Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that things known or declared prophetically can be false. For prophecy is about future contingencies, as stated above (Article 3). Now future contingencies may possibly not happen; else they would happen of necessity. Therefore the matter of prophecy can be false.

Objection 2: Further, Isaias prophesied to Ezechias saying (Is. 38:1): "Take order with thy house, for thou shalt surely die, and shalt not live," and yet fifteen years were added to his life (4 Kgs. 20:6). Again the Lord said (Jer. 18:7,8): "I will suddenly speak against a nation and against a kingdom, to root out and to pull down and to destroy it. If that nation against which I have spoken shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do them." This is instanced in the example of the Ninevites, according to Jn. 3:10: "The Lord had mercy with regard to the evil which He had said that He would do to them, and He did it not." Therefore the matter of prophecy can be false.

Objection 3: Further, in a conditional proposition, whenever the antecedent is absolutely necessary, the consequent is absolutely necessary, because the consequent of a conditional proposition stands in the same relation to the antecedent, as the conclusion to the premises in a syllogism, and a syllogism whose premises are necessary always leads to a necessary conclusion, as we find proved in I Poster. 6. But if the matter of a prophecy cannot be false, the following conditional proposition must needs be true: "If a thing has been prophesied, it will be." Now the antecedent of this conditional proposition is absolutely necessary, since it is about the past. Therefore the consequent is also necessary absolutely; yet this is unfitting, for then prophecy would not be about contingencies. Therefore it is untrue that the matter of prophecy cannot be false.

On the contrary, Cassiodorus says that "prophecy is a Divine inspiration or revelation, announcing the issue of things with invariable truth." Now the truth of prophecy would not be invariable, if its matter could be false. Therefore nothing false can come under prophecy.

I answer that, As may be gathered from what has been said (Articles 1,3,5), prophecy is a kind of knowledge impressed under the form of teaching on the prophet's intellect, by Divine revelation. Now the truth of knowledge is the same in disciple and teacher since the knowledge of the disciple is a likeness of the knowledge of the teacher, even as in natural things the form of the thing generated is a likeness of the form of the generator. Jerome speaks in this sense when he says that "prophecy is the seal of the Divine foreknowledge." Consequently the same truth must needs be in prophetic knowledge and utterances, as in the Divine knowledge, under which nothing false can possibly come, as stated in the 1, Question 16, Article 8. Therefore nothing false can come under prophecy.

Reply to Objection 1: As stated in the 1, Question 14, Article 13 the certitude of the Divine foreknowledge does not exclude the contingency of future singular events, because that knowledge regards the future as present and already determinate to one thing. Wherefore prophecy also, which is an "impressed likeness" or "seal of the Divine foreknowledge," does not by its unchangeable truth exclude the contingency of future things.

Reply to Objection 2: The Divine foreknowledge regards future things in two ways. First, as they are in themselves, in so far, to wit, as it sees them in their presentiality: secondly, as in their causes, inasmuch as it sees the order of causes in relation to their effects. And though future contingencies, considered as in themselves, are determinate to one thing, yet, considered as in their causes, they are not so determined but that they can happen otherwise. Again, though this twofold knowledge is always united in the Divine intellect, it is not always united in the prophetic revelation, because an imprint made by an active cause is not always on a par with the virtue of that cause. Hence sometimes the prophetic revelation is an imprinted likeness of the Divine foreknowledge, in so far as the latter regards future contingencies in themselves: and such things happen in the same way as foretold, for example this saying of Is. 7:14: "Behold a virgin shall conceive." Sometimes, however, the prophetic revelation is an imprinted likeness of the Divine foreknowledge as knowing the order of causes to effects; and then at times the event is otherwise than foretold. Yet the prophecy does not cover a falsehood, for the meaning of the prophecy is that inferior causes, whether they be natural causes or human acts, are so disposed as to lead to such a result. In this way we are to understand the saying of Is. 38:1: "Thou shalt die, and not live"; in other words, "The disposition of thy body has a tendency to death": and the saying of Jonas 3:4, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be destroyed," that is to say, "Its merits demand that it should be destroyed." God is said "to repent," metaphorically, inasmuch as He bears Himself after the manner of one who repents, by "changing His sentence, although He changes not His counsel" .

Reply to Objection 3: Since the same truth of prophecy is the same as the truth of Divine foreknowledge, as stated above, the conditional proposition: "If this was prophesied, it will be," is true in the same way as the proposition: "If this was foreknown, it will be": for in both cases it is impossible for the antecedent not to be. Hence the consequent is necessary, considered, not as something future in our regard, but as being present to the Divine foreknowledge, as stated in the 1, Question 14, Article 13, ad 2.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ea quae prophetice cognoscuntur vel annuntiantur, possint esse falsa. Prophetia enim est de futuris contingentibus, ut dictum est, sed futura contingentia possunt non evenire, alioquin ex necessitate contingerent. Ergo prophetiae potest subesse falsum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Isaias prophetice praenuntiavit ezechiae dicens, dispone domui tuae, quia morieris tu, et non vives, et tamen additi sunt vitae eius postea quindecim anni, ut habetur IV Reg. XX, et Isaiae XXXVIII.

