. Nor is there anything in the text that should lead us to conclude that God in eternity sovereignly chose individuals he knew would exist and would remain without faith unless He sovereignly imparted faith to them.


The context of this statement to Moses is that Moses asked to see God's glory and God refused his request, but nevertheless condescended to allowing Moses to see some of His glory. The context within Romans 9 of Rom. 9:15-16 is Paul reporting on how God dealt with Pharaoh.God went through a series of making demands of Pharaoh, striking Pharaoh's kingdom when Pharaoh hardened his heart and refused the demands, Pharaoh asking for relief, God having mercy on Pharaoh and lifting the plagues, Pharaoh hardening his heart further and refusing the demands, God striking Pharaoh's kingdom, Pharaoh pleading for mercy, showing mercy, Pharaoh hardening and reneging....

The idea that God withholds mercy at one time from this person means He does not show mercy to the same person at another time, even soon after, and the idea that mercy in Rom 9 means salvation from the second death, is just not derived from the text of Rom. 9.

I think the message of Rom. 9 may be that God is known to grant mercy on His terms to even the worst offenders, if they repent, even fleetingly, so seek Him for mercy on His terms while you can and you are likely to get it in the measure you need it.

Well now --- that was a really long written attempt to explain away the literal text as Paul was inspired to write it. Going to the Old Testament accounts has nothing to do with the intent of Paul's original message. Yeeessss - Paul pulls from these accounts but does not use them here in Romans as a way to trace historical remembrance of events. As you so eloquently did in your response. Rather, it is obvious that he is using these names, in order to show that God had predetermined their outcome. This is why the older would serve the younger. Not because of anything they did are would do but because of His Purpose and Election.

In the case of Pharaoh, Moses was told several times, by the Lord, that Pharaoh would not listen to him - even before Moses arrived in Egypt. One must ask and search for the reason of Pharaohs stubbornness and if they do - the obvious answer is - God was using Pharaoh for His Purposes. The Lord had determined to bring 10 plagues upon Pharaoh and Egypt and nothing was going to prevent that. All 10 "would" be poured out - not one less or one more. This happened because God was demonstrating His might.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.

These things took place because God "determined" them from Eternity, thus Paul writes: "..For this very purpose did I raise thee up,..." Pharaoh then, was like putty in God's hands. An Instrument to a means that was determined before Pharaoh was ever born. This is expressed in this Biblical verse:

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD as the watercourses: he turns it whithersoever he will.

 

[PaulThomson]

Paul, thanks for your post. I always enjoy reading your thoughts on these matters and agree with much of your writing.

I do think it is possible that God limits some of His future knowledge of events, but my gut reading of Scripture is that God‘s foreknowledge does consist of full awareness of future events. Here are some verses that guide my thinking on this matter:
1 John 3:20 - God “knows all things.”
Ps. 147:5 - God’s understand is “beyond measure.”
Heb. 4:13 - God’s eyes sees everything that is hidden and exposes all.
Matt. 10:30 - God knows even the number of hairs on our heads.
Job 34:21 - God sees all the steps of man.
1 John 3:20 - God knows “everything.”
Jer. 17:10; 1 Sam. 16:7 - God knows what is in our hearts and minds.
Is. 41:21-23 - God knows all past events and declares “things to come.”
Is. 44:7-8 - God knows “what is to come, and what will happen.”
Ps. 139:4 - God knows the words we will speak before we speak them.
Is. 45:20-21 - God declares the present from long ago.
Is. 46:9-10 - God declares “the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done.”
Rom. 8:29 - God foreknows the saved and those who will be conformed to the image of Christ.
Acts 2:23 - All the works of Jesus were planned out according to the foreknowledge of God.
Gal. 3:8 - Scripture foretells of the Gentiles being saved by faith in Christ.

There are other Scriptures that could be mentioned, but this illustrates the point. God could limit his foreknowledge, but there is nothing to indicate Scripturally that this is the case. Scripture indicates that God knows what will happen, plans His salvation around his knowledge of those future events, knows completely the thoughts, motivations and intentions of human beings, and sees with complete clarity the ultimate end of all things from their beginning.

For me, I do think God’s foreknowledge reveals that God sees the certainty of future events. However, that knowledge does not make things happen or make them certain. It simply means He has total understanding of how events will play out throughout the course of human history. I cannot read these texts without concluding that God’s omniscience is absolute.

As for texts that indicate God repents, is sorry, relents, has pity, or changes his mind, I would say that these actions are not based on ignorance but based on his feelings in the present moment. God’s actions are conditional as he has genuinely and sovereignty granted human beings freedom of choice. He has allowed human beings to choose and set up conditions by which He will respond to our choices.

