Time

TIME

Besides the ordinary uses of this word, the Bible sometimes employs it to denote a year, as in Dan 4:16 ; or a prophetic year, consisting of three hundred and sixty natural year, a day being taken for a year. Thus in Dan 7:25 12:7, the phrase “a time, times, and the dividing of a time” is supposed to mean three and a half prophetic years, or 1,260 natural years. This period is elsewhere paralleled by the expression, “forty-two months,” each month including thirty years, Jer 11:2-3 12:6,14 13:5.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Time

1. The conception of time.-In all ages and among all peoples the idea of time tends to be expressed in the figure of a continually and evenly running stream. It is viewed, however, in sections; and each section brings with itself or takes up into itself all the events that happen. This conception is maintained consistently in the writings of the Apostolic Age. Time comes into being (, Act 27:9, spent, lit. [Note: literally, literature.] had come through). It passes by ( , 1Pe 4:3). It is generally looked at as a whole, but it is divisible into parts which differ quantitatively and may be measured-it is much, or little, or Sufficient (for a given purpose). sufficient ( , Luk 8:27; Luk 23:8, Act 8:11; , Act 9:23; Act 9:43; Act 18:18; , Rom 15:23) as applied in measuring time is an expression of indefiniteness. The adequacy of the measure of time for the maturing of a definite plan is given in the idea of fullness. Time accumulates as if in a reservoir and becomes sufficient for its end ( , Gal 4:4; cf. Act 7:23). Naturally the flow of time involves succession and order as between first and last. But all time future to any particular moment may be from the view of it at that moment last. The Christian outlook on the future involves a great consummation and a radical world change. The period just preceding this consummation was especially designated the last times ( , 1Pe 1:21; , Joh 6:39-40; Joh 11:24; , Act 2:17, 2Ti 3:1, Jam 5:3; 2Pe 3:3; , 1Jn 2:18).

The relativity of length of time to the mind is indicated in the conception that to Gods mind human measures and standards of time have no inherent reality (One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, 2Pe 3:8). The notion shows a trace of philosophical influence in the thinking which culminates in the apocalyptical conception of the transiency of time and its contrast with eternity (There shall be time no longer, Rev 10:6).

2. Season.-Time from the point of view of its special content or relation to a definite event or events is specifically denoted by the term (generally, definite time). The most accentuated usage of the term in this sense is the Apocalyptists (Rev 12:14), where the evident design is to indicate a period of known duration, like a year (or century). The term is more nearly synonymous with season when it designates a time (the time during the year) for the appearance of certain events ([] , Mat 13:30; , Mar 11:13 : cf. Luk 20:10; , Mat 21:41). More generally is any division of time which differs from all others by some characteristic, as, for instance, that it ought to be observed as more sacred ( , Gal 4:10); to be watched against because of the evil influences which it brings ( , 2Ti 3:1); chosen by God for special revelation of His word (Tit 1:3); a period when certain special events develop, distinguished by the moral character of the Gentiles ( , Luk 21:24); events have their own time (Luk 1:20), persons may have their own time for the full display of their peculiar character or the accomplishment of their work (e.g. the time of Jesus, , , Joh 7:6; Joh 7:8). The term thus differs from in designating opportune or fit time, a time associated with, and therefore distinguished by, some special event or feature. In the phrase (Mar 1:15) the more appropriate term would have been , but since the intention of the writer is to show not the lapse of mere time, but the appearance of a new era, the word used expresses the idea more accurately.

3. The ages.-The largest measure of time known is the age (, aeon). An age, however, is not a definite period (though the present age is estimated by some as 10,000 or 5,000 years in duration). It is rather a period of vast length. It so far transcends thought that it impresses the mind with the mystery of the whole notion of time. Hence the combination eternal times (Rom 16:25) stretching back into the inconceivably remote past (practically the equivalent of the modern philosophical species of eternity).

The conception of the aeon is specially prominent in the apocalyptic system, which looks on all duration as divided into aeons. An aeon combines in itself the essential content of the Hebrew olam and of the Greek . In the first the emphasis is laid on the mysterious aspect of time without measure and apart from all known conditions. In the second the conception is based on a cyclic return similar to that marked by the seasons of the year. The modern analogy may be found in the geologic period. On a still larger scale the aeon has its analogy in the Hindu kalpa. Of such ages there is an indefinite series. This is given in the plural (, Gal 1:5, Php 4:20, 1Ti 1:17, 2Ti 4:18, Heb 13:21; Hebrews 13 :1Pe 4:11, Rev., passim). The series taken together constitutes all time (All the ages, Revised Version margin, , Jud 1:25).

Later Jewish thought singled out two aeons (ages) and largely limited itself to their contemplation. From the practical point of view these were the only ones that concerned living men. These two were the present age ( , , , , Eph 1:21, Mat 12:32, Gal 1:4, 2Ti 4:10, Tit 2:12) and the future age ( , , , Heb 6:5, Luk 20:35; Luk 18:30). The doctrine became prominent in the Apocalypses (cf. 4 Ezr 7:50). It fitted the apocalyptic scheme wonderfully. On one side it helped to define the older prophetic latter days (as a distinct period when ideal conditions would prevail); at the same time it gave a background to the doctrine of the Day of Jehovah. On the other side, by discovering an ideal moral character in the latter age, the doctrine infused comfort into the hearts of the faithful in the present evil days by promising a definite change with the beginning of the new era. Questions of the exact length of the age were raised and by some answered. The author of Ethiopic Enoch, xvi. 1, xviii. 16, xxi. 6, fixes the duration of the evil [present] age as 10,000 years; the Assumption of Moses at 5,000. The apocalyptists consider that they are themselves living so near the end of the older age and the beginning of the new that it may be a question as to whether they will be still living when the crisis arrives and the one age yields to the other (4 Ezr 4:37; Ezr 5:50 ff; Ezr 6:20; Syr. Bar. xliv. 8ff.). These two ages (the present and the one to come) are successive. But this is not the case with all the aeons of the series. Unto the ages of the ages. ( ) suggests the inequality of some of the ages and the inclusion of the briefer within the longer ones (cf. G. B. Winer, Grammar of NT Greek9, Edinburgh, 1882, p. 36).

4. The era.-The NT writings contain no allusion to a uniform era. Undoubtedly each people of the period used its own era. The Romans dated events and documents from the founding of the city (a.u.c. = 752 b.c.); the Greeks went back to the beginning of the Olympiads (= 776 b.c.). The Jews, owing to the frequent vicissitudes experienced in their history, had changed their method of registering the relative dates of events. The Books of Kings and Chronicles use the very familiar device of synchronizing the regnal years of the kings of Israel and Judah respectively. Occasionally the deliverance from bondage in Egypt is used as a starting-point (1Ki 6:1), or the building of the Temple of Solomon (9:10), or the beginning of the Babylonian Exile (Eze 33:21; Eze 40:1). The later Jewish usage settled down to reckoning all events from the creation of the world, which was supposed to have occurred in the 3761st year before the birth of Christ. But this computation is of post-Christian origin. In the Apocrypha, which may be regarded as the fair index of usage at the time, the Seleucid Era is frequently referred to. This was computed from the year of the seizure of Palestine by Seleucus after the battle of Gaza. It was also called the Era of the Greeks or Syro-Macedonians and (incorrectly) the Era of Alexander. By the Jews it was called the Year of Contracts (Tarik Dilkarnaim) from the fact that it was obligatory in the case of all legal documents. The beginning of the era was dated in the first year of the 117th Olympiad or 442 a.u.c., hence 312 b.c. (1Ma 1:11; 1Ma 6:16; 1Ma 7:15; 1Ma 10:1). The Era of Simon (1Ma 13:42; 1Ma 14:27) was proposed, but never extensively adopted.

In the New Testament events are associated with the reigns of contemporary rulers (In the days of Herod the king [Mat 2:1, Luk 1:5], in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea , etc. [Luk 3:1-2; cf. also Act 11:28; Act 12:1]). But in all cases the dating is approximate and intended to serve practical rather than scientific ends. With the exception of Luk 3:1-2, all such dating of events seems not to be intentionally chronological (cf. A. Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, London, 1909, p. 6 f.).

The method of Matthew (Mat 1:17) of giving a general intimation of date by the expedient of generations is unique and highly artificial.

5. The year.-It has always been difficult to adjust with precision the limits of the year. In all the efforts to make the adjustment first the natural return of the seasons with their agricultural features calls for a definition that will harmonize with the apparent revolution of the sun around the earth in 365 + days. But the fact that this period approximately coincides with twelve lunar periods has tempted many peoples to settle down to a year of 354 days. In the Apostolic Age the problem had not as yet been solved fully. The usage of Palestine, inherited from early Canaanite and Babylonian antecedents, was still prevalent. The year began with the 1st of Nisan and was constituted of twelve months, with the periodical intercalation of a thirteenth to equalize difference. Intercalation was common all over the world, but the method of intercalating was different at different times, and probably not constant anywhere for any consecutive period of time. Among the Jews the Sanhedrin decided whether in any particular year a month should be intercalated. Among the Romans Plutarch testifies that 22 days were added every other year to the month of February (which, according to Varro, de Ling. Lat. vi. 55, was the last month of the year). But a more common way was the insertion of an additional month every three years, and as this left a troublesome margin it was corrected into three months every eight years and finally fixed as seven months in a cycle of nineteen years. This cycle was introduced into Athens by Meton the astronomer in 432, but found its way only gradually into general practice. Popularly the year must always have been viewed as divided into 12 months (Rev 22:2).

6. The month.-Throughout the Apostolic Age the ancient way of fixing the month as the exact equivalent of a complete lunation was maintained. The month accordingly began with the appearance of the moon in its first phase, and ended with its reappearance in the same phase the next time. Within the New Testament months are mentioned generally, not with precise reference to their relations to one another in the calendar, but as an indication and a measure of time in the terms of the fraction of a year (Luk 1:24; Luk 1:36; Luk 1:56). In Acts it is probable that the usage is not meant to be minutely precise since the mention of months is invariably in threes (Act 7:20; Act 19:8; Act 20:3; Act 28:11, but once in twice three-six, Act 18:11).

So far as the calendar is concerned, there are evidences of mixed usage. The predominance at different times of different influences (Roman, Macedonian, Egyptian, older Jewish) brought into use different names. The occurrence of Xanthicus in 2Ma 11:30; 2Ma 11:38 (the sixth month of the Macedonian calendar) shows clearly the existence of a Macedonian element in the mixed usage. The name Dioscorinthius (mentioned earlier in the same account, 2Ma 11:21) is also probably Macedonian and a modified form of the first month, Dius. It may, however, be a textual corruption for Dystrus (the name of the fifth month), as H. A. Redpath, in Hastings Hastings Single-vol. Dictionary of the Bible , p. 937, suggests, supporting the suggestion with the Sinaitic text of Tob 2:12, where Dystrus is mentioned. Otherwise Dioscorinthius is the name of an intercalary month. That an intercalary month must have had a place in the Macedonian calendar is to be assumed, though its name and place are unknown. Of the Egyptian calendar traces are found in the names Pachon and Epiphi in 3Ma 6:38.

7. The feasts.-A popular and practically useful method of reckoning time within the year is that which relates events to well-known religious festivals. This method is especially useful where for some reason or other the names of months have become involved in confusion. In the nature of the case, of such festivals in the New Testament the Passover (the days of unleavened bread, , Act 12:3; Act 20:6, , Act 12:4) stands prominent. The Day of Pentecost ( , Act 2:1; Act 20:18) and the Day of Atonement (fast, , Act 27:9) are also used as landmarks. But in the allusion to the Feast of Dedication (, Joh 10:22) the intention perhaps was not so much to give the exact time as to account for Jesus walking in the temple in Solomons porch. Similarly the Feast of Tabernacles (, Joh 7:2) is mentioned as explanatory of the course which Jesus had taken. In Joh 5:1 the purpose of the author would be defeated if he had meant to fix the time of the action (cf. also Luk 22:1, Mar 15:6, Joh 6:4; Joh 12:12).

