Prima Pars
34. The Eternity of God (Summa I, Q.10, aa.1–2): Boethius' Definition and the Via Negativa
Class of 2006-04-27
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/034-the-eternity-of-god-summa-i-q-10-aa-1-2-boethius-definition/

[0:00] It's a very fortunate thing. Those two guys. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, let's look at question ten here now. I notice how this follows upon the unchangeableness of God, just as time follows upon what motion, right? So Aristotle talks about motion in Book three of the of Natural Hearing, and then time in Book Four, right? So Thomas talks about the unchangeableness of God and then his eternity, huh? But just as unchangeableness involves negation of what's found in motion, so eternity will involve some negations of what's found in what time, huh?

[0:39] We know more what God is not than what He is. So the first thing is what is eternity, right? The definition of eternity, huh? Then we can ask the second article, whether God is eternal. So we know something about God already from the articles we said, and then we found what eternity is, and then we see the connection between the two. And then the third one, whether to be eternal is tied to God, right?

[1:08] Okay. And then it goes into what three articles that are what really well different, right? Comparisons. Yeah. Whether eternity differs from time, huh? That should be more than clear by the time we get to that article. And then the difference of the what? Eternity. Yeah, that's something maybe for the angels or something, right? The language is altogether clear or fixed, I should say. And then whether there is one evum as there is one time and one what eternity, huh?

[1:48] So we'll find what the obscure evum is. The angels have, huh? Yeah. You can't really imagine your angel, huh? Mm hmm My old teacher, Kasurik, said you should make you know an act of will, opening up your mind to your guiding angel, that no direction or efficaciously. The first one proceeds thus. thus. It seems that this is not a suitable definition of eternity, which Boethius lays down in the fifth book of the Consolation of Philosophy.

[2:30] So. Do you know? Copy it. Copy the Consolation of Philosophy. You even have a copy of Latin in the library. Maybe I think we have a Latin copy. Yeah. Well, it's better to read a lot to do. There is a pseudo Thomas commentary on the Consolation of the Colossary. Yes, if you look in the it's probably in Migne know, if you look in there, but it's not, in Christ, authentic, but it's pretty good.

[2:56] I remember. Years ago, when I taught my brother Mark at Saint Mary's College, there, he's looking at that because I was teaching that or something. He found it kind of helpful, you know. So it's not quite common, but I mean, it's it's all kind of interesting things, huh? That you would notice, you know, like like when Lady Wisdom comes down, she's of course, represented as a woman.

[3:18] in. Lady Wisdom, not only because sapientia is feminine in Latin, but because a woman is better consoling. And but then her her garments are somewhat torn, and this represents the fact that people who have grabbed that wisdom have dismembered it They've torn it, right? And so you know, you know, bring out these little you know subtle things. But you but you have the the theta up here, which represents theoretical philosophy, and the and the pi for practical philosophy down below.

[3:48] And so the theoretical is put above the practical, just like Mary above Martha, you know, Mary has chosen the best part part. And then there's some kind of a pathway up from the the lower to the higher. So that's kind of the tonic too, you know, Because they thought you should start with the practical philosophy and then ascend to the the theoretical. Right,

[4:10] the Aristotelians they think you do math and natural philosophy before ethics and politics because of that great experience necessary for ethics and politics. So it seems that it's not a suitable definition of eternity which Boethius lays down in the fifth book of the Consolation of Philosophy, because it was a very famous work in the Middle Ages, huh? Chaucer translated. Chaucer did in Middle English, and and I guess King James was trying to make a translation of it.

[4:40] Oh, she was. Yeah, and I was reading. If you read Washington Irving's there, the sketchbook there, and he's describing that Scottish prince, you know, that was left, you know, in the tower there in England, and how he finally got out. But anyway, he was reading the Consolation of Philosophy, so he speaks a very reverent language, you know, in watching Irving, you know. So it's a very famous work.

[5:04] You got these little, you know, kind of poetic things with within a prose section, you know, and then, but they're very very profound, and it's kind of a mine there of things to to dig out, you know, for Boethius. But this is the definition of eternity that he gives. It's the what tota simul et perfecta possessio vitae interminabilis huh? The what all at once the way you can translate tota simul and perfect possession of unending life.