1 John 3:20 - God “knows all things.” Is the nonexistent future really a thing?
Ps. 147:5 - God’s understand is “beyond measure.” Knowledge gained over infinite time, past and present, is beyond measure, without adding in future knowledge.
Heb. 4:13 - God’s eyes sees everything that is hidden and exposes all. This speaks of knowledge of the past and present.
Matt. 10:30 - God knows even the number of hairs on our heads. Knowledge of the present.
Job 34:21 - God sees all the steps of man. Knowledge of the present.
Jer. 17:10; 1 Sam. 16:7 - God knows what is in our hearts and minds. Knowledge of the present.
Is. 41:21-23 - God knows all past events and declares “things to come.” Predictions of some events planned for the future are not foreknowledge of those planned events, nor of all future events.
Is. 44:7-8 - God knows “what is to come, and what will happen.” God is predicting tribalism will continue within the family he is going to create. That's not hard to predict, since tribalism has been a part of mankind's history since Genesis.
Ps. 139:4 - God knows the words we will speak before we speak them. Predictable by exhaustive past and present knowledge concerning neural patterns preceding speech.
Is. 45:20-21 - God declares the present from long ago. Some future events being declared/predicted does not mean all events are declared of known from long ago..
Is. 46:9-10 - God declares “the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done.” Declaring one's goal before the start of a venture does not entail knowing every event between the declaration and the fulfilment.
Rom. 8:29 - God foreknows the saved and those who will be conformed to the image of Christ. My wife foreknew me before she became my wife. But she did not always know me,
Acts 2:23 - All the works of Jesus were planned out according to the foreknowledge of God. There is no indication that this was according to an exhaustive everlasting plan rather than according to an evolving plan.
Gal. 3:8 - Scripture foretells of the Gentiles being saved by faith in Christ. Foretelling part of a general plan towards the end-goal of making a family of Christ-like progeny does not mean all events along the way were known beforehand.

None of these texts to my mind clearly declare exhaustive divine foreknowledge from the everlasting past.

 

[Mem]

I don't think that anyone can argue that God was, is, and will always be "in the moment." But, ironically, for always looking forever behind or ever ahead, we find it so hard to maintain "being present."

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

What are your thoughts about God and time? I am interesting in discussing your thoughts and their implications on how we understand the teachings of Scripture.

I guess after 18 pages I will decide to respond here.

If we were to define Time we need to first to establish "Laws." By the help of a constant that exists within and without the Universe, we can see Mathematics. Mathematics on its own is a Law of definition. It can explain the established Laws of Physics, Space/Distance, Light, Speed/Rate, Sound, Substance, Process, Nature, and Quantum Theories like Relativity. So Time is easy to develop.

What Mathematics and the established Laws cannot define is the First Law. The First Law is the origin, original, established Law that all other Laws arrive from. And we know the First Law is God, more specifically, God as Creator.

The First Law can manipulate any established Law whenever He chooses. The First Law knows the END from the BEGINNING and everything in between. When miracles happen, we can see how the established Laws are being manipulated by the First Law.

When Jesus spoke to Lazarus, who already was being subjected by the established Laws of decay, nature, time, life, death, we see the First Law imposing His Will [manipulating] onto the established (created) Laws.

When we see Joshua and David mention in the Book of Jasher that God made time stand still, we see the First Law impose His Will [manipulate] the established created Laws.

When God parted the Red Sea and the River Jordan, we see the manipulating of the Laws of Physics [Force /Current/Gravity], nature, substance, even the land was dry like evaporation sped up its Time rate.

God is the First Law!
All other Laws are subject to the First Law.
Modern Day Science refuses to admit this.

 

[PaulThomson]

I guess after 18 pages I will decide to respond here.

If we were to define Time we need to first to establish "Laws." By the help of a constant that exists within and without the Universe, we can see Mathematics. Mathematics on its own is a Law of definition. It can explain the established Laws of Physics, Space/Distance, Light, Speed/Rate, Sound, Substance, Process, Nature, and Quantum Theories like Relativity. So Time is easy to develop.

What Mathematics and the established Laws cannot define is the First Law. The First Law is the origin, original, established Law that all other Laws arrive from. And we know the First Law is God, more specifically, God as Creator.

The First Law can manipulate any established Law whenever He chooses. The First Law knows the END from the BEGINNING and everything in between. When miracles happen, we can see how the established Laws are being manipulated by the First Law.

When Jesus spoke to Lazarus, who already was being subjected by the established Laws of decay, nature, time, life, death, we see the First Law imposing His Will [manipulating] onto the established (created) Laws.

When we see Joshua and David mention in the Book of Jasher that God made time stand still, we see the First Law impose His Will [manipulate] the established created Laws.

When God parted the Red Sea and the River Jordan, we see the manipulating of the Laws of Physics [Force /Current/Gravity], nature, substance, even the land was dry like evaporation sped up its Time rate.

God is the First Law!
All other Laws are subject to the First Law.
Modern Day Science refuses to admit this.

When a plane flies, the law of gravity is not suspended for people on the flight. The law of gravity continues to operate but its downward pull is overcome by the creation of an upward thrust using other laws. When God raised Lazarus, time continued its forward motion everywhere, but God inspired life from Himself and creative power from Himself into Lazarus and His cells, allowing them to heal.

When God turned back the sun ten degrees, time (sequencing of events with before and after) continued. Time itself was not reversed, but one of the clocks that God had made was turned back 40 minutes. Time does not reverse when you wind a clock back 40 minutes.

Yes, God is able to overpower natural laws and create unusual effects. But we see no examples of God stopping or reversing time itself. This means that possibly time is not a law separate from the first law, but may be one of the characteristics inherent in the first law.