Thomas Aquinas, on Isa 1:1

“The vision of Isaias the son of Amos I which he saw concerning Juda and Jerusalem in the days of Ozias, Joathan, Achaz, and Ezechias, kings of Juda.”

“17. The vision of Isaiah the son of Amos. This book is divided into two parts: into a preface, and a treatise, which begins where it says, hear, O you heavens (Isa 1:2). The preface is introduced like a title to make the work that follows manifest. It is made manifest, however, from four things: first, from the genus of the work; second, from the author, where it says, Isaiah; third, from the matter, where it says, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem; fourth, from the time, where it says, in the days of Ozias, Joathan, Achaz, and Ezechias, kings of Judah. The genus of the work is shown where it says the vision, in which it differs from historical books, because it is prophecy: I have multiplied visions, and it continues: I have used similitudes by the hands of the prophets (Hos 12:10). 18. Here it is necessary to see three things: first, in what way vision relates to prophecy; second, concerning the modes of prophetic vision; third, concerning the difference of prophetic vision from other visions. Concerning the first, it should be known that "prophecy" can have a double interpretation, in as far as it can come from phanos, which means "apparition," or from for, faris ("to speak"). According to the first derivation, a prophet is said to have an apparition of things which are far off; and hence, prophecy differs from vision in mode, because apparition signifies the relation of the visible thing to the one who sees, but vision signifies the converse. Again, prophecy and vision relate to each other by addition: because a vision may be of anything, but prophecy is of things which are far off. Things are said to be far off from our knowledge in two ways; simply, and relatively. Future things that are contingent on something are far off simply; determinate knowledge of them cannot be grasped either in themselves or in their causes, and prophecy is properly of these things. Things are far off relatively when knowledge of them is separated from the knower, as certain past and present things, and prophecy is of these things not simply, but with respect to those who are ignorant of them. But according to the second derivation, a prophet is so called because he is speaking far off [procul fans], as it were. And thus prophecy adds upon vision an act of exterior declaration, and vision will be material in respect to prophecy. 19. Concerning the second, it should be known that the modes of prophetic vision are distinguished according to those things in which foreknowledge of future contingencies are received. This, however, is either an image made in the senses and is called corporeal vision, because the senses accept images from the present bodies whose images they are; or it is an image received in the imagination and is called spiritual vision, because, in it, act and property are first manifested spiritually, which is to know a thing abstracted from matter; or it is an image existing only in the intellect and is called intellectual vision. And it should be known that prophecy is kept in these three as a potential whole in its parts, whose nature is that it is in one according its perfect power, and in the others there is a certain participation and mode of it; just as in the soul, because its whole power is preserved in the rational soul, the sensitive soul does not have the perfect power of the soul, and still less the vegetative soul. Because of this, Gregory says that plants do not live by soul but by vigor. Similarly, corporeal and spiritual (or imaginary) vision also are certain kinds of prophecy, but they cannot be called true prophecies unless intellectual vision is added, in which is the complete notion of prophecy: for there is need of understanding in a vision (Dan 10:1), which is preceded by: and he (that is, Daniel) understood the word. "Vision," however, is first and properly applied to corporeal vision. And because all our knowledge comes from the senses, among which vision is the most powerful both in subtlety and universality, because it shows us more differences of things; therefore the name of seeing is transferred to other interior kinds of knowledge. 20. Concerning the third, it should be known that not every intellectual vision is prophetic vision. For there is a certain vision for which the natural light of the intellect suffices, as the contemplation of invisible things by the principles of reason; and philosophers have placed the supreme happiness of man in this contemplation. Again, there is a certain contemplation to which man is elevated sufficiently by the light of faith, as that of the saints while on earth. There is also a certain contemplation of the blessed in heaven to which the intellect is elevated by the light of glory, seeing the essence of God, inasmuch as he is the object of beatitude; and this is only found fully or perfectly in heaven, although sometimes one is suddenly elevated to it while existing in this mortal life, as happened in the rapture of Paul, I know a man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not: God knows), such a one caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2). There the Gloss says that he saw as those who are from the third hierarchy. However, none of these visions is prophetic vision, because neither natural light nor the light of faith suffices for this vision; but the intellect of the prophet is elevated to it by the light of a gratuitous grace, which is the gift of prophecy, for it does not attain to seeing God as he is the object of beatitude, but as he is the cause [ratio] of things which pertain to the disposition of men in the world. Similarly, not every corporeal or imaginary vision is called prophecy, but only that vision which is made by an image specially ordained by divine power to be a sign of some future thing, whether he who sees or another receives understanding. 21. The author is touched upon where it says, Isaiah the son of Amos. And although this Amos was a prophet, because he is placed in the title of a prophecy according to the rule of the Hebrews, nevertheless, he is not the Amos who is one of the twelve prophets, because they are written with different letters in Hebrew. 22. The matter is touched upon where he says, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, because of these things that pertain to Judah and Jerusalem, so that concerning [super] is given as of [de] in the translation of Symmachus or as against [contra] in the Septuagint. And Judah is taken for the land of the two tribes, and Jerusalem for the chief city of this region. Or Judah is taken for the lot of Judah and Jerusalem for the lot of Benjamin, because Jerusalem was in Benjamin's lot as to the body of the city, which was on the slope; although as to the top of the mountain, where the tower of David and the temple were, it belonged to the house of God, as can be gathered from Joshua 15. 23. In the days. Here, the work is made known from the time, and four kings are named, in whose time Isaiah proclaimed this prophecy. Hence some divide this book according the times of the kings under whom he received revelation, so that in the first part are placed the things that were seen in the time of Ozias; in the second, those that were seen in the time of Joathan, in chapter 6, in the year that king Ozias died; in the third, the things which were seen in the time of Achaz, from chapter 7 to the end of chapter 14, where is said, in the year that king Achaz died (Isa 14:28); and from there to the end, the things which were seen in the time of Ezechias. 24. But it is asked: why does he not make mention of the kings of Israel, as Hosea in his title (Hos 1:1) makes mention of Jeroboam, the son of Joas, when they were contemporary? To this is to be said that Isaiah prophesied principally against the two tribes, and therefore he only has their kings in the title, whereas Hosea prophesied against both Judah and Israel. 25. Likewise, it is asked why no mention is made of Manasseh king of Judah, under whom Isaiah also lived, when it is certain that he did not lose the spirit of prophecy. To this is to be said that everything which was written in this book, he saw in the times of the prophets, but it was not fitting that a prophecy which is principally of consolation should be ended in a threat, or that the consolation of God should be preached in the time of a bad king who provoked the wrath of God: I will give them up to the rage of all the kingdoms of the earth (Jer 15:4).”

Imported from an open dataset — not yet checked against the printed edition.