[5:40] Quite a definition. a hell, of a good definition too, We'll see, but anyway. Now he says, "You look at the objections here, and a lot of them." You know, will signal out some part of the definition, concentrate your mind on that, and raise some difficulty about it, and so on. So he says, "in terminabilis, unending, is said what Negatively. negatively. But negation is not of the notion of those things, except of those things which are what deficient, right?

[6:15] That are lacking, which doesn't belong to eternity, right? To be deficient or missing anything, right? Therefore, in the definition of eternity, we're not not to lay down in terminabilis. Because you know, the bad is what always a lack of some sort, right? So how can this be in there?

[6:41] Moreover, eternity signifies a certain what duration, but duration more regards being than life. Therefore, ought not to lay down the definition of eternity, life, but more being.

[6:59] Should have said the all at once and perfect possession of ending being, not life. Moreover, a whole is what has parts, huh? But this doesn't belong to eternity since it's simple. Therefore, it ought not to be said tota. I mean, it's part of the definition to get two of these objections, right?

[7:28] Okay, let's go to article two then. Moreover, many days are not able to be together, right? Nor many what times, huh? But in eternity, days and times are said in the plural. For it says in the prophet Micah, his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. And because of the Romans sixteen, according to revelation of the mysteries of what things, as says tacite in eternal what times, right?

[8:11] Therefore, eternity is not all at once, huh? Okay. Moreover, whole and perfect are the same thing, and that was back to the fifth book of wisdom, right? Where and Aristotle actually said in the in physics first that whole and perfect mean almost the same thing, and so you get to the third group of words there in the fifth book of wisdom. The first word is perfect, and then the ones that attach to that, then the word whole, right?

[8:44] Okay, It's going to be almost the same thing. Therefore. Having posited tota or whole, once it's superfluous to add that it be what perfect. Now you're being redundant there, right? Okay.

[9:03] Moreover, possession does not pertain to duration, but eternity is a certain duration. Therefore, eternity should not be called a what? Possession. So that's an objection against possession. We just saw here the sixth objection. The fifth objection is against perfect,

[9:23] And the what? Third one. totum simul was in the fourth objection, and tota period was in the what? Third objection. And vitae was objected to in the second objection. Every single word. has got, at least one objection against it.

[9:44] But but notice how this is is very appropriate to a student, because it concentrates your mind upon every single word, and every single word in a definition is essential. I sometimes say to students, you know, a definition is a little bit like spelling, right? In that, if you leave out one letter in a word, you've misspelled it. And you add one letter that shouldn't be in there, you have misspelled it.

[10:13] And if any letter is out of order, you have misspelled it, right? Now, there's something arbitrary, of course, about how you spell a word. You know, if you know from Shakespeare's inability to spell his own name. But I mean, but there's some likeness there, right? The definition is not arbitrary like the spelling word is, but you leave one little part out, and you what? You no longer have a good definition.

[10:41] Yeah, the definition is is is deficient, or the order of the parts is important too. So it's a very very precise thing. Okay, Thomas says I answer. It should be said that is necessary for us to come to a knowledge of simple things through what compose things, huh? Just as is necessary, right? He stated a general principle there. That's first stated by Aristotle there in the third book on the soul, right?

[11:15] And he takes example even the the point in geometry. You have to define it to what negatively, yeah. But as you go from the body, say, to the surface, to the line, to the point, the negations increase, right? Because the body is affirmatively defined as that which has length and width and depth, but the surface has length and width but no depth, and then the line has length but neither width nor depth, and then the point is neither length nor width nor depth.

[11:46] So as you go from the composed to the simple, you have more what negations, huh? And even in that imaginable science, imaginable things, there in geometry, how much more so when you go to to God, huh?

[12:03] So it says just as we come to a knowledge of simple things through the composed things, and this is really in an aspect of the natural order, so it is necessary for us to come to a knowledge of eternity through time, right? And then he goes back and recalls the definition of time, which Aristotle thinks out in the fourth book of the Physics, which is nothing other than the number of motion according to the before and what after in motion.

