Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, Vol. 11: Prolegomena (prefaces and canons)
I said fourthly: “Foreseeing and foretelling.” For, as St. Athanasius says, On the Passion of the Lord: “As we, looking at the things that are before our eyes, are not deceived in seeing, nor do we see them otherwise than as they are, but as they come to pass so we see them: so also the Prophets saw future things as present, and what they saw had of necessity to come to pass. For the things that were coming to pass (in the future, that is, the things that were to be) they saw wholly: but what they foresaw could not come to pass otherwise: for if they had come to pass otherwise, they would not have been Prophets,” because they would not have seen the things that were to be, but those that were not to be, and so they would have been false and deceived in their vision. I added “Foretelling.” For a Prophet is properly one who not so much knows future things as foretells them. Hence in Greek he is called προφήτης, in Latin Propheta, from προφημί, that is, I say beforehand, I speak before, I foretell. In Hebrew he is called nabi, as if to say foreteller, or rather “one who makes beforehand,” from the root bo (to this the etymology of nabi alludes rather, as is clear from the letter N added to both, than to the root nub, that is, he spoke, or ban, that is, he understood), that is, he came. For hence nabu is said, that is, he made to come, he foretold what was to come: because the Prophets, by their word and oracle, as certain and indubitable, according to the Hebrew idiom and the manner of men’s speaking, as it were made come the things that were not yet, and by their prediction as it were summoned them to come and, so to say, caused them certainly to come to pass. So Prophets were said to bring rain, drought, plague, the sword, to put to death, to give life, etc., because they foretold that these things would certainly and infallibly come. This, then, is the proper account, meaning and essence of prophecy. But because Isaias, Jeremias and the other Prophets not only foretold the future but also taught, preached, prayed, sang psalms and worked miracles, therefore to prophesy and Prophet by catachresis signify various things. First, to prophesy is the same as to teach and exhort to piety by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So St. Paul takes “to prophesy” in 1 Corinthians 14, where he calls teachers and preachers prophets, and asserts that it is better to prophesy than to speak with tongues. Second, to prophesy is the same as, by the impulse of the Holy Spirit, to sing divine praises with unusual fervor. So Saul, seized by the spirit of God among the Prophets singing psalms, is said to have been a Prophet and to have prophesied, that is, to have sung with them psalms and the praises of God, as in an act of enthusiasm, 1 Kings 19:24. Hence, third, to prophesy simply is to sing and chant psalms. So all singers are called Prophets, 1 Paralipomenon 25:1 [14:4]: “David,” it says, “and the rulers separated the sons of Asaph, and Heman, and Idithun: who should prophesy (that is, sing psalms and strike instruments) with harps, and psalteries, and cymbals.” Fourth, to prophesy is taken by antiphrasis for to rave, and from the breath of a malignant spirit to utter ravings and madness. So again Saul, seized by an evil spirit and a melancholy one, is said to have prophesied, that is, to have spoken things alien to reason and raving, 1 Kings 18:10. Fifth, to prophesy signifies to work miracles, by which the prophets confirm their oracles. So in Ecclesiasticus 48:14 the dead body of Eliseus is said to have prophesied, that is, to have raised the corpse of a dead man cast into his sepulchre, 4 Kings 13:21. For these reasons “all the Prophets were sent before the face of Christ, and are called Angels, as it is written: Who have received the law in the ordinance of Angels, and have not kept it,” says St. Chrysostom on Matthew 20, homily 27.
