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 ἐ
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
Ἡ
Lastly, Ὥ
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.
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.
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.\par
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."
See Space-time; Time, conceptual; Time, perceptual *
The Difference Between The Lord’s Time And Our Time
Psa_90:1-4; 2Pe_3:8.
The Lord’s Years
Job_36:26; Psa_102:24-27; Heb_1:10-12.
There Being A Time For Every Purpose
Ecc_3:1-9; Ecc_3:16-17; Ecc_8:6.
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
The division of time into weeks was probably of Babylonian origin, and would be suggested by the moon’s phases, although there is no trace of this influence either in OT or NT. The word for ‘week’ in the Gospels is
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’ (
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.
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 Jüd. Kalender; Lewin, Fasti Sacri; Wieseler, Chron. Synopsis of the Four Gospels; Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie; Schürer, HJP
G. Gordon Stott.
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 God’s 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 meaning—‘time’ 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 heavens—morning, 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
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 Lord’s 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 seventh—the 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 world’s history to which a knowledge of the seasons is attributed in the Bible. Afterwards summer and winter are frequently mentioned. In AV
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.
2. Ziv (1Ki 6:1), seemingly the bright month, called later Iyyar.
3. Sivan (Est 8:9), another Bab.
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.
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.
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 Solomon’s 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.
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
1. The Day:
The term “day” (
2. Night:
The night was divided, during pre-exilic times, into three divisions called watches (
In the New Testament we find the Roman division of the night into four watches (
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
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,
5. Year:
The Hebrew 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 (
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.
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 (äéáãåíïìÝíïõ, Act_27:9, ‘spent,’ lit. [Note: literally, literature.] ‘had come through’). It passes by (ὁ ðáñåëçëõèὼò ÷ñüíïò, 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’ (ἱêáíὸò ÷ñüíïò, Luk_8:27; Luk_23:8, Act_8:11; ἡìÝñáé ἱêáíáß, Act_9:23; Act_9:43; Act_18:18; ἱêáíῶí ἐôῶí, 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 (ðëÞñùìá ôïῦ ÷ñüíïõ, 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’ (ἐðʼ ἐó÷Üôïõ ôῶí ÷ñüíùí, 1Pe_1:21; ἐó÷Üôç ἡìÝñá, Joh_6:39-40; Joh_11:24; ἔó÷áôáé ἡìÝñáé, Act_2:17, 2Ti_3:1, Jam_5:3; 2Pe_3:3; ἐó÷Üôç ὥñá, 1Jn_2:18).
The relativity of length of time to the mind is indicated in the conception that to God’s 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 êáéñüò (generally, ‘definite time’). The most accentuated usage of the term in this sense is the Apocalyptist’s êáéñὸí êáὶ êáéñïὺò êáὶ ἥìéóõ êáéñïῦ (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 ([êáéñὸò] ôïῦ èåñéóìïῦ, Mat_13:30; êáéñὸò óýêùí, Mar_11:13 : cf. Luk_20:10; ôïὺò êáñðïὺò ἐí ôïῖò êáéñïῖò áὐôῶí, Mat_21:41). More generally êáéñüò 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 (ìῆíáò êáὶ êáéñïýò, Gal_4:10); to be watched against because of the evil influences which it brings (êáéñïὶ ÷áëåðïß, 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 (êáéñïὶ ἐèíῶí, 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, ὁ êáéñὸò ὁ ἐìüò, ὁ êáéñὸò ὁ ὑìÝôåñïò, Joh_7:6; Joh_7:8). The term êáéñüò thus differs from ÷ñüíïò in designating ‘opportune’ or ‘fit’ time, a time associated with, and therefore distinguished by, some special event or feature. In the phrase ðåðëÞñùôáé ὁ êáéñüò (Mar_1:15) the more appropriate term would have been ÷ñüíïò, 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’ (áἰþí, ‘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 áἰþí. 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 (áἰῶíåò, 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, åἰò ðÜíôáò ôïὺò áἰῶíáò, 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’ (ὁ áἰὼí ïὗôïò, ὁ íῦí áἰþí, ὁ ἐíåóôþò áἰþí, òåֹìָí äָøּä, Eph_1:21, Mat_12:32, Gal_1:4, 2Ti_4:10, Tit_2:12) and the ‘future age’ (ὁ áἰùí ὁ ìÝëëùí, ὁ áἰþí ὁ ἐñ÷üìåíïò, òåֹìָí äַáָּà, 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.’ (åἰò ôïὺò áἰῶíáò ôῶí áἰþíùí) 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,’ ἡìÝñáé ôῶí ἀæýìùí, Act_12:3; Act_20:6, ðÜó÷á, Act_12:4) stands prominent. The Day of Pentecost (ἡìÝñá ôῆò ðåíôçêïóôῆò, Act_2:1; Act_20:18) and the Day of Atonement (‘fast,’ íçóôåßá, Act_27:9) are also used as landmarks. But in the allusion to the Feast of Dedication (ἐíêáßíéá, 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 Solomon’s porch.’ Similarly the Feast of Tabernacles (óêçíïðçãßá, 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 ἑâäïìÜò (which came later into universal use) the period was generally known by its last day, the Sabbath (óÜââáôïí, Luk_18:12), and in the plural (óÜââáôá), as shown in the name of the first day (ìßá ôῶí óáââÜôùí, Mat_28:1, Mar_16:2, Luk_24:1). In Act_17:2, óÜââáôá ôñßá (rendered ‘weeks’ in Revised Version margin) is, in the light of St. Paul’s 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 (‘Lord’s day,’ êõñéáêὴ ἡìÝñá, 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’ (ìßá ôῶí óáââÜôùí, 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’ (ðñïóÜââáôïí, Jdt_8:6, Mar_15:42); but in the NT oftener as the ‘Preparation [day]’ [ðáñáóêåõÞ, 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 íõ÷èÞìåñïí, ‘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,’ ἐ÷èÝò, Joh_4:52, Act_7:28, Heb_13:8) is not so frequently mentioned as the day following (‘morrow,’ ἡ áὔñéïí, Act_4:3; Act_4:5; Act_23:20; Act_25:22; ἡ ἐðáýñéïí, Act_10:9; Act_14:20; Act_20:7; ἡ ἐðéïῦóá, Act_16:11; Act_20:15; Act_21:18; Act_23:11; ἡ ἐ÷ïìÝíç, Act_20:15; Act_21:26; ἡ ἑîῆò ἡìÝñá, Act_21:1; Act_25:17; Act_27:18). The ‘day after to-morrow’ is spoken of as ‘the third day’ (ôñßôç, 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,’ ἐðὶ ὤñáò äýï; 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, ὤñá ôïῦ äåßðíïõ), the offering up of incense (Luk_1:10, ὤñá ôïῦ èõìéÜìáôïò), prayer (Act_3:1, ὤñá ôῆò ðñïóåõ÷ῆò).
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 (ἀôüìῳ, 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 (óôéãìῇ ÷ñüíïõ, Luk_4:5).
Literature.-A. Schwarz, Der jüdische Kalender, Breslau, 1872; G. Bilfinger, Die Zeitmesser der antiken Völker, Stuttgart, 1886, Der bürgerliche 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 Smith’s DGRA [Note: GRA Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities.] ; E. Schürer, 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.
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.
Life in the present world is inseparably bound up with time. Time is part of God’s 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). Christ’s return will also occur when God’s 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 God’s people (Eph 5:15-17; 1Pe 4:1-3). The prospect of Christ’s 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 God’s 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; Jas 4:13-16).