8. The week.-Though peculiar to the Jewish people, the constitution of a unit of time by grouping together seven days was retained in the usage of the Christian Church. But no separate word was adopted to designate the week as such. In spite of the fact that the Greek language offered the tempting word (which came later into universal use) the period was generally known by its last day, the Sabbath (, Luk 18:12), and in the plural (), as shown in the name of the first day ( , Mat 28:1, Mar 16:2, Luk 24:1). In Act 17:2, (rendered weeks in Revised Version margin) is, in the light of St. Pauls custom to use the Sabbath day as the time for preaching (Act 18:4), correctly translated three Sabbath days. The seven-day period required to mature the process of fulfilling a vow is evidently not viewed as a week in the modern sense of any period of seven consecutive days (Act 21:27).

With the exception of the Sabbath (the seventh day) the days of the week are given no names, but are distinguished by ordinal numbers. The first day, however, acquired greater importance among Christians because of its association with the resurrection of the Lord (Lords day, , Rev 1:10). And this ultimately came to be the name of the day (= Dominica). It was the day on which the Christians assembled together for the observance of their services (the breaking of bread, mutual exhortation, taking up collections for the needs of their brethren, Act 20:7, 1Co 16:2). But in the earlier period the day was called the first of the week ( , Act 20:7). Other distinctions between the days of the week do not appear, with the exception of the fact that the day before the Sabbath was observed among the Jews as a season of preparation. Sometimes it was designated simply as the eve of the Sabbath (, Jdt 8:6, Mar 15:42); but in the NT oftener as the Preparation [day] [, Mat 27:62, Mar 15:42, Luk 23:54, Joh 19:14; Joh 19:42). It was scarcely as yet the fixed name of the day. This it became later as it was taken up by Christian usage, and persists to the present time as the proper name of Friday in modern Greek.

9. The day.-Jewish custom fixed the beginning of the day at sunset. Since that custom prevails to the present time among the Jews it is not likely that it was ever superseded among them. Nevertheless, the Roman way of reckoning from midnight was evidently prevalent at least in official circles. The testimony, however, is limited to the Fourth Gospel, and the point of view may be peculiar to the author (Joh 19:14; cf. also Joh 1:39, Joh 4:6). The day was divided into two sections of twelve hours, i.e. from midnight to midnight. These two sections might be viewed together as a twenty-four-hour unit (St. Paul spent a , a night and a day, in the deep, 2Co 11:25). Of the night-day unit the day is the time for work (Joh 11:9) and the night is divided into four military watches of three hours each (Mat 14:25; Mat 24:43, Mar 6:48, Luk 12:38).

Related to each day stand the day preceding and the day following or the day after. The day preceding (yesterday, , Joh 4:52, Act 7:28, Heb 13:8) is not so frequently mentioned as the day following (morrow, , Act 4:3; Act 4:5; Act 23:20; Act 25:22; , Act 10:9; Act 14:20; Act 20:7; , Act 16:11; Act 20:15; Act 21:18; Act 23:11; , Act 20:15; Act 21:26; , Act 21:1; Act 25:17; Act 27:18). The day after to-morrow is spoken of as the third day (, Act 27:19).

10. The hour.-The primary object of the division of the day into hours is two-fold. It gives a small and convenient unit as a measure or time (the fraction of a day), and at the same time it furnishes a basis for fixing on the exact portion of the day for any important or critical events to be recorded. The system of beginning the day with sunset and counting twelve hours to sunrise, with another set of twelve hours from sunrise to sunset, would result in a variable hour with a maximum of 79 minutes and a minimum of 49, according to the season of the year. Whether this was overcome by the adoption of the Roman method of reckoning from midnight to midnight is not certain. But the question loses its importance from the NT standpoint when it is considered that all mention of hours is general and practical rather than precise and chronological.

Of the hour as a measure of time a clear case occurs in Act 19:34 (for the space of two hours, ; cf. also Mat 20:12, Mar 14:37, Luk 22:59, Act 5:7). Of the hour as giving the time of the day the usage is more abundant (Mat 20:3; Mat 20:5-6; Mat 27:45-46, Mar 15:25; Mar 15:33-34, Luk 23:44, Joh 1:39; Joh 4:6; Joh 4:52; Joh 19:14; Joh 19:27, Act 2:15; Act 10:3; Act 23:23). Besides the designation of the relative place of the hours to each other by numerals, hours are sometimes associated with customary action such as a meal (Luk 14:17, ), the offering up of incense (Luk 1:10, ), prayer (Act 3:1, ).

The hour, however, though the smallest definite unit in measuring, was not the smallest conceived division of time. An infinitesimal point of time is in the thought of St. Paul when he speaks of the resurrection change (1Co 15:52) as in a moment (, lit. [Note: literally, literature.] indivisible [fraction of time], explained by the twinkling of an eye which immediately follows). Jesus too is reported as having been shown the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time ( , Luk 4:5).

Literature.-A. Schwarz, Der jdische Kalender, Breslau, 1872; G. Bilfinger, Die Zeitmesser der antiken Vlker, Stuttgart, 1886, Der brgerliche Tag, do., 1888, Die antiken Stundenangaben, do., 1888; T. Lewin, Fasti Sacri, London, 1865; W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, Oxford, 1895-97; T. H. Key, article Calendarium, in Smiths DGRA [Note: GRA Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities.] ; E. Schrer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] i. [Edinburgh, 1890] i. 37, ii. Appendix iii.; Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 762-766, v. 473-484.

Andrew C. Zenos.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

TIME

Mode of duration marked by certain periods, chiefly by the motion and revolution of the sun. The general idea which times gives in every thing to which it is applied, is that of limited duration. Thus we cannot say of the Deity that he exists in time, because eternity, which he inhabits, is absolutely uniform, neither admitting limitation nor succession. Time is said to be redeemed or improved when it is properly filled up, or employed in the conscientious discharge of all the duties which devolve upon us, as it respects the Divine Being, ourselves, and our fellow-creatures. Time may be said to be lost when it is not devoted to some good, useful, or at least some innocent purpose; or when opportunities of improvement, business, or devotion, are neglected. Time is wasted by excessive sleep, unnecessary recreations, indolent habits, useless visits, idle reading, vain conversation, and all those actions which have no good end in them. We ought to improve the time, when we consider,

1. That it is short.

2. Swift.

3. Irrecoverable.

4. Uncertain.

5. That it is a talent committed to our trust.

and,

6. That the improvement of it is advantageous and interesting in every respect.

See Shower on Time and Eternity; Fox on Time; J. Edwards’s Posthumous Sermons, ser. 24, 25, 26; Hale’s Contemplations, p. 211; Hervey’s Meditations; Young’s Night Thoughts; Blair’s Grave.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

Time

The problem of time is one of the most difficult and most keenly debated in the field of natural philosophy. To arrive at a satisfactory orientation in regard to this discussion, it is important to distinguish two questions: What are the notes, or elements, contained in our subjective representation of time? To what external reality does this representation correspond?

(1) As to the first question, philosophers and scientists in general agree in this: that the notion, or concept, of time contains three distinct ideas fused into one indivisible whole. First there is the idea of succession. Every mind distinguishes in time the past, the present, and the future, that is parts which essentially exclude simultaneity and can be realized only one after the other. Again, time implies continuity. Speaking of events here below, in our own life, we cannot conceive the possibility of an interval of duration, however short, in which we should cease to grow older, or in which moment should cease to follow moment. The march of time knows neither pause nor interruption. Lastly, a continuous succession cannot be a continuous succession of nothing. Therefore the concept of time represents to us a reality the parts of which succeed each other in a continuous manner. It matters little here whether this reality is purely ideal, or is realized outside of us, for we are dealing only with the concept of time. Such are the three essential elements of the subjective representation. From these considerations it appears that the question of time belongs to the domain of cosmology. By reason of its character as continuous, successive, divisible, and measureable, time belongs to the category of quantity, which is a general attribute of bodies, and cosmology has for its object the essence and general attributes of matter.

(2) The second question, relating to the objectivity of the concept of time, is one upon which philosophers, as well as scientists, are divided: no fewer than fifteen different opinions may be enumerated; these, however, may be grouped in three classes. One class embraces the subjectivist opinions, of which Kant is the chief representative; these regard time as completely a creation of the knowing subject. To Kant and his followers time is an a priori form, a natural disposition by virtue of which the inner sense clothes the acts of the external senses, and consequently the phenomena which these acts represent, with the distinctive characteristics of time. Through this form internal and external phenomena are apprehended by us as simultaneous or successive, anterior or posterior, to one another, and are submitted to necessary and universal time-judgements. To this class, also, belong a group of opinions which, without being so thoroughly subjective, attribute to time only a conceptual existence. To Leibniz and others time is “the order of successions”, or a relation between things that follow one another; but if these things are real, the mind perceives them under the form of instants between which it establishes a relation that is purely mental. According to Balmes, time is a relation between being and non-being; subjective time is the perception of this relation; objective time is the relation itself in things. Though the two ideas of being and non-being are found in every succession, the relation between these two ideas cannot represent to us real continuousness, and therefore it remains in the ideal order. Locke considers time as a part of infinite duration, expressed by periodic measures such as the revolution of the earth around the sun. According to Spencer, a particular time is the relation between two in the series of states of consciousness. The abstract notion of a relation of aggregated positions between the states of consciousness constitutes the notion of time in general. To this relation Spencer attaches an essentially relative character, and attributes relative objectivity to psychological time alone. For Bergson homogeneous time is neither a property of things nor an essential condition of our cognitive faculty; it is an abstract schema of succession in general, a pure fiction, which nevertheless makes it possible for us to act upon matter. But besides this homogeneous time, Bergson recognizes a real duration, or rather, a multiplicity of durations of unequal elasticities which belong to the acts of our consciousness as well as to our external things. The systems of Descartes and of Baumann must also be classified as idealistic.

In opposition to this class of opinions which represent the existence of time as purely conceptual, a second class represent it as something which has complete reality outside of our minds. These opinions may fairly be described as ultra-realist. Certain philosophers, notably Gassendi and the ancient Greek Materialists, regard time as a being sui generis, independent of all created things and capable of surviving the destruction of them all. Infinite in its extension, it is the receptacle in which all the events of this world are enclosed. Always identical with itself, it permeates all things, regulating their course and preserving in the uninterrupted flow of its parts an absolutely regular mode of succession. Other philosophers, e.g. Clarke and Newton, identify time with the eternity of God or regard it as an immediate and necessary result of God’s existence, so that, even were there no created beings, the continuation of the Divine existence would involve as its consequence, duration, or time. These ultra-realist philosophers substantialize time; others again make it a complete being, but of the accidental order. For de San time is an accident sui generis, distinct from all ordinary accidents; it is constituted as the local movement of parts which succeed each other in a continuous manner, but with perfect uniformity; by this accident, which is always inherent in substance, being and the accidents of being continue their existence enveloped in a succession which is everywhere and always uniform. Lastly, according to Dr. Hallez, the substantial existence of beings itself increases intrinsically without cessation, and this regular and continuous increase is by no means occasional or transitory, but always remains a veritable acquisition to the being which is its subject. Of this quantitative increment time is the representation. To sum up, all systems of this second class have as their distinctive characteristic the assertion of an external concrete reality–whether substantial or accidental–which adequately corresponds to the abstract concept of time, so that our representation of time is only a copy of that reality.