[12:44] Since in each motion there is succession and one part after another, from this we numbered the before and after in motion. So the sun is going down the sky, right? And we, it's here and then it's here and then it's here. And you number these before and afters, huh? You want to make a division there,

[13:07] or we measure the sun from sunrise to sunrise by the day, by the day, like poor, poor Robinson Crusoe, right? And every time the sun rises, every time it sets, whichever he wants to do, he makes a mark in a piece of wood, right? Keeps track of how many days he's been there, right? But one of these circulations is before or after another one, right? So numbering the before and after in motion—that's what time is.

[13:32] That's why the philosophers, Aristotle says that there wouldn't be time fully without the numbering soul. See, it's a way in which there's a number of chairs in this room, even if none of us are in there, and even if none of us have counted the number of chairs in this room, because all these chairs exist together, right? But three days, or even three hours, even three minutes, you never have them existing together.

[14:01] So since our mind has to what count yesterday, which doesn't exist anymore, with today, and then then tomorrow, which doesn't exist yet, and then you have three days, right? You know. Of course, we say sometimes I get I have three days, I have three hours, something, you know, to kill or what. And but but do I ever have three days? You know. No. I say, I had two weeks on my vacation.

[14:28] You know, well, always prior to vacation will be gone, and prior to your vacation is still to come come, and what do you have? You look how much of it it is being time.

[14:44] So since in any motion there is succession, and one part after another, from this that we numbered the before and after in motion, we grasp time, right? Which is nothing other than the number of the before and after in motion.

[15:06] In that order, which lacks motion, and has itself always in the same way, right? One could not get or take a before and an after. Just therefore as the notion of time consists in the numbering of the before and after in motion, so in the grasping of the what uniformity of what is altogether outside of motion consists the notion of what eternity. Also, those things are said to be measured by time, which have a beginning and end in time.

[15:51] As is said in the fourth book of the natural hearing, which the multitude call physics, right? And this, therefore, because in everything that is moved, one can take some beginning and some end. But what is entirely unchangeable, just as it has no succession, so it is not able to have a what beginning or end. Thus, therefore, from two things is made known eternity. First, from this that that which is an eternity is unending; that is to say, it has no beginning and no end.

[16:34] So that the word terminus, right, refers to both. Aristotle points it out in the fifth book of wisdom, right? Huh? And we sometimes say this is the beginning of the line, and then the point of the other end is the end, right? But sometimes we apply the word end to both, right? We speak of the endpoints of the line, right? So he's taking terminus or end in that sense.

[16:58] Second, through this, that eternity lacks succession, existing what all at once, huh? Now, most people when they think of eternity, if they think about it at all, they think of it as a kind of endless time.

[17:25] And that's part of the notion of eternity, because it has no beginning and no end. But an endless time would still have a before and after in it. And even Plato saw that eternity had no before and after in it. So you need to negate both. If you speak of God's life as opposed to my life, my life has a beginning and an end in time. Or Mozart's life.

[17:53] They're celebrating Mozart again now. The two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of his birth was it? They had all these Mozart concerts. But seventeen fifty six, seventeen ninety one, right? Mozart has a beginning and end in time, right? But even when he's here, he has a before and after in his life, huh? So if I existed last year and went back the year before that, and every year before that, I always was, and next year I'll be around, and year after that, and every year after that I'll still be around.

[18:25] I would still not be in eternity, right? Because one year of my life would be what before or after another year. But I would have my life would be measured by kind of endless time, right? Time that had no beginning, no end. No matter how far we go back, every year I'd still be, and every year later I'd still be, but I'd still have a before and after.

[18:48] So you got to get both of these notions. In there to be understood, but eternity is. So you've got to negate the beginning and end in time that things measured by time have, and you have to negate the before and after.

[19:06] Now the first objection was objecting to the negativity of this definition, right? And the first, therefore, it should be said that simple things are accustomed to be defined by negation. And stand example as a point is this is Euclid's definition that which has no parts, right?

[19:29] And this is not because negation is of the essence of them, right? But because our understanding, which first grasps composed things, right, is not able to come to a knowledge of simple things except through the what negation or removing of the composition. So as the philosopher says in the third book about the soul, the our reason's own object is. What it is as something sensed or imagined. and that's always something composed, whether it be an actual thing or a mathematical thing.

[20:09] So that's our reason's own object, huh? That's why we never think without the image, huh? So if we think about something that cannot be sensed or imagined, is not continuous, we have to negate. So we think about God, we imagine a body, but then we think God is not a body, so we negate what we imagine.