Similiter etiam Ierem. XVIII, dominus dicit, repente loquar adversum gentem et adversum regnum, ut eradicem et destruam et disperdam illud. Si poenitentiam egerit gens illa a malo suo quod locutus sum adversus eam, agam et ego poenitentiam super malo quod cogitavi ut facerem ei.

Et hoc apparet per exemplum Ninivitarum, secundum illud ionae III, misertus est dominus super malitiam quam dixit ut faceret eis, et non fecit.

Ergo prophetiae potest subesse falsum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, omnis conditionalis cuius antecedens est necessarium absolute, consequens est necessarium absolute, quia ita se habet consequens in conditionali ad antecedens, sicut conclusio ad praemissas in syllogismo; ex necessariis autem nunquam contingit syllogizare nisi necessarium, ut probatur in I posteriorum.

Sed si prophetiae non potest subesse falsum, oportet hanc conditionalem esse veram, si aliquid est prophetatum, erit. Huius autem conditionalis antecedens est necessarium absolute, cum sit de praeterito.

Ergo et consequens erit necessarium absolute. Quod est inconveniens, quia sic prophetia non esset contingentium.

Falsum est ergo quod prophetiae non possit subesse falsum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod cassiodorus dicit, quod prophetia est inspiratio vel revelatio divina, rerum eventus immobili veritate denuntians.

Non autem esset immobilis veritas prophetiae si posset ei falsum subesse. Ergo non potest ei subesse falsum.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, prophetia est quaedam cognitio intellectui prophetae impressa ex revelatione divina per modum cuiusdam doctrinae. Veritas autem eadem est cognitionis in discipulo et in docente, quia cognitio addiscentis est similitudo cognitionis docentis; sicut et in rebus naturalibus forma generati est similitudo quaedam formae generantis.

Et per hunc etiam modum Hieronymus dicit quod prophetia est quoddam signum divinae praescientiae.

Oportet igitur eandem esse veritatem propheticae cognitionis et enuntiationis quae est cognitionis divinae, cui impossibile est subesse falsum, ut in primo habitum est.

Unde prophetiae non potest subesse falsum.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut in primo dictum est, certitudo divinae praescientiae non excludit contingentiam singularium futurorum, quia fertur in ea secundum quod sunt praesentia et iam determinata ad unum. Et ideo etiam prophetia, quae est divinae praescientiae similitudo impressa vel signum, sua immobili veritate futurorum contingentiam non excludit.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod divina praescientia respicit futura secundum duo, scilicet secundum quod sunt in seipsis, inquantum scilicet ipsa praesentialiter intuetur; et secundum quod sunt in suis causis, inquantum scilicet videt ordinem causarum ad effectus.

Et quamvis contingentia futura, prout sunt in seipsis, sint determinata ad unum; tamen prout sunt in suis causis, non sunt determinata, quin possint aliter evenire. Et quamvis ista duplex cognitio semper in intellectu divino coniungatur, non tamen semper coniungitur in revelatione prophetica, quia impressio agentis non semper adaequat eius virtutem. Unde quandoque revelatio prophetica est impressa quaedam similitudo divinae praescientiae prout inspicit ipsa futura contingentia in seipsis.

Et talia sic eveniunt sicut prophetantur, sicut illud Isaiae VII, ecce, virgo concipiet.

Quandoque vero prophetica revelatio est impressa similitudo divinae praescientiae prout cognoscit ordinem causarum ad effectus. Et tunc quandoque aliter evenit quam prophetetur.

Nec tamen prophetiae subest falsum, nam sensus prophetiae est quod inferiorum causarum dispositio, sive naturalium sive humanorum actuum, hoc habet ut talis effectus eveniat.

Et secundum hoc intelligitur verbum Isaiae dicentis, morieris, et non vives, idest, dispositio corporis tui ad mortem ordinatur; et quod dicitur ionae III, adhuc quadraginta dies, et Ninive subvertetur, idest, hoc merita eius exigunt, ut subvertatur.

Dicitur autem deus poenitere metaphorice, inquantum ad modum poenitentis se habet, prout scilicet mutat sententiam, etsi non mutet consilium.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, quia eadem est veritas prophetiae et divinae praescientiae, ut dictum est, hoc modo ista conditionalis est vera, si aliquid est prophetatum, erit, sicut ista, si aliquid est praescitum, erit. In utraque enim antecedens est impossibile non esse. Unde et consequens est necessarium, non secundum quod est futurum respectu nostri, sed ut consideratur in suo praesenti, prout subiicitur praescientiae divinae, ut in primo dictum est.