Between these two extreme classes of opinions is the system proposed by the majority of the Scholastics, ancient and modern. For them the concept of time is partly subjective, partly objective. It becomes concrete in continuous, notably in local, movement; but movement becomes time only with the intervention of our intelligence. Time is defined as the measure of movement according to an order of anteriority and posteriority (numerous motus secundum prius et posterius). Once local movement is divided into parts by thought, all the elements of the concept of time are found in it. Motion, being objectively distinct from rest, is something real; it is endowed with true continuity; nevertheless, in so far as it is divided by the intelligence, it contains successive parts actually distinct among themselves–some anterior, some posterior–between which we place a fleeting present. In the elaboration of the idea of time, therefore, movement furnishes the intelligence with a successive, continuous reality which is to be the real object of the concept, while the intelligence conceives it in that which it has in common with all movement–that is without its specific and individual notes–and makes it, formally, time, by dividing the continuity of the movement, making actual that distinction of parts which the movement possesses only potentially. In fact, say the Scholastics, we never perceive time apart from movement, and all our measures of our temporal duration are borrowed from local movement, particularly the apparent movement of the heavens.

Whatever be its objectivity, time possesses three inalienable properties. First, it is irreversible; the linking of its parts, or the order of their succession, cannot be changed; past time does not come back. According to Kant, the reason of this property is found in the application to time of the principle of causality. As the parts of time, he says, are to each other in the relation of cause to effect, and as the cause is essentially antecedent to its effect, it is impossible to reverse this relation. According to the Scholastics, this immutability is based upon the very nature of concrete movement, of which one part is essentially anterior to another. Secondly, time is the measure of events in this world. This raises a knotty problem, which has so far not been theoretically solved. Time can be a permanent measure only if it is concretized in a uniform movement. Now, to know the uniformity of a movement, we must know not only the space traversed, but the velocity of the transit, that is the time. Here there is unquestionably a vicious circle. Lastly, for those who concretize time in movement, a much debated question is, whether time or movement can be infinite, that is without beginning. St. Thomas and some of the Scholastics see no absolute impossibility in this, but many modern thinkers take a different view.

———————————–

D. NYS Transcribed by Jamin Sauls and Patrick Swain

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Time

(the proper and usual rendering of , eth [later , zemdna]. a general word, Gr. , space of duration; while , moed, Katpoe, signifies a fixed time, either by human or divine appointment, or the natural seasons). A peculiar use of the term occurs in the phrase a time, times, and a half (Heb. , Dan 12:7; Chald.

, 7:25; Gr. , Rev 12:14), in the conventional sense of three years and a half (see Josephus, War, 1, 1). The following are the regular divisions of time among the Hebrews, each of which invariably preserves its strict literal sense, except where explicitly modified by the immediate context. We here treat them severally but together, in the order of their extension, and refer to the several articles for more detailed information. SEE CHRONOLOGY.

1. Year ( , so called from the change of the seasons). The years of the Israelites, like those of the modern Jews, were lunar (Rabbinical ), of 354 d. 8 h. 48 min. 38 sec., consisting of twelve (unequal) lunar months; and as this falls short of the true year (an astronomical month having 29 d. 12 h. 44 min. 2.84 sec.), they were obliged, in order to preserve the regularity of harvest and vintage (Exo 23:16), to add a month occasionally, so as to make it on the average coincide with the solar year (Rabbinical ), which has 365 d. 5 h. 48 min. 45 sec. The method of doing this among the very ancient Hebrews is entirely unknown (see a conjecture in Ideler, Chronol. 1, 490; another in Credner, Joel, p. 218). The Talmudists find mention of an intercalation under Hezekiah (2Ch 30:2; see Mishna, Pesach. 4:9), but without foundation (see, however, on the reconcilement of the lunar with the solar year, Galen, Comment. 1, in Hippoc. Epidem. [Opp. ed. Kihn. 13:23]). Among the later Jews (who called an intercalated year , in distinction from a common year, or ), an intercalary month was inserted after Adar, and was hence called Vedar (), or second Adar ( ) (Mishna, Eduyoth, 7:7; see the distinctions of the Gemarists in Reland, Antiq. Sacr. 4:1; comp. Ben David, Zur Berechn. u. Gesch. d. jd. Kalend. [Berl. 1817]; Ideler, ut sup. p. 537 sq.; Anger, De Temp. in Act. Ap. Ratione, 1, 31 sq.). The intercalation () was regularly decreed by the Sanhedrim, which observed the rule never to add a month to the sabbatical year. It usually was obliged to intercalate every third year, but occasionally had to do so in two consecutive years.

The Israelitish year began, as the usual enumeration of the months shows (Lev 23:34; Lev 25:9; Num 9:11; 2Ki 25:8; Jer 39:2; comp. 1Ma 4:52; 1Ma 10:21), with Abib or Nisan (see Est 3:7), subsequent to and in accordance with the Mosaic arrangement (Exo 12:2),’which had a retrospective reference to the departure out of Egypt (9, 31; see Baihr, Symbolik, 2, 639). Yet as we constantly find this arrangement spoken of as a festal calendar, most Rabbinical and many Christian scholars understand that the civil year began, as with the modern Jews, with Tisri (October), but the ecclesiastical year with Nisan (Mishna, Rosh Hash-shanah, 1, 1; comp. Josephus, Ant. 1, 3,3. See also Rosenmller, on Exo 12:2; Hitzig, Jesa. p. 335; Seyffarth, Chronol. Sacra, p. 34 sq.). But this distinction is probably a post-exilian reckoning (Havernick argues against its inference from Eze 40:1), which was an accommodation to the time of the arrival of returned exiles in Palestine (Ezr 3:1 sq.; Neh 7:73; Neh 8:1 sq.), and later fell into harmony with the Seleucid era, which dated from October (see Benfey, Monats-nam. p. 217; and comp. 1Ma 4:52; 1Ma 10:21; 2Ma 15:37). Yet this has little countenance from the enactment of the festival of the seventh new moon (Lev 23:24; Num 29:1-6), which has in the Mosaic legislation certainly a different import from the Rabbinical ordinance (see Vriemoet, Observ. Misc. p. 284 sq.; Gerdes, De Festo Clangoris [Duisb. 1700; also in his Exercit. Acad.]). SEE NEW MOON. Nor does the expression in the end of the year ( ), with reference to the Feast of Tabernacles (Exo 23:16), favor this assumption (see Ideler, p. 493). Other passages adduced (Job 29:4; Joe 2:25), as well as the custom of many other nations (Credner, ut sup. p. 209 sq.), are a very precarious argument. Nevertheless, it is clear that even in the pre-exilian period of the theocracy, the autumn, as being the close of the year’s labor, was often regarded among the agrarian population as a. terminal date (Ideler, Chronol. 1, 493 sq.; see Dresde, Annus Jud. ex Antiq. Illust. [Lips. 1766; merely Rabbinic]; Selden, De Anno Civili Vett. Hebr. [Lond. 1644; also in Ugolino, Thesaur. 17] Nagel, De Calendario Vett. Ebr… [Altdorf, 1746]). Seyffarth maintains that even prior to the destruction of Jerusalem the Israelites reckoned by lunar months (Zeitschr. d. deutsch. morgenl. Gesellsch. 2, 344 sq.). The prevailing belief, however, that they had from the first such a year has been of late combated by Bottcher (Prob. alttest. Schrifterkldr. p. 283; De Inferis, 1, 125) and Credner (Joel, p. 210 sq.), and most stoutly by Seyffarth (Chronol. Sacra, p. 26 sq.). Credner holds that the Israelites originally had a solar year of thirty-day months, and that this was exchanged for the lunar year when the three great festivals were accurately determined, i.e. about the time of king Hezekiah and Josiah (on the contrary, see Von Bohlen, Genes. p. 105 sq.; Benfey and Stern, Ueber die Monatsnamen, p. 5 sq.). Seyffarth, however, ascribes the solar year to the Jews down to about 200 B.C.

A well-defined and universal era was unknown among the ancient Hebrews. National events are sometimes dated from the departure out of Egypt (Exo 19:1; Num 33:38; 1Ki 6:1), usually from the accession of the kings (as in Kings, Chronicles, and Jeremiah), later from the beginning of the exile (Eze 33:21; Eze 40:1). Jeremiah reckons the Captivity according to the years of Nebuchadnezzar (Eze 25:1 sq.), but Ezekiel (Eze 1:1) otherwise. The post-exilian books date according to the regal years of the Persian masters of Palestine (Ezra 1Ma 4:26; 1Ma 6:15; 1Ma 7:7 sq.; Neh 2:1; Neh 5:4; Neh 13:6; Hag 1:1; Hag 2:11; Zec 7:1). But as Syrian vassals the Jews adopted the Greek (1Ma 1:10) or Seleucid era ( , cera contractum, since it was used in contracts generally, Arab. karyakh ahu-ikerfin), which dated from the overthrow of Babylon by Seleucus Nicator I (Olymp. 117, 1), and began with the autumn of B.C. 312 (see Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. 1, 448). This reckoning is employed in the books of the Maccabees, which, however, singularly differ by one year between themselves, the second book being about one year behind the first in its dates (comp. 1Ma 6:16 with 2Ma 11:21; 1Ma 6:20 with 2Ma 13:1); from which it would seem that the author of 2 Macc. had a different epoch for the ser. Seleuc. from the author of 1 Macc., with the latter of whom Josephus agrees in his chronology. Inasmuch as 1 Macc. always counts by Jewish months in the Seleucid sera (1Ma 1:57; 1Ma 4:52; 1Ma 4:59; 1Ma 7:43; 1Ma 14:27; 1Ma 16:14), and these are computed from Nisan (1Ma 10:21; 1Ma 16:14)-the second book likewise counts by Jewish months (1Ma 1:18; 1Ma 10:5; 1Ma 15:37 : on the contrary 1Ma 11:21)we might suppose that the former begins the Seleucid sera with the spring of B.C. 312, while the latter begins it with the autumn of the same year (Petav. Raionar. 10:45; Prideaux, 2, 267, etc.), a conclusion to which other circumstances likewise point (Ideler, ut sup. p. 531 sq.; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopsis, p. 451 sq.). What Wernsdorf objects'(De Fide Maccab. p. 19 sq.) is not of much importance; but we cannot thence infer that the Babylonians began the Seleucid sera with the autumn of 3) 1 (Seyffarth, Chronol. Sacra, p. 20). See Hosmann, De AEra Seleucid. et Regum Syriae Successione (Kil. 1752). Still another national reckoning is given in 1Ma 13:41 sq., namely, from the year of the deliverance of-the Jews from the Syrian yoke, i.e. seventeen era Seleuc., or from the autumn of B.C. 143 (Josephus, Ant. 13:6, 6), and this era appears upon Samaritan coins (Eckhel, Doctrina Numor. Vett. I, 3, 463 sq.). On other Jewish eras see the Mishna (Gtting, 8:5). SEE YEAR.