[20:42] Now the second objection: Why say vita instead of esse? Right. To the second, it should be said that that which is truly eternal not only is a being, but it's what living, and to be alive extends itself in some way to operation, not to being, huh? So having the animal you have the ambiguity there about life. We say that

[21:26] for for a living thing to be is to be alive, right? But then what it does is said to be it's what? life too. So you have that double thing. I wouldn't say I I would. I would say you know, philosophizing is my life, you know, or I saw a bumper sticker: "Music is my life." I must be some musician, huh? But you know, it's what I do is my life, right?

[21:52] You know, Monsignor Dionne was getting there towards the end there, you know. I wasn't going to give a teaching, you know, it's just a semi-vis, you know. It's a white role. you know. But it's not as being, right? So you wouldn't say your your being is your life, right? See, but now if I get killed, we'd say I lost my life. Then you're talking about life in the sense of the the being of a living thing, huh?

[22:18] So he's pointing out, but the extension of duration is more to be noted according to operation, more than according to being. Whence time is a number of motion. That's we're talking about before you, right? You see, operation as in English, we're doing for operation, right? Now we saw the likeness between motion and what doing, right? So for coming to eternity through time, and time is more than what.

[22:56] Measure of motion, right? Then eternity is talking about what something like motion, but but the doing of God, right? That's eternal. Well, then it's more appropriate to what use the word life because that implies the operation as well as. If you say, "Is God alive?" We'd say, "Yeah." But would you say God is alive because He is?

[23:24] No, it's because He understands and wills and loves. And. Therefore, Thomas won't talk about life here. The substance of God, right? They talk about His the I am who am right, but they talk about His being alive when he gets to talk about His understanding and His what willing. So we bring out He's alive.

[23:49] So. Third objection: the whole has parts. Now Thomas says, "Well, to the third, it should be said that eternity is said to be whole, not because it has parts, but in so far as nothing is what Left. Now, see, I was translating it as you do in English, totum simul and English would be what all at once, right? But all is a little bit like what whole, right?

[24:29] But again, we have the sense not of what a multitude, huh? When the sense of nothing is what lacking, huh? When we say God is omnipotent, Omni means what? All, powerful, yeah. And we say in English, I guess, on the creed, all powerful. Almighty, Yeah, okay, But it all means, you know. well, it's nothing lacking to his powerful one thing. Okay, so it's not to be understood as something has parts.

[25:07] Okay. The fourth objection was taken from the prophet Micah. Okay. Talking about the talk about days and so on, eternity. Doesn't it say somewhere in the script, one of the Psalms, your ears, your ears, your ears are unending, huh? Your ears do not fail? Doesn't it about God? Yeah, that's. um, Psalm 101. Okay, and so he's saying, to the fourth, it should be said that as God, since He is incorporeal, by the names of bodily things He's named metaphorically in Scripture, right?

[25:56] Thus eternity, totum simul existing all at once, is metaphorically named by the what? Successive temporal names. I think Thomas will talk too about how how our verbs you know signify with time. You know Aristotle and the Perihoneous distinguishes a noun and the verb. The noun signifies without time, like man or dog, but runs or walks or will walk. And so on signifies with time, right? Well, then how you talk about eternity, right?

[26:38] But because it's, you might say, Coexistence of any part of time, you've carried over the names of each part of time. So, now it's eternity, right? You say God was and is and will be. I'll

[26:54] be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. who was in the beginning, is now. and to the beginning, Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, that's kind of speaking metaphorically, right? huh? Kind of like God Himself, at least, right?

[27:10] God always was and He always will be. But it shows you how how uh, was Thomas quoting one of the fathers there. They're beautyendo, I think. You know, kind of stuttering now, stuttering what eternity is. Yeah. But then somebody asked me, you know, was God were you always dead? And I'd say, no, I wasn't always. Was God always? Yeah, God always was.

[27:40] Thomas has a learned discussion there in the commentary on St. John. That why you say in the beginning was the Word, right? Why that you know no verb form is you know adequate to expressing God, right? But why that was is better than some of the other ones, right? Okay.