II. THE SECOND QUESTION. How many kinds of prophecy are there? St. Thomas, II-II, Question 174, art. 2 and 3, and after him Francis Suarez, part III, Question 30, art. 4, disp. 1, sect. 2, answers that it is twofold: intellectual, and sensible or imaginary. Intellectual prophecy is that which does not take its origin from sense or imagination, but arises immediately through light infused into the intellect, and through intellectual species newly implanted, or pre-existing but applied by divine power to make some supernatural apprehension or conception. This happens in two ways: First, when the intellect is so illumined and raised that it knows a thing without the operation of the phantasy, which is rare: yet this seems to have been granted to St. Paul, when he was caught up to the third heaven: for then he heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter, 2 Corinthians 12:2. This mode too, our Suarez thinks in the place cited, at the end, was granted to the Blessed Virgin after the Word was incarnate in her, so that she knew and saw this mystery clearly by the intellect. The second mode is when the phantasy cooperates with the intellect, not indeed with the intellect first moved by the phantasy, but with the phantasy itself moved and applied by the intellect, so that it works with it and concurs in the prophetic understanding and vision. Such seems to have been the vision of Isaias, chapter 6, as St. Jerome teaches there. For there he saw three divine persons in one essence, as I shall show there; and any others like it and equally sublime. Moreover, neither of these two modes can be brought about by an Angel, but by God alone. For God alone can enter into the mind and intellect, and pour into it immediately light and species, and work understanding and vision in it. Wherefore this revelation and locution of God is a vital act of the intellect, elicited in it by God. Sensible or imaginary prophecy, however, is so called not because it does not reach the intellect, but because it is made first and principally through some sensible or imaginary representation, from which the mind’s conception arises, and to which it is in a certain way commensurate. The former, intellectual prophecy, is more perfect than this sensible one, because it is more abstract and spiritual, whence it is made by God alone: the sensible, however, can be and usually is made by an angel. Moreover, the visions and revelations of the Prophets were commonly sensible, both because they saw certain sensible objects, as Jeremias saw the boiling pot, the watching rod, the basket of figs: Daniel saw the tree, the king’s dream, the four beasts, etc. Ezechiel saw the chariot, the wheels, the living creatures, etc. And because they were commonly made through Angels, as St. Dionysius thinks, On the Celestial Hierarchy, chapter 4, and St. Augustine, book 3 On the Trinity, last chapter, and Damascene, book 2 On the Faith, chapter 3. Furthermore, the angel commonly spoke to the Prophets not in his own person but in God’s, and represented it. Hence the Prophets everywhere say: “Thus saith the Lord,” not the angel. For this is the sweet and fitting order of divine providence, to enlighten the Prophets and other men through Angels. Whence also Moses, who was the first and prince of the Prophets, received the law from God on Sinai through an Angel, as the Apostle testifies, Galatians 3:19.
And therefore the Fathers commonly hold that all the apparitions of God shown to the fathers in the Old Testament were made through Angels, as I said in canon 17 on the Pentateuch. I grant, however, that when the angel spoke in the Prophet’s phantasy and set before him his visions or words, God at times infused into the Prophet’s intellect divine and supernatural light more clearly and sublimely than usual, when the sublimity of the matter demanded it, that he might conceive and understand it worthily, that is, more fully and deeply than usual; just as at a man’s outward preaching God is wont inwardly in the mind of the hearer to speak and represent the very same thing more clearly, by the grace which enlightens the intellect and moves the affection, without which all outward preaching would be in vain.
For the most part, therefore, God revealed the prophecy and His will to an angel, and the angel then revealed the same, and spoke it in the imagination of the Prophet, and that in various ways. For there are various degrees of these prophetic visions, some more perfect than others. The first and lowest is, as St. Thomas says, art. 3, in the place cited, when someone, from an inward secret instinct and impulse, without express revelation, is moved to do some things outwardly, as is said of Samson, Judges 15, that the spirit rushed upon him when he broke his bonds. In this way many Hermits and Saints have foreboded, and still forebode and sense things to come.
The second is when the prophets conceived and uttered prophecies without understanding, but did not know that they were prophesying, as Balaam’s ass prophesied, and Caiphas the high priest foretold the death and redemption of Christ, which yet he did not know: because he twisted it to his own malice and cruelty against Christ, John 11:51.
Third, some received prophecies by sight alone, so that to one man only the apparition of symbols or images was given, while to another the signification of the same was revealed. Such were the images of the ears of corn and of the kine seen by Pharao, Genesis 41:1, and of the lofty tree seen by Nabuchodonosor, Daniel 4, the signification of which was revealed by God to others, namely to Joseph and to Daniel. Again, some saw the vision in sleep, others awake: the latter was clearer and more sublime than the former.
Fourth, some drew prophecy from the outward hearing alone of a voice speaking, as Samuel saying: “Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth,” 1 Kings 3.
Fifth, some saw through the imagination certain things portending the future, while others heard a voice speaking inwardly and announcing the future.
This latter happened more frequently to the Prophets, and was more perfect. For a spoken word declares a thing more distinctly and clearly than a symbol or sign does. The most perfect mode, however, was when they at once saw the vision and heard the voice explaining it, as in chapter 1 Jeremias saw the boiling pot, and presently heard that it portended the burning and destruction of Jerusalem and of other nations by Nabuchodonosor.
Sixth, some heard natural things, such as the events and outcomes of wars, of kings, of monarchies: others supernatural things, such as the calling of the Gentiles, the reprobation of the Jews, the mysteries of the Trinity, of the incarnation, of the passion of Christ: the latter was more perfect than the former.
Seventh, sometimes they were commanded by God to prophesy and portend things to come not only by words but also by deeds, as when Isaias walked naked, chapter 20, he portended the spoiling and nakedness of Egypt and Ethiopia: when Jeremias, chapter 27, verse 2, bore bonds and fetters on his neck, he portended captivity: when Ezechiel lay three hundred and ninety days on one side, and ate dung of oxen, he portended the siege and famine of Jerusalem.