2. Month (, lit. new, sc. moon; seldom and more Aramaic , the moon). The months of the Hebrews, as stated above, were lunar (as appears from the foregoing names), and began from the new moon as ocularly observed (the [synodic] lunar month has 26 d. 12 h. 44 min. 3 [strictly 2.82] sec. [Ideler, Chronol. 1, 43]). This is certain from the post- exilian period (Mishna, Rosh Hash-shanah, 1, 5 sq.), but for pre-exilian times various conjectures have been hazarded (see above). The length of the lunar month in the later period depended upon the day when the appearance of the new moon was announced by the Sanhedrim (see a similar reckoning in Macrob. Sat. 1, 15, p. 273 ed. Bip.), which thus made the month either twenty-nine days ( , i.e. short) or thirty days ( , i.e. full), according as the day was included in the following or the preceding month. The general rule was that in one year not less than four nor more than eight full months could occur (Mishna, Arach. 2, 2). The final adjustment of the lunar to the solar year was by intercalation (), so that whenever in the last month, Adar, it became evident that the Passover, which must be held in the following month, Nisan, would occur before harvest, i.e. not at the time when the sun would be in Aries (Josephus, Ant. 3, 10, 5), an entire month (Vadar) was interjected between Adar and Nisan, constituting an intercalary year ( , which, however, according to the Gemara, did not take place in a sabbatic year, but always in that which preceded it; nor in two successive years, nor yet more than three years apart). See Anger, De Teps. in Act. Ap. Ratione, p.30 sq.

Prior to the exile the individual months were usually designated by numbers (the twelfth month occurs in 2Ki 25:27, Jer 52:31; Eze 29:1; comp. 1Ki 4:7); yet we find also the following names: Earn-month ( , Exo 13:4; Exo 23:15; Deu 16:1, etc.), corresponding to the later Nisan; Bloom- month ( [or ] , 1Ki 6:1; 1Ki 6:37), the second month; Rain- month ( , 1Ki 6:38), the eighth (connected by Benfey, p. 182, with the word ; see the Talmudic interpretation cited by him, p. 16); Freshet-month ( , 8:2), the seventh; all of which seem to be mere appellatives (see. Benfey and Stern, Ueber die Monatsnamen einiger alten Vilker [Berl. 1836], p. 2). After the exile the months received the following names (Gemara, Pesach. 94:2; Targ. Sheni on Esther 3, 7 sq.; comp. Mishna, Shekal. 3, 1): 1. Nisan (, Nehemiah 2, 1; Esther 3, 7), the first month, in which the Passover (q.v.) was held (and in which the vernal equinox fell, Joseph us, Ant. 3, 10, 5), corresponding, in general, to our April (Ideler, Chronol. 1. 491), and answering (Josephus, Ant. 3, 10, 5; War, 5, 3, 1) to the Macedonico-Syrian Xanthicus, also (Ant. 2, 14, 6) to the Egyptian month Pharmuthi, which last, however, was March 27-April 25 of the Julian calendar (Ideler, ut sup. 1, 143); 2. lydr (, Targ. on 2Ch 30:2); 3. Sivan ( Est, Est 8:9; , Bar. 1, 8); 4. Tammuz ); 5. Ab.( ); 6. Elul (, Neh 6:15; , 1Ma 14:27), the last month of the civil year in the post-exilian age (Mishna, Shebiith, 10:2; Erubin, 3, 7); 7. Tishri (.), in which the festivals of Atonement and Tabernacles fell (also the autumnal equinox); 8. Marcheshvdn (, or , Josephus, Ant. 1, 3, 3); 9, Kislev (, Neh 1:1; Zec 7:1; , 1Ma 1:54); 10.Tebeth (, Est 2:16); 11. Shebat (, Zec 1:7; , 1Ma 16:14); 12. Addr (, Est 3:7; Est 8:12; , 2Ma 15:37); 13. Ve-A ddr (; strictly Va-Adar, ), or second Adar ( . or ). Occasionally, however, the months were newly numbered in the post-exilian period likewise (Hag 1:1; Hag 2:1 sq.; Zec 1:1; Zec 8:19;: Neh 7:73; Neh 8:3; Neh 8:14; Dan 10:4; 1Ma 9:3; 1Ma 9:54; 1Ma 10:21; 1Ma 13:51).’On the origin and signification of those names, see Benfey, op. cit. p. 24 sq.; Gesenius, Thesaur. p. 702, 947. From the fact that the second book of Maccabees and Josephus reckon according to the Syro-Macedonian months (Dioscurus, Xanthicus, etc.) it does not follow that the Jews adopted this calendar in the Seleuciderm. In 2 Macc. the Egyptian months (Epiphi, Pachon) are named. See Pott, in the Hall. Lit. Zeit. 1839, No. 4650; Carpzov, Appar. p. 356 sq.; Michaelis, Comment. 1763-68, Oblat. p. 16 sq.; Langhausen, De Maense Vett. Hebr. Lunari (Jen. 1713; also in Ugolino, Thesaur. 17); Ideler, Chronol. 1, 448 sq. 509 sq. SEE MONTH.

3. Week (, lit. sevened). This division of the synodal lunar month into seven days (whence the Heb. name) early prevailed among the Israelites, as among other Shemitic people and the Egyptians (Ideler, Chronol. 1, 178; 2, 473); but only among the Israelites was this arrangement associated with cosmogony, with law, and with religion itself, so as to enter into real civil life and form the basis of the whole cycle of festivals. SEE SABBATH. But ordinarily, days rather than weeks (as also among the Greeks and Romans) constituted the conventional mode of computing time (but see Lev 12:5; Dan 10:2 sq.). In the post-exilian period the reckoning by weeks became more customary, and at length special names for particular week-days came into use, enumerated after the formula ‘/, or , or , etc. (Mar 16:2; Mar 16:9; Luk 24:1; Act 20:7; 1Co 16:2; see Epiphan. Hcer. 70, 12; so also in Chald. with or ; see Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 273. The word does not occur in the New Test.; see also Ideler, Chronol. 1, 481). The astronomical derivation of the week naturally grows out of the obvious fact (Chronol. 1, 60) that the moon changes about every seven (properly seven and three eighths) days, so that the lunar month divides itself into four quarters. Hence nations which have no historical relation in this respect nevertheless agree in the observance (Chronol. 1, 88). The days of the week were named long before the Christian era on regular astrological principles from the seven planets (Lobeck, Aglaopham. p. 933 sq.), which (according to Dion Gass. 37:18) was an Egyptian invention. They began with Saturn’s day (Saturday), inasmuch as Saturn was the outermost planet; but among the Jews this day (the Sabbath) was the last of the week, and so the Jewish (and Christian) week commences with Sunday. But these heathenish names were never in general use among the Jews (see Bahr, Symbol. 2, 585 sq.). Weeks or heptads of years belong, among the Jews, to prophetical poetry; but in one instance they occur in a literal sense in prose (Dan 7:24-27), as also among the Romans such annorum hebdomnades were known (Gell. 3, 10; Censorin. De Die Nat. 14). SEE WEEK.

4. Day (, so called from its heat; ). The civil day (, 2Co 11:25) was reckoned by the Hebrews from sundown to sundown (Lev 23:32); most other ancient nations computed time according to the moon’s course (Pliny, 2, 79; Tacit. Germ. c. 11; Caesar, Bell. Gall. 6:18; Isidore, Orig. 5, 30; Censorin. De Die Nat. 23); but before the exile they seem not to have divided the day into special or well- defined portions beyond the natural divisions of morning (; see the definition for the Temple-service in the Mishna, Tamid, 3, 2), noon ( , Gen 43:16; Deu 28:29; comp. , Gen 18:11 Samuel 11:11; and , Pro 4:18), and evening (. comp. also , the morning and evening breeze), which were in general use, as among the modern Arabs (Niebuhr, Bedouin, p. 108 sq.). During the exile theJews appear to have adopted the division into regular hours (Chald. ) (Dan 4:16; Dan 5:5; 2Es 6:24), as (according to Herod. 2, 109) the twelve hours of the day originated among the Babylonians; and in the New Test. the hours are frequently enumerated. As, however, every natural day of the year was divided into twelve hours (Joh 11:9; see Ideler, Chronol. 1, 84 sq.), they must have been unequal at different seasons of the year, since in the latitude of Palestine the longest summer day lasts from about four A.M. to eight P.M. (Mayr, Reis. 3, 15), being about four hours longer than the shortest. The hours of the day (for those of the night, SEE NIGHT-WATCH ) were naturally counted from sunrise (cock-crowing, , was a designation of time observed in the Temple, Mishna, Tamid, 1, 2); whence the third hour (Mat 20:3; Act 2:15) corresponds about to our nine o’clock A.M. (the time when the market-place was full of men, ; see Kype, Observat. 1, 101 sq.; also the first hour of prayer, Act 2:15); the end of the sixth hour (Mat 20:5; Joh 19:14) to midday; with the eleventh hour (Mat 20:6; Mar 15:34) the day inclined to a close and labor ceased (see also Joh 1:40; Joh 4:52; Acts 3, 1; Act 10:3). There were three daily hours of prayer morning, noon, and night; besides, there is occasionally mention of prayer four times a day (Neh 9:3); but a quarterly division of the day (as inferred by Lcke, Joh. 2, 756) is not certain in the New Test. Yet it is somewhat doubtful whether the evangelists, John at least, always reckon according to the Jewish hours (Clericus, Ad Joan. 19:14; Michaelis, in the Hamb. verm. Bibliothek, 3, 338 sq.; Rettigin the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 1, 101 sq.; Hug, in the Freiburge Zeitschr. 5, 90 sq.). SEE DAY.

5. Hour (Chald. Gr. ). The Oriental Asiatics, especially the Babylonians (Herod. 2, 109, Vitruv. 9:9), had from early times sundials (horologiasolaria) or shadow-measures (Pliny, 36:15); and hence, from the intercourse with Babylon, this useful contrivance may have been introduced into Palestine even before the exile. At all events, something of the kind seems to be meant by the degrees of Ahaz’ ( , Isa 38:8; comp. 2Ki 20:9), either an obelisk which cast its shade upon the steps of the palace, or perhaps a regular gnomon with degrees marked on it (Targ. Jonath. It; Symmachus, ; Jerome, horoloqium ; see Salmas. Ad Solin. p. 447 sq.; Martini, Abhandl. v. d. Sonnenuhren der Alten [Leips. 1777]; alsoDe Haeroloogiis Vett. Sciothericis [Amst. 1797]). The Romans after U. C. 595 used water-clocks (clepsydrae, Vitruv. 9:9, Pliny, 7:60) for the watch room of post-courses (Veget. Mil. 3, 8) and for regulating the continuance of speaking (Philo, Opp. 2, 597; Becker, Gallus, 1, 187). Whether this practice prevailed among the Jews in the time of Christ, we know not (Zeltner, De Horologio Caiaphae [Altdorf. 1721], does not: touch the point); but they could not have been ignorant of some means of measuring time, whether dials or water-clocks, since the latter are in frequent use in the modern East (Niebuhr, Reis. 2, 74). For a peculiar device for dividing the hours mentioned by the Talmudists, see Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 282; see also Ideler, Chronol. 1, 230 sq. SEE HOUR.

See, generally, Ulmer, De Calendario Vett. Hebreor. (Altdorf. 1846); Walch, C(lendarium Palcestince (Economicum (Gtt. 1786); Hincks, Ancient Egyptian Years and Months (Lond. 1865); id. Assyro Babyloniain Measures of Time (ibid. eod.). SEE CALENDAR.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

TIME

Life in the present world is inseparably bound up with time. Time is part of Gods created order (Gen 1:14; Heb 1:2). By contrast God, being the eternal one and the creator of all things, is not limited in any way by time. This means that his view of time is different from that of human beings (Isa 57:15; 1Ti 1:17; 1Ti 6:16; 2Pe 3:8; see ETERNITY).

Nevertheless, God is able to use time to bring his purposes to fulfilment (Gal 4:4), and he gives it to the people of his creation to use also (Ecc 5:18; Ecc 8:15). Men and women are therefore responsible to God for the way they use their time (1Pe 1:15-17). (Concerning systems for reckoning time see DAY; MONTH.)