[28:05] Now the fifth one is talking about whole and perfect being the same, right? Now to the fifth, it should be said that in time there are two things to consider: time itself, which is successive, right, and the now time, which is imperfect. He says, therefore, totum simul to removing the what before and after in time, right, and perfect to excluding the what now of time, right.

[28:39] Now, in the last one, the sixth one, his objection is that eternity is duration and not a possession, right? And to the sixth, it should be said that that which is possessed is had in a firm way and at rest, huh? To designating therefore the immutability and deficiency of eternity, he uses the name what possession huh maybe he's influenced there by Aristotle when Aristotle is describing wisdom, and he says it's

[29:20] not a human possession, right? And you know, there's four. You know, he takes up the kind of knowledge wisdom is, right? And the first thing he says about wisdom is that it's looking knowledge and not doing knowledge, right? And the second thing he says it's liberal, not servile. But that doesn't seem to fit the human condition. So he says it's not human possession, right? And then finally that it's the best, most honorable knowledge because it's the most godlike knowledge.

[29:54] But when he says it's not a human possession, it doesn't mean that man can't get it all, but that he can't pursue it. Or use it whenever he wants to, right? And so, I say to students, you know, you get a book out of the library. Is it your possession? Well, no. It's got it's got a date. It's got to be back and returned, and so on. But if I have a book that I possess, anytime I want to, I can go and take the book and use it, right?

[30:20] But wisdom doesn't seem to be that because we have all these practical needs, and we can't. be always giving ourselves over to wisdom, right? So it's not human possession. We can't have it. You know, you don't have a firm hold upon it, right?

[30:34] Okay. Now, just we kind of state that a little bit. of what Thomas is doing there. How many negations are there in the definition, you see, of eternity? And sometimes I explain it this way. I say, let's put a definition on the word in English here:

[31:08] the all at once and perfect possession of unending life. Okay. Now you compare that to our life, right? Okay. Your life and my life, and your life and my life is measured by time, right? So your life and my life has a beginning and an end in time, right?

[31:47] And so you're negating the beginning and the end that our life has in time of the divine life, right? Okay, that's one negation, right? Okay. You're saying it has no beginning and no end, right? Okay. That's one difference in my life and God's life. His life has no beginning and no end, but mine does, right?

[32:20] And then all at once, right? That's negating the before and after in my life, even when I have my life, right? Okay. So that's the second negation: no before and after. Now, in so far as eternity has no before and after, it resembles the now of time, right? Because the now, in the strict sense, the

[32:57] strict sense, including none of the past, is not now. And none of the future, the now is indivisible. It's like a point, dividing two halves of a line. So, in the now, in the strict sense, which is between the past and the future, it contains none of the past and the future. There is no amount of time at all, because then the before and after would be existing together, right?

[33:24] Okay. So now it seems that eternity resembles what the now of time, and the great Boethius, he'll sometimes compare these and he'll say, the now that moves along, and as always, other makes time, right? The now that stands still makes eternity. It's a beautiful comparison, see. As Aristotle says, that the now of time, in one way, is always the same; another way, always different. And as you can compare motion, in sense, excuse me, time itself to motion, because they both have what a before and after, right?

[34:15] You can compare the now of time in a way to the body in motion, and the body in motion in a way is the same throughout the motion, but it's always other and other because it's here or there, and so the now kind of moves forward, right? Always a different position, so in a way, it's always different, right? And so Boethius says the now that that flows along makes time.

[34:41] The now that stands still makes what eternity, right? But there is a difference between the now that what flows along and now that stands still, and this word

[35:03] possession, right? Could be taken as separating the now that stands still, right, from the now that's always getting away from us. You see, you know, you as a child, you were happy, no? You always stole away your parents, you know. All good things come to an end. So how happy the the birthday moment moment is is tied with bad weather, right? It never lasts. It's always getting away from us.

[35:31] So here you're negating, in a sense, the what always other character of the now, right? Okay. Now, if you could stop the now of time, see, and I always take the the fairy tales things, you know, where the the evil mother or stepmother, whatever it is, casts a spell on the thing, right? And everybody's frozen. You see, and I can remember the pictures in the book. You know, the servants bringing the dinner like that, and they're frozen like that, right?

