 Why think that presentism isn’t compatible with passage? Typically, the passage of time is expressed in the following terms: what’s future approaches the present, becoming less future, and what’s past recedes from the present, becoming more past. Prima facie, there’s a problem. What’s apparently required for the truth of this passage metaphor is inconsistent with the view that only present things exist. There are no future things, so nothing can approach the present; nor are there past things, so nothing recedes from the present. To defend presentism, we have to suggest another way to interpret the claim that time really passes.