As a wise, powerful and loving Creator, God sees that everything happens at the right time to maintain the world for the benefit of his creatures (Deu 11:14; 2Ki 4:16; Ecc 3:11; Act 14:17). He controls history, often announcing in advance the precise time for his actions (Exo 9:18; Isa 37:33-38; Act 17:26). (Concerning the time element in the writings of the prophets see PROPHECY.) Jesus birth, ministry, death and resurrection all took place at the time God had appointed (Gal 4:4; Mar 1:15; Joh 8:20; Joh 12:23; Joh 12:27; Joh 17:1). Christs return will also occur when Gods time has come (Mar 13:32; Act 1:7; Rev 14:15; see DAY OF THE LORD).

Because history is moving constantly towards its climax, Christians must use their time wisely (Psa 90:12; Col 4:5). They should see time not merely as a period measured by a clock or a calendar, but as an opportunity given them to use. This does not mean that they have to create unnecessary pressure by squeezing as much as they can into their time, but that they should live and behave as befits Gods people (Eph 5:15-17; 1Pe 4:1-3). The prospect of Christs return is an incentive not to hectic activity but to more Christlike conduct (Rom 13:11-14; 1Jn 2:18; 1Jn 2:28).

God wants people to use their time in worthwhile work, but his gift of the Sabbath shows that he also wants them to have time for rest (Exo 23:12; cf. Gen 2:2-3). People should not waste their time through laziness or worthless activities (Pro 10:4-5; Pro 12:11; Pro 18:9; 2Th 3:11-12; 1Ti 5:13), but neither should they spend their time in constant activity that leaves no time for proper relaxation (Neh 13:15-21; Ecc 2:21-23; Amo 8:5; cf. Mar 6:30-31; Luk 10:40-42; see WORK).

In their concern for time, people should not try to calculate when present life will end. Rather they should use the opportunity of the present life to accept Gods salvation and grow in Christian character (Act 1:6-8; 2Co 6:1-2; Heb 3:13; Heb 4:7; Heb 5:12-14; Heb 10:25; cf. Luk 12:16-20; Jam 4:13-16).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Time

TIME.1. The word time is used in the Gospels in a variety of phrases more or less indefinite. Probably the most definite expression is , in a moment of time (Luk 4:5). is used of time in general (Luk 1:57; Luk 8:27, Mar 9:21, Joh 5:6), passing or having passed. In a similar sense we find (Mar 6:35) rendered day in Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 (see Day). More definite is , from that time (Mat 4:17; Mat 16:21, Luk 16:16), and , until now (Mat 24:21 Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 , Mar 13:19). The most important word, however, is , used invariably of a definite period or occasion. Three uses in this sense are noteworthy. (1) It is used to indicate the time of certain events in the ministry of Jesus (Mat 11:25; Mat 12:1; Mat 14:1). (2) In a special sense we have the remarkable passage Joh 7:6; Joh 7:8 My time is not yet come, but your time is always ready, where the contrast is used apparently to emphasize the peculiar character of Jesus mission and the hostility which it aroused in Jerusalem. (3) Most important is the use of to indicate the dawn of a new epoch , the time is fulfilled (cf. Joh 13:33, Luk 12:56, Mat 16:3)which the ministry of Jesus had inaugurated. This new era is contrasted with the past (Mar 1:15) and with the future (Mar 10:30, Luk 18:30; see artt. Day [That], Generation). In a similar sense of world-period or era we have , the times of the Gentiles (Luk 21:24; but cf. , i.e. judgment-day, Eze 30:3). is also used of a season of the year (Mar 11:13, Mat 13:30; cf. Luk 12:42).

2. Various methods of reckoning time were in existence at the beginning of the Christian era, and this fact makes it extremely difficult to locate events with any certainty. The time of day was reckoned at the outset mainly by physical considerations, temperature, etc. (Gen 3:8; Gen 18:1, 1Sa 11:9, Job 24:15), or by the suns movements (Gen 19:15; Gen 32:24); the night in early Jewish history was reckoned by watches (see artt. Day, Hour, Night, Watch). The days of the week were numbered, not named.

The division of time into weeks was probably of Babylonian origin, and would be suggested by the moons phases, although there is no trace of this influence either in OT or NT. The word for week in the Gospels is (Luk 18:12). The use of the plural (Mat 28:1, Mar 16:2, Luk 24:1) may have arisen from the Aram. Aramaic Sabbth, the Sabbath (Heb. Shabbth), which at an early date gave its name to the whole week.

Of the larger divisions of time, the month, so familiar in OT times, is hardly mentioned in the NT (Luk 1:26; Luk 1:36, Joh 4:25). The Jewish month was lunar. Hence the usual Hebrew name for month () is properly the new moon. Three methods were employed to distinguish the month: (1) old Canaanite names, of which only four now survive; (2) numerals (Gen 7:11, Exo 19:1 etc.); (3) Babylonian names (see Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iv. 765).

The Jewish year, like the month, was originally lunar, consisting of 354 days. But as this fell so far short of the full solar year, difficulty would naturally arise in celebrating feasts at the same time in each year. To avoid this, it became necessary to add an extra month at least once in three years. This was done by adding a second Adar (the Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] name for the twelfth month), FebruaryMarch, so contrived that the Passover, celebrated on the 14th Nisan (the first month), should always fall after the spring equinox. The exact method of doing this is somewhat obscure. But as a month in three years was hardly sufficient, a cycle of eight years was observed in which three months were intercalated, based on general observation of the seasons. This continued until some time after the Christian era, when a more perfect system, a cycle of nineteen years with seven months intercalatedthe invention of an astronomer of Athens named Metonwas adopted. It seems unlikely that the Jews had any fixed chronological calendar in the time of Christ, but this is disputed (see Wieseler, Chronol. Synopsis of the Four Gospels, p. 401, etc.).

The method of reckoning years is a complicated and difficult subject. In accordance with Eastern ideas, that precision in reckoning events to which we moderns are accustomed was unknown. It was not considered necessary (cf. e.g. the loose phrases in the days of Herod the king, Mat 2:1; and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, Luk 3:1); nor was it easily attainable. For it was possible for a writer in NT times to employ various systems of reckoning, and it was also possible to employ any one system in various ways. In addition to the various eras in which it was common to reckon, viz. the Olympiad era beginning b.c. 776; the Seleucid, used in the Books of the Maccabees, beginning b.c. 312; the Actian beginning b.c. 31; there was also the Roman method of reckoning by consuls or emperors (Luk 3:1), and the Jewish by high priests. Further, the year began at a different time in different countries, e.g. the Roman year began on Jan. 1, but in a few cases the emperors dated their years from the date of their election as tribunes of the people on Dec. 10. The Jewish saercd year began about the vernal equinox, as did also, in all probability, the years of the Seleucid era. But in Asia Minor a year beginning in autumn was also observed in ordinary use. These and other considerations render it almost impossible to give the precise date of any event even in NT times (see art. Dates). The one date given with any apparent precision is in Luk 3:1 in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. This seems tolerably accurate, but the actual date intended depends on how St. Luke reckoned. He may have dated from the death of Augustus, Aug. 19, a.d. 14, counting that year as the first of Tiberius reign, or from the beginning of a.d. 15, which was also a method of reckoning. Or he may have reckoned from Dec. 10, a.d. 15, when Tiberius assumed tribunician authority. Or, as the tribunician authority was interrupted in the reign of Tiberius, St. Luke may have dated his reign from the time when he assumed tribunician power the second time. In addition, there is the question whether St. Luke would reckon according to the Roman year from Jan. 1, or, according to local methods prevalent in Syria, from the autumn equinox.

Literature.Kaestner, de Aeris; Bilfinger, Die antiken Stundenangaben; Schwarz, Der Jd. Kalender; Lewin, Fasti Sacri; Wieseler, Chron. Synopsis of the Four Gospels; Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie; Schrer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] i. 37, ii. App. iii. and iv.; W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? v.xi.; Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iv. pp. 762b766b, also specially Ext. Vol. 473b484.

G. Gordon Stott.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Time

TIME.The conception that we seem to gather of time from the Holy Scriptures is of a small block, as it were, cut out of boundless eternity. Of past eternity, if we may use such an expression, God is the only inhabitant; in future eternity angels and men are to share. And this block of time is infinitesimally small. In Gods sight, in the Divine mind, a thousand years are but as yesterday (Psa 90:4; cf. 2Pe 3:8 one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day). Time has a beginning; it has also, if we accept the usual translation of Rev 10:6 there shall be time no longer, a stated end. The word time in Biblical apocalyptic literature has another meaningtime stands for a year both in Daniel (Dan 4:16; Dan 4:23; Dan 4:25; Dan 4:32; Dan 7:25, where the plural times seems to stand for two years) and in Rev 12:14 (derived from Dan 7:25).

When once the idea of time formed itself in the human mind, subdivisions of it would follow as a matter of course. The division between light and darkness, the rising, the zenith, and the setting of the sun and the moon, together with the phases of the latter, and the varying position of the most notable stars in the firmament, would all suggest modes of reckoning time, to say nothing of the circuit of the seasons as indicated by the growth and development of the fruits of the field and agricultural operations. Hence we find in Gen 1:1-31 day and night as the first division of time, and, because light was believed to be a later creation than matter, one whole day is said to be made up of evening and morning; and the day is reckoned, as it still is by the Jews and, in principle, by the Church in her ecclesiastical feasts, from one disappearance of the sun to the next, the divisions between day and night being formed by that appearance and disappearance. In this same cosmogony we meet with a further use of the lights in the firmament of heaven; they are to be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years (Gen 1:14). The day would thus be an obvious division of time for intelligent beings to make from the very earliest ages. As time went on, subdivisions of this day would be made, derived from an observance of the sun in the heavensmorning, noonday or midday, and evening; and, by analogy, there would be a midnight. The only other expression we meet with is between the two evenings (Exo 12:6), used most probably for the time between sunset and dark, though others take it as equivalent to the time of the going down of the sun, i.e. any time in the afternoon: any shorter subdivisions of time were not known to the Jews till they were brought into contact with Western civilization and the Roman military arrangements. The only exception to this is the steps on the dial of Ahaz (2Ki 20:9-11). In the passages in Daniel where the word hour occurs in the EV [Note: English Version.] , the term is quite an indefinite one, the one hour of Dan 4:19 in AV [Note: Authorized Version.] becoming a while in RV [Note: Revised Version.] . The Aram [Note: ram Aramaic.] , word used in that book was used in the New Hebrew for the word hour. In the Apocrypha the word hour is quite indefinite. But in the NT we find the Western division of the day into twelve hours, reckoning from sunrise to sunset, quite established. Are there not twelve hours in the day? said our Lord, in an appeal to the Jews (Joh 11:9). Westcott holds that in St. Johns Gospel (Joh 1:39, Joh 4:6; Joh 4:52, Joh 19:14) the modern mode of reckoning the hours from midnight to midnight is followed. The strongest passage in support of this view is Joh 19:14. These twelve hours were divided into the four military watches of three hours each (cf. Mat 14:25 the fourth watch of the night), as distinguished from the three watches which seem to have prevailed among the Jews (if he shall come in the second watch, and if in the third, Luk 12:38). The only other measure of time, quite indefinite and infinitesimal, is the moment, common to OT, Apocr. [Note: Apocrypha, Apocryphal.] , and NT (we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, 1Co 15:52). To-morrow (Exo 8:23) and yesterday (Exo 5:14), and even yesternight (Gen 31:29), would soon take their place on either side of to-day. The Hebrew word meaning literally the day before yesterday, is generally used vaguely of previous time, heretofore.