[36:08] You see. So, if you could, and they'll stay frozen until the Prince Charming shows up and gives the princess a kiss, and then they all start to move again. Well, how much life do you have in that frozen now? You know, it's like an easy thing to do that now, and so it's extremely imperfect, but life we

[36:37] have in the in the now time, if you could stop it and freeze it at that moment, right? Yeah. So this is negating the imperfection, in a sense, of the life we have in the now of time, right? Now, and this is negating, to some extent, the the always fleeting character of the now, which is always different, isn't it?

[37:02] And some moments in our life are very enjoyable, you know, and you wish they would they would stay, but they don't, you know, and they're always getting away from us, you know. So we can't possess this moment, you know. This great moment that you can't possess it; it's always getting away from you, right? And but if you could hold on to it, you wouldn't have much life in that anyway.

[37:29] You know, so sometimes I try to explain this as having what four negations, right? But two things are negating the time, right? The before and after in time, and the beginning, the end that things have in time, and and two are in sense touching upon negating the fleeting character of our now. Although in some respects, the now of time resembles the now of eternity, right? And the imperfection of life that you have in the now.

[38:00] What can you do during the now? Why can't you hear Mozart melody in the now? That takes some time, right? I can't. I can't drink a glass of wine in the now. I can't have a cup of tea in the now. I can't. I can't do an article of Thomas in the now. It's amazing; I haven't done it all. I had no time. What you do to me?

[38:21] Actually, find me time. So is it maybe you know? Respect to to four negations, huh? It's a beautiful example of the via negativa. Charles De Koninck, when he did the course on time, there in the fourth book of the physics, kind of as a footnote there at the end of the course, he do a little bit of eternity, you know. But you'd see, you know, the importance of natural philosophy for understanding what theology, right?

[39:00] The way should really be taught natural philosophy before theology, right? And what's interesting in the life of Thomas Aquinas is that he went to university there in Naples, right? You know, before you—that's where he became Dominican, finally, you know—but there's a university in Naples. And it's the only place in Europe at the time where the physics was available. Oh, kind of it's kind of a wild place, you know.

[39:25] But I mean, it was coming in, you know, from the, you know, to the Arabs and so on. And it's the only place, so it's kind of interesting to see divine providence, right? That he should have been at the one place we could get the physics at an early age and get into him and so on. And then, you know, eventually he writes this, but he couldn't have written this without without knowing time and the now of time and so on.

[39:52] Now, Article Two, whether God is what eternal, right? Now, first objection, and now it's using that nice little text of Boethius just referring to, right? Nothing made is able to be said of God, but eternity is something made, for Boethius says, the now flowing makes what, time, the now that stands makes eternity, yeah, beautiful. And Augustine says in the book of the eighty-three questions, God is the what, the author, the source, of eternity.

[40:34] Therefore, God is not eternal, huh? Moreover, what is before eternity and after eternity is not measured by eternity, but God is before eternity, as is said in the what, book De Causis, right? Thomas has a commentary on that book on the Liber De Causis, and first they thought it was by Aristotle, but then Thomas later on discovered who the real author was and where it came from, right?

[41:06] But it's an important book, and it's not altogether correct in everything it says, but anyway, what it says in the, but very authoritative book, you know, in the Middle Ages. But God is before eternity, as is said in the book De Causis, and after eternity, and it is said in Exodus fifteen. Now this is even more important that God rules in aeternum and beyond. Therefore, to be eternal does not belong to God.

[41:35] Now, probably misunderstanding these texts, you know, but but you know they can see how this objection comes up. Moreover, eternity is a certain measure, right? See, but doesn't belong to God to be measured. Therefore, it does not belong to him to be eternal.

[41:58] We say our life is measured by time. God's life is measured by eternity, well, can't be. Moreover, in eternity there is not a present, a past, and future, since it is all at once. as has been said, but about God is said in scriptures words of present time, past, and future, right? Therefore, God is not what eternal, huh? But against this is what Dionysius says, and this is I guess the Athanasian Creed, huh?

[42:34] The Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Spirit eternal. So, nice set of rejections. It's got the beautiful quote that I was giving though at the beginning from Boethius. You know, the the reference there to Boethius is down in the De Trinitate, chapter four, right? But the

[43:14] definition of eternity is given in the Consolation of Philosophy, so those two texts nicely brought together, right? Okay, answer. It should be said that the ratio or notion of eternity follows upon unchangeableness, right? Just as the ratio of time follows upon motion, that's a very important proportion, right? Again, you kind of you know you learn that when you study physics, right? That motion takes time, and so what moves is in time.

[43:49] So we carry over to God you negate time change first before you negate what? Yeah. So you consider God's being unchangeable before as being eternal. This I like about Thomas. He he puts order into your thoughts, and so you you learn from Thomas how to think about God in an orderly way, right? And kind of a complete way too, if he can be said to you know be complete.

[44:20] I don't even like this to read anybody else like Thomas, I don't know, where he puts that. Hence, since God is Maxime, Immutabilis, right, He's all together, huh? so it belongs to him maxime, right, to be eternal. And not only is eternal, but he is his own eternity. Just like he's not only good, but his goodness itself, right?

[44:52] Since no other thing is its own what duration, right? Because it's not its own what being, but God is his own what being uniformly. Whence, just as is his own essence, so also is his own what eternity, huh? Okay. Now, to the first, it should be said. This is a text now of Boethius where he said that the time standing still makes eternity, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the now standing is said to make eternity according to our what?

[45:34] Apprehension. Our apprehension, our way of grasping, right? For just as there is caused in us the grasping of time, in that we grasp the what flow of the now itself, right? So there is caused in us a certain grasping of eternity, in so far as we grasp the now as what standing still, yeah.

[46:04] What, however, Augustine says that God is the author of eternity, is understood about the partaking, partaking eternity, right? So we are said to partake of eternal life, right? And Thomas will talk about that in the Summa Contra Gentiles there is another place when he talks about seeing God as He is, right? And why would you see God as He is, face to face? You partake of eternity, right?

[46:35] There is no before and after in that vision, right? It is all at once, It is always going to be fresh in that vision.

[46:49] And that is what he adds there, right? In that way, God communicates His eternity to some things in which also He what? His unchangeableness, right? So there is no change at all in the beat vision, right?

[47:10] And therefore, as you partake of His unchangeableness in that vision, so you partake of His what eternity? So we call that eternal life. I don't even say that. Give them eternal life, right? In the prayers for the dead and so on.

[47:29] Okay, so that's the answers to the first objections, right? Now the second one is taken from the text of the De Causis in Exodus 2. And to this is clear the solution to the second, right? Thomas orders these projections in the way, right? One leads on the other one. For God is said to be before eternity, in so far as He is partaken of by the immaterial substances, whence there also it is said that intelligentsia, meaning the angelic minds, right, are laid out with eternity, right, Or they're made equal to, eternity.

[48:13] Whatever is said in Exodus that God reigns in in aeternum and in ultra ultra, it should be understood that eternum is taken there for what? Secular for the age, right? As has another what translation? You know, he was a scriptural scholar.

[48:34] Thus, therefore, he is said to rule beyond the eternal, or eternum, because he what? Endures beyond any what age, right? That is any duration given. For an age is nothing other than the period of something, as is said in the first book of about the universe of Aristotle.

[49:03] Or is said. To reign beyond the eternal, because as something what else always was, as the motion of the heavens is, according to some philosophers. Nevertheless, God reigns beyond, in so far as His reign is what all at once. huh? It's a mouthful.

[49:34] Now you know when God says, or Christ talks about the last judgment, there, and some people are on one side and some on the other side, right? And they're going into the what everlasting fire prepared for the devil and so on. You know, I think you might use the word eternal there too, right? But it's not the full notion of of of what we call eternity right?

[50:02] It might be unending and That's that's part of the meaning of it, right? But is it all at once? No. Okay. So using the word eternal there was only part of the full meaning, right? Okay. But that that that shouldn't scandalize you, right? Huh? You know, because we often define something in the fullest sense, right? And then we realize there can be lesser senses, right? Like the first example there is in the beginning of philosophy is in the Isagoge, where Porphyry would define the property as what belongs to only one species, to every member of that species, and always, right?

[50:48] So it's a property of say two to be half of four, because only two is half of four. Every two is half of four, and two is always half of four, right? But let's say it's a property of two to be, let's say, less than ten, where every two is less than ten, every two is always less than ten, but not only, right? You see what I mean?