The next obvious division of time would be the month. The phases of the moon would be watched, and it would soon be noticed that these recurred at regular intervals. Each appearance of the new moon would be noted as the beginning of a new period. The first mention of the new moon in Biblical history is in 1Sa 20:5, though the beginnings of the months are mentioned in the ritual laws of Num 10:10; Num 28:11. Of the two Heb. words for month, one is identical with the word for moon, the other means newness. Though the actual period of each moon is rather more than 29 days, the actual time of its visibility could scarcely be more than 28 days. The first appearance of the new moon would be eagerly watched for and made a matter of rejoicing. We find, in fact, that a keen lookout was kept for it, and the new moon feast was kept with great rejoicings, as well as, apparently in later times, a full moon feast (Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, At the full moon, on our solemn feast day, Psa 81:3).

Given this period of 28 days, together with the recurrent phases of the moon, it would naturally be subdivided, like the day itself, into four divisions or weeks of seven days each. The first occurrence of a week is in Gen 29:27, though the Creation is represented as having been completed, including the rest of the Almighty, in a period of seven days, and periods of seven days occur in the history of the Flood. Of the two Heb. names for week one is derived from the number seven, and the other is identical with Sabbath, the day which completes the Jewish week. The NT takes over the latter word, and makes a Greek noun of it, whilst to the Christian and to the Christian Church, the first day of the week becomes the important day, instead of the seventh, and is for Christians the day of gathering together to break bread (Act 20:7), and of making collections for the needs of the faithful (1Co 16:2), and also wins for itself the name of the Lords day (Rev 1:10). The word week was given other applications. The seventh year completed a week of years and was a sabbath; seven times seven years formed seven sabbaths of years, i.e. forty-nine years, and was followed by the jubilee. From the constant occurrence of the tenth day of the month in the dating of events, it has been supposed that the month of 30 days was also subdivided into periods of ten days each (see, e.g., Exo 12:3, Lev 16:29, Jos 4:19, 2Ki 25:1 etc.).

There are no names in the OT for the days of the week except for the sevenththe Sabbath. In the Apocrypha (Jdt 8:6) there is a name for Friday which is translated the eve of the Sabbath; so in Mar 15:42 the day before the Sabbath. This day is also called the Preparation (Mat 27:62, Mar 15:42, Luk 23:54, Joh 19:31). In Roman Catholic service-books Good Friday is still called Feria Sexta in Parasceue (i.e. the Preparation), and the following Saturday Sabbatum Sanctum.

Whilst these various divisions of time were being arrived at, there would be, concurrently with them, the obvious recurrence of the seasons in their due order. One of the promises represented as having been made by God to Noah immediately after the Flood was that seedtime (i.e. spring), summer, harvest (i.e. autumn), and winter should not cease (Gen 8:22). This is the earliest time in the worlds history to which a knowledge of the seasons is attributed in the Bible. Afterwards summer and winter are frequently mentioned. In AV [Note: Authorized Version.] the word spring, to mean that season, occurs only in Wis 2:7, and autumn not at all, though the word translated winter in Amo 3:15, Jer 36:22, might equally be rendered autumn, as the time referred to is the border time between autumn and winter. It would in due course be noticed that the seasons recurred practically after a series of twelve moons or months; hence would come in the division of time into years of twelve lunar months. A year of 360 days is implied in the history of the Flood (Gen 6:1-22; Gen 7:1-24; Gen 8:1-22), but no satisfactory explanation has yet been given of the scheme of years and chronology in the genealogical account of antediluvian times (Gen 5:1-32).

The twelve months of the year would be given names. The Biblical names we find for them are:

1. Abib (Exo 13:4), the month of the green ears of corn, about the same as our April, called in post-exilic times, in correspondence with its Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] name, Nisan (Neh 2:1). This was the month in which the Passover came.

2. Ziv (1Ki 6:1), seemingly the bright month, called later Iyyar.

3. Sivan (Est 8:9), another Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] name, occurring only in this one passage in the OT.

4. This month has no Biblical name, but was called in later times Tammuz, after the god of that name, in whose honour a fast was kept during the month, which is mentioned in Zec 8:19 as the fast of the fourth month.

5. This month also has no Biblical name, but was called later Ab.

6. Elul (Neh 6:15, 1Ma 14:27). The etymology of this name is unknown; it occurs in Assyrian.

7. Ethanim (1Ki 8:2), the month of constant flowings, in later times called Tishri. This was the first month of the civil year.

8. Bul (1Ki 6:38), a word of doubtful etymology, called later Marcheshvan.

9. Chislev (Neh 1:1, Zec 7:1, 1Ma 1:54 etc.), a Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] word of uncertain derivation.

10. Tebeth (Est 2:18), taken over from the Assyrian. It has been conjectured to mean the month of sinking in, i.e. the muddy month.

11. Shebat (Zec 1:7, 1Ma 16:14), taken from the Babylonian; of doubtful meaning, but, according to some, the month of destroying rain.

12. Adar (Ezr 6:15, Est 3:7 etc.), a Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] word, perhaps meaning darkened. In 2Ma 15:36 we are informed that the twelfth month is called Adar in the Syrian tongue.

The names given are, it will be seen, of rare occurrence, and only four of them are pre-exilic. Biblical writers are generally content to give the number of the month. Some of the months were notable for their ecclesiastical feasts. In the first came the Passover, on the 14th day; in the third, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost); in the seventh, the Feast of Trumpets and the Feast of Tabernacles, as also the Fast of the Day of Atonement; in the ninth, the Feast of Dedication; and in the twelfth, the Feast of Purim.

Though at first all the months seem to have been reckoned of equal length, in later times they contained 30 and 29 days alternately. This rendered an intercalation in the Calendar necessary, to keep the Passover in the right season of the year; and this intercalary period was called the second Adar, and was inserted as required to bring Abib to its proper place in the year.

It remains to mention that in the Apocrypha we have traces of the Macedonian Calendar. In 2Ma 11:21, a month is named Dioscorinthius, a name which does not occur elsewhere, and which is either a corruption of the text for Dystrus, a name for the twelfth month, which occurs in the Sinaitic text of Tob 2:12, or the name of an intercalary month inserted at the end of the year. In 2Ma 11:30 Xanthicus, the name for the first month of the Macedonian year, occurs. It answers to the month Abib. These names, with other Macedonian names, are used by Josephus. In 3Ma 6:38 two Egyptian months, Pachon and Epiphi, occur, the former being omitted in some texts. They are the ninth and eleventh months of the Egyptian year.

Of epochs or eras there is but little trace. There were the periods of seven years and fifty years already mentioned, but they never occur in any chronological statement. 430 years is the time assigned to the sojourning in Egypt, both in OT and NT (Exo 12:40, Gal 3:17), and the commencement of the building of Solomons Temple is dated 480 years after the Exodus. The chronology of the two kingdoms is reckoned by regnal years, though in some cases a regency period is counted as part of the length of the reign. Twice in Isaiah (Isa 6:1; Isa 14:28) the date noted is that of the year of the death of a king, in another case the date is the invasion by the Tartan (Isa 20:1); whilst in Amos (Amo 1:1) a date is given as two years before the earthquake, apparently a particularly severe one which happened during the reign of Uzziah, king of Judah (Zec 14:5). The seventy years of the Captivity is also a well-known period, as is the thousand years of the Apocalypse (Rev 20:1-15), with all the speculations it has given rise to. In later times the years were reckoned by the names of those who filled the office of high priest; in Luk 3:1 f., we have a careful combination of names of various offices held by various persons at the time of the commencement of the preaching of John the Baptist, to indicate the date.

Of instruments to measure time we hear of only one, the sun-dial of Ahaz (2Ki 20:9-11, Isa 38:8), but what shape or form this took we do not know.

H. A. Redpath.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Time

tm: The basis of the Hebrew measurement of time was the day and the lunar month, as with the Semites generally. The division of the day into hours was late, probably not common until after the exile, although the sun-dial of Ahaz (2Ki 20:9; Isa 38:8) would scent to indicate some division of the day into periods of some sort, as we know the night was divided, The word used for hour is Aramaic , shea’ (, shata’), and does not occur in the Old Testament until the Book of Daniel (Dan 4:33; Dan 5:5), and even there it stands for an indefinite period for which time would answer as well.

1. The Day:

The term day (, yom) was in use from the earliest times, as is indicated in the story of the Creation (Gen 1). It there doubtless denotes an indefinite period, but is marked off by evening and morning in accordance with what we know was the method of reckoning the day of 24 hours, i.e. from sunset to sunset.

2. Night:

The night was divided, during pre-exilic times, into three divisions called watches (, ‘ashmurah, , ‘ashmoreth), making periods of varying length, as the night was longer or shorter (Jdg 7:19). This division is referred to in various passages of the Old Testament, but nowhere with indication of definite limits (see Psa 90:4; Psa 119:148; Jer 51:12; Hab 2:1).

In the New Testament we find the Roman division of the night into four watches (, phulake) in use (Mat 14:25; Mar 6:48), but it is possible that the former division still persisted. The use of the term day for the period from sunrise to sunset, or for day as distinguished from night, was common, as at present (Jos 10:13; Psa 19:2; Pro 4:18; Isa 27:3; Joh 9:4, etc.). But the use of the word in the indefinite sense, as in the expressions: day of the Lord, in that day, the day of judgment, etc., is far more frequent (see DAY). Other more or less indefinite periods of the day and night are: dawn, dawning of the day, morning, evening, noonday, midnight, cock-crowing or crowing of the cock, break of day, etc.

3. Week:

The weekly division of time, or the seven-day period, was in use very early and must have been known to the Hebrews before the Mosaic Law, since it was in use in Babylonia before the days of Abraham and is indicated In the story of the Creation. The Hebrew , shabhua, used in the Old Testament for week, is derived from , shebha, the word for seven. As the seventh day was a day of rest, or Sabbath (Hebrew , shabbath), this word came to be used for week, as appears in the New Testament (, -, sabbaton, -ta), indicating the period from Sabbath to Sabbath (Mat 28:1). The same usage is implied in the Old Testament (Lev 23:15; Lev 25:8). The days of the week were indicated by the numerals, first, second, etc., save the seventh, which was the Sabbath. In New Testament times Friday was called the day of preparation (, paraskeue) for the Sabbath (Luk 23:54).

4. Month:

The monthly division of time was determined, of course, by the phases of the moon, the appearance of the new moon being the beginning of the month, , hodhesh. Another term for month was yerah () meaning moon, which was older and derived from the Phoenician usage, but which persisted to late times, since it is found in the Aramaic inscriptions of the 3rd century AD in Syria. The names of the months were Babylonian and of late origin among the Hebrews, probably coming into use during and after the Captivity. But they had other names, of earlier use, derived from the Phoenicians, four of which have survived in Abib, Ziv, Ethanim and Bul. See CALENDAR.

5. Year:

The Hebrew year (, shanah) was composed of 12 or 13 months, the latter being the year when an intercalary month was added to make the lunar correspond with the solar year. As the difference between the two was from ten to eleven days, this required the addition of a month once in about three years, or seven in nineteen years. This month was added at the vernal equinox and was called after the month next preceding, we-‘adhar, or the second Adar. We do not know when this arrangement was first adopted, but it was current after the Captivity. There were two years in use, the civil and the ritual, or sacred year. The former began in the autumn, as would appear from Exo 23:16; Exo 34:22, where it is stated that the feast of ingathering should be at the end of the year, and the Sabbatic year began in the 7th month of the calendar or sacred year, which would correspond to September-October (Lev 25:9). Josephus says (Ant., I, iii, 3) that Moses designated Nican (March-April) as the 1st month of the festivals, i.e. of the sacred year, but preserved the original order of the months for ordinary affairs, evidently referring to the civil year. This usage corresponds to that of the Turkish empire, where the sacred year is lunar and begins at different seasons, but the financial and political year begins in March O.S. The beginning of the year was called , ro’sh ha-shanah, and was determined by the priests, as was the beginning of the month. Originally this was done by observation of the moon, but, later, calculation was employed in connection with it, until finally a system based on accurate calculation was adopted, which was not until the 4th century AD. New-Year was regarded as a festival. See ASTRONOMY, I, 5; YEAR.

6. Seasons:

The return of the seasons was designated by summer and winter, or seed-time and harvest; for they were practically the same. There is, in Palestine, a wet season, extending from October to March or April, and a dry season comprising the remainder of the year. The first is the winter (, horeph), and this is the seed-time (, zera), especially the first part of it called , yoreh, or the time of the early rain; the second is the summer (, kayic, fruit-harvest, or , kacr, harvest).

Seed-time begins as soon as the early rains have fallen in sufficient quantity to moisten the earth for plowing, and the harvest begins in some parts, as in the lower Jordan region, near the Dead Sea, about April, but on the high lands a month or two later. The fruit harvest comes in summer proper and continues until the rainy season. The time when kings go out to war (2Sa 11:1; 1Ki 20:22) probably refers to the end of the rainy season in Nican.

7. No Era:

We have no mention in the Old Testament of any era for time reckoning, and we do not find any such usage until the time of the Maccabees. There are occasional references to certain events which might have served for eras had they been generally adopted. Such was the Exodus in the account of the building of the temple (1Ki 6:1) and the Captivity (Eze 33:21; Eze 40:1) and the Earthquake (Amo 1:1). Dates were usually fixed by the regnal years of the kings, and of the Persian kings after the Captivity. When Simon the Maccabee became independent of the Seleucid kings in 143-142 or 139-138 BC, he seems to have established an era of his own, if we may attribute to him a series of coins dated by the years of the independence of Israel (see COINS: MONEY; also 1 Macc 13:41 and 15:6, 10). The Jews doubtless were familiar with the Seleucid era, which began in 312 BC, and with some of the local eras of the Phoenician cities, but we have no evidence that they made use of them. The era of the Creation was not adopted by them until after the time of Christ. This was fixed at 3, 830 years before the destruction of the later temple, or 3760 BC. See ERA.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Time

Beginning of

Gen 1:1; Gen 1:14

Before the flood

Jos 24:2

The exodus

Exo 19:1; Exo 40:17; 1Ki 6:1

Daniel’s reckoning of time, and times, and dividing of half times

Dan 7:25; Dan 12:7

Indicated by a sundial

2Ki 20:9-11; Isa 38:8

Division of, into watches

Exo 14:24; 1Sa 11:11; Mat 14:25; Mar 6:48

One day as a thousand years

2Pe 3:8

Fullness of

Gal 4:4; Eph 1:10

End of

Job 26:10; Rev 10:6

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

T’ime

The general medium in which all events take place in succession or appear to take place in succession. All specific and finite periods of time, whether past, present or future, constitute merely parts of the entire and single Time. Common-sense interprets Time vaguely as something moving toward the future or as something in which events point in that direction. But the many contradictions contained in this notion have led philosophers to postulate doctrines purporting to eliminate some of the difficulties implied in common-sense ideas. The first famous but unresolved controversy arose in Ancient Greece, between Parmenides, who maintained that change and becoming were irrational illusions, and Heraclitus, who asserted that there was no permanence and that change characterized everything without exception. Another great controversy arose centuries later between disciples of Newton and Leibniz. According to Newton, time was independent of, and prior to, events; in his own words, “absolute time, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without regard to anything external.” According to Leibniz, on the other hand, there can be no time independent of eventsfor time is formed by events and relations among them, and constitutes the universal order of succession. It was this latter doctrine which eventually gave rise to the doctrine of space-time, in which both space and time are regarded as two systems of relations, distinct from a perceptual standpoint, but inseparably bound together in reality. All these controversies led many thinkers to believe that the concept of time cannot be fully accounted for, unless we distinguish between perceptual, or subjective, time, which is confined to the perceptually shifting ‘now’ of the present, and conceptual, or objective, time, which includes til periods of time and in which the events we call past, present and future can be mutually and fixedly related. See Becoming, Change, Duration, Persistence, Space-Time. — R.B.W.

Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy

TIME

Concerning the Terms of Time, in the symbolical language, are the following words of Artemidorus, in Lib. ii. c. 75;

“Days, months, and years have not always their proper signification; for months are sometimes denoted by years, and days too; and years and days by months; and months and years by days. But that this may not become doubtful; when years are mentioned, if they be proportionable and suitable they may be accounted as years; but if many, as months; if over many, as days. The same rule holds reciprocally for days; for if they be many, let them be accounted as days; if less, as months; if few, as years: likewise of months, let them be taken according to the present occasion. Now whether there is occasion or not, and what it is, will be shewn, over and besides the due proportion of life, by the age of the dreamer; and in other cases, by the consideration of the necessity.”

From these words it appears that, in the symbolical language, the aforesaid terms of time are symbolical, and sometimes by the said rule literal, and that the said terms are in the said language synonymous, as they are also in the Oriental languages. And thus, in the Sacred Writings, a day in some places is put for a year; as in Num 14:34; Eze 4:4; Eze 4:6.

This practice seems to have risen, either from days and years being all one in the primitive state of the world, or else from the ignorance of men at first in settling words to express the determined spaces of time. A day with them was a year; a month a year; three months a year; four months a year; six months a year, as well as the whole yearly revolution of the sun.

It is worth observing, that the Egyptians, from whom the symbolical language did chiefly come at first, were involved in this uncertainty, and gave the name of year to several sorts of revolutions of time, or determined spaces thereof. John Malela, who in his work has copied more ancient authors, says plainly, that they called a day a year.f1 The day is a period and revolution; and so it is an , a year. From the same author, and several others,f2it appears also that they accounted a month a year.

Plutarch f3 and Diodorus f4 say, that four months, or a season, were called a year.

As for the revolution of the sun, which is done in that space of time which we call a year, it was called by them the year of the sun, or, in other words, the year of God. F5 Hence a full year is called by Virgil a great year;f6 and the year of Jupiter by Homer.f7

As for other nations, some barbarians, as Plutarch says,f8 had years of three months; as also the Arcadians among the Greeks, if we may stand to the testimony of Plinyf9 and Censorinus.f10 But Plutarch says they made them of four months: and these two last authors say, the Carians and Acarnanians made their years of six months.

Terms of time being thus ambiguous amongst the ancients, they must, in the symbolical language, be by the rule of proportion determined by the circumstances. Thus if days were mentioned of a matter of great importance and duration, they must be explained by solar years, or full years: if years were spoken of a mean subject, as of the persons of men, and seemed to be above proportion, they must be explained of so many diurnal years, or common days. This is evidently the principle of Artemidorus, who finds mysteries in all numbers, and all expressions determining spaces of time.

Upon this also are grounded Joseph’s expositions upon the dreams of the chief butler and chief baker. For otherwise three branches should rather signify three distinct springs, or solar years, as the seven ears of corn in Pharaoh’s dream portended seven distinct crops, and by consequence seven solar years. But the subject matter altered the property. Pharaoh’s dream concerned the whole nation, the king being a representative of the people: but the chief butler’s dream concerned only his own person.

The way of the symbolical language, in expressions determining the spaces of time, may be yet set in a plainer light from the manner of predictions, or the nature of prophetical visions. For a prophecy concerning future events is a picture or representation of the events in symbols; which being fetched from objects visible at one view, or cast of the eye, rather represent the events in miniature, than in full proportion; giving us more to understand than what we see. And therefore, that the duration of the events may be represented in terms suitable to the symbols of the visions, the symbols of duration must be also drawn in miniature. Thus, for instance, if a vast empire, persecuting the Church for 1260 years, was to be symbolically represented by a beast, the decorum of the symbol would require, that the said time of its tyranny should not be expressed by 1260 years; because it would be monstrous and indecent to represent a beast ravaging for so long a space of time, but by 1260 days. And thus a day may imply a year; because that short revolution of the sun bears the same proportion to the yearly, as the type to the antitype.

In the symbolical language objects also of extended quantity may be used to represent time, which is only successive; as in the aforesaid dream of Pharaoh’s chief butler, the three branches of the vine are explained by Joseph to signify three days. In that of the chief baker, the three baskets signified three days.

In the dreams of Pharaoh, the seven good kine and the seven lean kine portended so many years of plenty and famine; as did also the seven good ears, and the seven bad ears of corn; so likewise in the statue of Nebuchadnezzar, the proportion and order of the members signifies the order of succession and time; the head begins, and signifies the Babylonian monarchy; and so on to the feet, legs, and toes, signifying the last tyrannical powers exercising cruelty against the saints and Church of God.

Thus also in the portentum exhibited to the Greeks in Aulis, and there explained by Calchas, as Homer reports it,f11 the eight young birds with the mother, which is the ninth, being swallowed up by a dragon, who is after that turned into a stone, signify that the Greeks should spend nine years in their war against Troy, and that in the tenth year they should take the town.

Tully objects against this interpretation, and demands why the birds were rather to be interpreted of years than of months or days?f12 But the answer is obvious. Years only were proportionable to the event, and to the way of managing wars in ‘those days; so that the rule of proportion is to be framed upon the circumstances.

There is such another portentum in Virgil, where thirty young pigs denote as many yearsf13 And in Silius Italicus f14 there is an augurium set down of a hawk pursuing and killing fifteen doves; and while he was stooping upon another, an eagle comes and forces the hawk away: which is there explained of Hannibal’s wasting Italy during sixteen years, and his being driven away by Scipio.

In several places of Scripture a day signifies an appointed time or season; as in Isa 34:8; Isa 63:4 : and so may imply a long time of many years; as in Heb 3:8-9, “the day of temptation in the wilderness,” is the time of forty years.

In the Latin authors a day is used to signify time in general; as in Tully,f15 “Opinionum enim commenta delet dies, Naturae judicia confirmat;” and in Terence,f16 “Diem adimere, agritudinem hominibus.” And dies also may signify more especially the whole year, as it does in these verses of Lucretius:-

“Nam simul ac species patefacta est verna Diei,

Et reserata viget genitalis aura Favoni.”f17

In Tully,f18 dies perexigua signifies a short time, yet so as to contain 110 days. Upon which Asconius makes this observation: “Dies fceminino genere tempus; et ideo diminutive diecula dicitur breve tempus et mora. Dies horarum xii. generis masculini est: unde hodie, quasi hoc die.” So dies Tonga in Pliny.f19

Again, Annus is used to signify the season, be it changed more or less. Thus Annus Hybernus in Horace is the Winter;f20 and in Virgil, Eclog. iii. ver. 57, Formosissimus Annus is the spring. And , a season, is sometimes used for a year, as in Dan 12:7; and in the following words of Eustathius Antioch:-

.f21

So is put for a year in many places; as in Sophocles,f22 in the Oriental Oneirocritics,f23 in lian,f24and in Ammonius.f25 And so also Ovid has used the word tempus to signify a year.f26

Lastly, , hour, signifies time, indefinitely, both in sacred and profane authors: In Aristophanes, , in the spring time:f27 in Thucydides, , the summer time. And so hora is used in the Latin authors for time or season in generalf28

The Son of man’s day- “his day” (Luk 17:24), or, as the original might be more exactly rendered, “His own day,” signifies the time of his second appearing; and it is worthy of special notice, that the words intimate, that that day is to be exclusively his day or time-quite another from the day of those deceivers mentioned Luk 17:23, and therefore quite another from the day of the Jewish war, in which those deceivers were to arise.”-Bishop Horsley.