[51:16] So you define the the property in the strictest and fullest sense, and then you can have what lesser senses by dropping one another, right? Or like you know, when I define marriage, I say it's the exemplifying the four causes. I say it's a stable union of a man and woman, right? By mutual choice for the sake of children, right? You say, well, I know some unstable unions, right?

[51:47] But I'm defining, you know, marriage in the full sense, right? And then you know maybe some infringement upon free will, their mutual choice, right? You know, shotgun weddings or where it might be, and well, they're sort of married, right? And then you say, well, and what about some old people get married, right? Who aren't able to produce children anymore, right? Well, are they married? I guess you have to say they're married.

[52:21] I guess they're not living in sin. I mean, but but that that really the full meaning of marriage, right? You know, don't want to slam those people too hard because they're lonely or something. But but that's not really the full meaning. I mean, that's marriage in the full sense, right? And so we tend to define things in the full sense, right? So eternity in the full sense.

[52:46] It's not only unending, but it's what all at once, right? But you might take eternity in a lesser sense, where you drop out the idea of what all at once, but keep the idea of what.

[53:01] And I think most most people, you know, when they think of eternity, they think of endless time. That's their, you know, and have part of the idea, but not the whole, right? So it's not purely equivocal the use of the word, but it is equivocal, right? Okay, and so I could deny, you know, that less than ten is a property of two, right? Because not property in the fullest sense, but that's no big deal to see the equivocation of that.

[53:29] Okay. I mean, sometimes even you find Aristotle will speak of being as a genus, right? And Thomas, what he means, you know, something general, sort of many things, and so on. But it's not genus in the strict sense, you know, because he'll deny it's a genus in the strict sense. But sometimes he uses the word in a loose sense. Um. Now

[53:56] the third objection is about measure, right? The third should be said that eternity is not other than God Himself, right? Whence God is not said to be eternal, that He is in some way what measured, right? But it takes there the ratio of measure according to our what?

[54:18] Yeah, yeah, yeah. So if someone asks us, you know, what measures your your life? Well, time measures my life. What measures God's life? Eternity measures it, right? That's kind of according to our what? Our way of grasping the thing, yeah.

[54:40] Now the fourth one is talking about how these different times are applied to God, huh? And here Thomas doesn't say explicitly that this metaphorical, but it could be in some cases seem to be that way. But he says the words or verbs of diverse times are attributed to God insofar as his eternity includes all times, right? Not that he is very too, what. Past, Past, future. Yeah, you see, he's sort of comparing Thomas, you know, where he sometimes compares

[55:13] what uh indivisibility of eternity to the point, right? It's the center of the circle, and then the points on the circumference he compares to the to the nows of time, right? And these ones, this one comes after that one, I say, but before this one, you see. So the parts of time are before and after each other, but they're all related to the what center of the circle?

[55:45] Yeah, they're all the opposite, you might say, right? So the past and the future are present to the what now of eternity, but the now of time. Is not present to the past of time and the future time, so God sees them. Right? Used to be this program the old days on radio. You were there. Is that before your time or not? And then they even had to go in jail.

[56:16] I remember one time they had the trial of Socrates, you know, or something like that because yeah you know announcing you know and so on. It's kind of like the news broadcast and so on. So, so they kind of. It's kind of imaginative in a sense. And it takes an historical event like that, and and you were there during your present, you know. But the story, you know, teaches us that you know when you get eternity, you see God's He is.

[56:37] You'll be there, because the past and the future and so on. They're all they're all there because to God is eternity. So, but see, his his now is not in time, right? It's outside of it. But everything can be in a sense related to the now as eternity in the same way, right? So it's kind of the way he sees my life. My life is, you know, I try to remember what happened.

[57:06] You know, I said to Rosie, "how long did you go to Europe twice, or you going to go to England twice, or something?" I guess we didn't yet. But it's all present to God, right?

[57:20] They said, "I'll come back when you die." You know, it's your whole life laid out there, you know, and and then judgment. Then you get your judgment, right? You see the the justice of your judgment, right? Huh? Pretty pretty frightening thing. So four twenty. Shall we stop? Yeah. Okay. Now I mentioned next week I'll be giving the exam. Oh yeah. And then enjoying the correcting of it and so on.

[57:48] Yes. Bye.