F1 Suid. v. ,

F2 Diod. Sic. L. i. p. 15. Plin

F3 Plut. Vit. Num. Pomp.

F4 Diod. Sic. L. i. p. 16.

F5 Hor ap. Hieroglyph. v. L. i.

F6 Virgil. n. L. iii. ver. 284.

F7 Hom. Il. . ver. 134.

F8 Plut. Vit. Num.

F9 Plin. Nat. Hist. L. vii c.48.

F10 Censor. de Die Nat. c. 19..

F11 Horn. Ii. Q. ver. 308.

F12 Tully de Divinat. L. ii.

F13 Virgil. n. L. viii. ver. 42.

F14 Sil. Ital. de Bell. Pun. L. iv.

F15 Tully de Nat. Deor. L. ii.

F16 Terent. Heaut. Act. III. Sc. i. ver. 13.

F17 Lucr. L. i. ver.

F18 M. T. C. Orat. i. in Verr.

F19 Plin. L. viii. Epist. 5.

F20 Horat. Epod. ii.

F21 Eustath. Hexam. p. 30.

F22 Sophocl. (Ed. Tyr. p. 175.

F23 Ch. cxxvii. and cccxxxviii.

F24 2E1. Var. Hist. L. iv. c. 25.

F25 Ammon. de Differ. v. .

F26 Ovid. Fast. L. iii. ver. 163.

F27 Aristoph. Neb.

F28 Vid. Voss. Etym.

Fuente: A Symbolical Dictionary

Time

chronos (G5550) Time

kairos (G2540) Season, Opportunity

Chronoi and kairoi occur together several times in the New Testament, always in the plural (Act 1:7; 1Th 5:1), as well as in the Septuagint and in the Apocrypha. Grotius thought that the difference between Chronos and kairos was that the chronoi were longer than the kairoi. According to him: “Chronoi are larger divisions of time as years, kairoi are smaller divisions as months and days.” This distinction, if not inaccurate, is certainly insufficient and fails to touch the heart of the matter.

Chronos is simply time as such or the succession of moments. Plato called it a “moving representation of eternity,” and Philo called it a “dimension of the movement of the heavens.” According to Severianus: “Chronos is length, kairos is favorable opportunity.” Kairos is time as it brings forth its several births: “the time [kairos] of harvest” (Mat 13:30), “the season [kairos] of figs” (Mar 11:13); Christ died “in due time (kata kairon,Rom 5:6). Ecc 3:1-8 is actually a miniature essay on the word. Chronos embraces all possible kairoi, and since it is the more inclusive term, it is frequently used where kairos would have been equally suitable, though the reverse is not true. In chronos tou tekein (the time of bringing forth, Luk 1:57) and pleroma (G4138) tou chronou (Gal 4:4), which refers to the fullness or to the ripeness of time for the manifestation of the Son of God, we would have expected tou kairou or ton kairon instead. The “times [chronoi] of restoration” (Act 3:21) are identical with the “times [kairoi] of refreshing,” which are mentioned in Act 3:19. Thus it is possible to speak of the kairos chronou, as Sophocles did: “May reason preclude from you the opportune moment [kairon] of time [chronou],” but not of the chronos kairou. Olympiodorus remarked: “Chronos is the interval at which something is done; kairos is the time [kronos] suitable for the action. Thus chronos can be kairos, but kairos is not chronos; it is the appropriateness [eukairia] of what is done occurring in time [chrono].” According to Ammonius: “Kairos indicates quality of time [chronou];chronos indicates quantity.” Eukairos chronos (a fitting time) occurs in a fragment of Sosipatros.

Consequently, when the apostles asked, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” he answered: “It is not for you to know times or seasons” (Act 1:6-7). “The times” (chronoi) are (in Augustine’s words) “the very divisions of time,” that is, the duration of the church’s history; but “the seasons” (kairoi) are the joints or articulations in these times, the critical epoch-making periods foreordained by God or the “preappointed times” in Act 17:26. Kairoi refers to the gradual and perhaps unobserved ripening and maturing process that results in grand decisive events that close one period of history as they inaugurate another. Examples of such decisive events in history include the noisy end of the old Jewish dispensation, the recognition of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire, the conversion of the Germanic tribes settled within the limits of the empire and the conversion of those outside of it, the great revival that occurred with the first institution of the Mendicant orders, and more importantly the Reformation. The most decisive event of all will be the second coming of the Lord in glory (Dan 7:22).

There is not an adequate Latin word for kairoi. According to Augustine, who complained of this deficiency:

Greek speaks of Chronos or kairos. Our people call either word “time,” whether chronos or kairos, although these two possess a differentiation which must not be neglected. The Greeks indeed use kairos as a particular timenot however as one which passes in an alteration of divisions, but as one which is perceived on occasions fitting and suitable in some respect, as time for harvesting, gathering of grapes, warmth, cold, peace, war, and anything similar. They speak of chronoi as the very divisions of time.

Augustine did not recognize tempestivitas (timeliness), which is used by Cicero. This complaint is confirmed by the Vulgate, where various words are used to translate kairoi whenever it occurs with chronoi. In those cases, kairoi cannot be translated by tempora (times) because chronoi is. Thus it is translated in various ways such as “times and moments” (Act 1:7; 1Th 5:1), “times and ages” (Dan 2:21), and “times and generations” (Wisd. of Son 8:8). A modern Latin commentator on the New Testament has “times and divisions” and Bengel has “intervals and times.” It might be argued that tempora et opportunitates (times and opportune times) would fulfill all the necessary conditions. Augustine anticipated this suggestion and demonstrated its insufficiency by arguing that opportunitas (opportune time) refers to a convenient, favorable season, but kairos may refer to a most inconvenient and unfavorable time that is nevertheless essentially the critical nick of time. Kairos itself does not determine whether this critical time is positive or negativehelpful or harmful. “Whether the time is convenient or inconvenient, it is called kairos. “It is usually, however, the former: “Kairos is for men like a very great chief over every work.”

Fuente: Synonyms of the New Testament

Time

denotes “a space of time,” whether short, e.g., Mat 2:7; Luk 4:5, or long, e.g., Luk 8:27; Luk 20:9; or a succession of “times,” shorter, e.g., Act 20:18, or longer, e.g., Rom 16:25, RV, “times eternal;” or duration of “time,” e.g., Mar 2:19, 2nd part, RV, “while” (AV, “as long as”), lit., “for whatever time.” For a fuller treatment see SEASON, A, No. 2.

primarily “due measure, due proportion,” when used of “time,” signified “a fixed or definite period, a season,” sometimes an opportune or seasonable “time,” e.g., Rom 5:6, RV, “season;” Gal 6:10, “opportunity.” In Mar 10:30; Luk 18:30, “this time” (kairos), i.e., “in this lifetime,” is contrasted with “the coming age.” In 1Th 5:1, “the times and the seasons,” “times” (chronos) refers to the duration of the interval previous to the Parousia of Christ and the length of “time” it will occupy (see COMING, No. 3), as well as other periods; “seasons” refers to the characteristics of these periods. See SEASON, A, No. 1, and the contrasts between chronos and kairos under SEASON, A, No. 2.

primarily, “any time or period fixed by nature,” is translated “time” in Mat 14:15; Luk 14:17; Rom 13:11, “high time;” in the following the RV renders it “hour,” for AV, “time,” Mat 18:1; Luk 1:10; Joh 16:2, Joh 16:4, Joh 16:25; 1Jo 2:18 (twice); Rev 14:15; in Mar 6:35, RV, “day;” in 1Th 2:17, RV, “a short (season),” lit., “(the season, AV, ‘time’) of an hour.” See HOUR.

“ever yet,” is rendered “at any time” in Joh 1:18; Joh 5:37; 1Jo 4:12. For Luk 15:29 see Note (14) below. See NEVER.

“already, now,” is translated “by this time” in Joh 11:39. See ALREADY.

“long ago, of old,” is rendered “of old time” in Heb 1:1 (AV, “in time past”). See OLD.

Notes: (1) In Luk 9:51; Act 8:1, AV, hemera, “a day,” is translated “time,” in the former, plural, RV, “the days;” in Luk 23:7 (plural), RV “(in these) days,” AV, “(at that) time.” (2) In 1Ti 6:19 the phrase eis to mellon, lit., “unto the about-to-be,” i.e., “for the impending (time),” is rendered “against the time to come.” (3) In 1Co 16:12, AV, nun, “now” (RV), is rendered “at this time;” in Act 24:25, the phrase to nun echon, lit., “the now having,” is rendered “at this time” (the verb is adjectival); the phrase is more expressive than the simple “now.” Cp. heos tou nun, “until now,” Mat 24:21; Mar 13:19, RV, AV, “unto (this time).” (4) For polumeros, strangely rendered “at sundry times,” in Heb 1:1, AV, see PORTION, C. (5) For “long time,” see LONG. (6) For “nothing … at any time,” see NOTHING, Note (3). (7) For proskairos, rendered “for a time” in Mar 4:17, AV, see SEASON, WHILE. (8) In Matt., apo tote, “from that time,” lit., “from then,” occurs thrice, Mat 4:17; Mat 16:21; Mat 26:16; in Luk 16:16, RV (AV, “since that time”); in Joh 6:66, AV, “from that time” translates ek toutou, lit., “from, or out of, this,” RV, “upon this.” (9) In Luk 4:27, the preposition epi signifies “in the time of.” (10) For genea, rendered “times” in Act 14:16, “time” in Act 15:21, see AGE, No. 2 (RV, “generations”). (11) For “at every time,” 2Pe 1:15, RV, see ALWAYS, No. 2. (12) For “in time of need,” Heb 4:16, see CONVENIENT, and NEED, C, Note. (13) In Heb 2:1, pote signifies “at any time;” in 1Pe 3:5, “in the old time;” in 2Pe 1:21, “in old time.” See PAST. In the following where the AV has “sometimes” the RV has “once” in Eph 2:13; Eph 5:8; “aforetime” in Tit 3:3. (14) In Luk 15:29, AV, oudepote, “never,” is rendered “neither … at any time” (RV, “never”). (15) For eukaireo, “to spend time,” Act 17:21, see SPEND, No. 10. (16) For chronotribeo, “to spend time,” see SPEND, No. 11. (17) For prolego, rendered “told … in time past,” in Gal 5:21, AV, see FOREWARN. (18) In Luk 12:1, “in the mean time” is a rendering of the phrase en hois, lit., “in which (things or circumstances).” (19) In Rev 5:11 there is no word representing “times:” see THOUSAND, Note (2). (20) In Gal 4:2 prothesmios (in its feminine form, with hemera, “day,” understood) is rendered “time appointed” (see APPOINT, No. 3 and Note, TERM).

Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words

Time

Dan 12:7 (a) This is taken to mean one year. “Times” is taken to means two years. “Half a time” is taken to mean six months. (See also Rev 12:14).

Rev 10:6 (a) This passage does not mean that there will be an end to the clocks and that time will be no more. It refers to the fact that what must be done is to be done immediately. There can be no procrastination, no putting off until later, no indecision, every matter must be immediately attended to, without delay. It may be illustrated by the time of the departure of the train. If the train leaves at 9:00 o’clock, then there is no more time to get on board.

Fuente: Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types