Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Oliva, Mirela. 2024. Does
God Intervene in Our Lives? Special
Divine Action in Aquinas. Religions 15:
417. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rel15040417
Academic Editor: Roberto Di Ceglie
Received: 12 February 2024
Revised: 18 March 2024
Accepted: 22 March 2024
Published: 28 March 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
religions
Article
Does God Intervene in Our Lives? Special Divine Action
in Aquinas
Mirela Oliva
Philosophy Department, University of St. Thomas, Houston, TX 77004, USA; olivam@stthom.edu
Abstract: Does God intervene in our lives? In this paper, I respond “yes” and work out a Thomistic
account of special divine action in human life. I argue that God intensifies His action in moments that
are particularly significant for our salvation. In such moments, God intervenes in a contingent mode
and reorients our lives for the sake of our final good. First, I present Aquinas’ terminological choice
of specialis and intervenire and address concerns expressed in the contemporary divine action debate
against the term “intervention”. Second, I discuss the special divine action as a subtype of the special
providence that rules over human beings. The special providence mirrors the special place of humans
in the created order on account of their reason and freedom. Third, I show that divine interventions
occur through irregular contingency. I refer to several interventions: test, habitual grace, God’s
moving of the will, God’s enlightenment of the intellect, and punishment. Since it occurs contingently,
the special divine action can be known through interpreting signs (a kind of conjectural knowledge).
Fourth, I show that not all contingencies are divine interventions. To differentiate between them,
I introduce an orientational criterion of interpretation: the transfiguration of a person’s life toward
her final good.
Keywords: special divine action; Thomas Aquinas; Moses Maimonides; providence; contingency;
freedom; conjectural knowledge
1. Introduction
Does God intervene in our lives? One might object that “intervention” is redundant
because God permanently acts in our lives. God is the first cause of all our actions and all
events that happen to us. Since He exercises His providence at every moment, it makes
no sense to differentiate between “permanent” and “special” divine action. Nevertheless,
numerous Biblical passages indicate that God intensifies His action at certain moments
to help or punish human beings. I defend this distinction with Aquinas’ philosophical
tools, focusing on God’s non-miraculous interventions, which received less attention in the
scholarship. I argue that the special divine action occurs in particular moments of our life, in
unusual circumstances, through contingent causality, and for the sake of the person’s good.
I start by presenting Aquinas’ terminological choice of specialis and intervenire and showing
that his interventionist vocabulary circumvents the concerns expressed in the contemporary
divine action debate against the term “intervention”. In the second section, I discuss the
special divine action as a subtype of the special providence through which God rules over
human beings. This special providence mirrors the special place of humans in the created
order on account of their reason and freedom. Third, I show that divine interventions occur
through irregular contingency. I present several interventions: test, habitual grace, God’s
moving of the will, God’s enlightenment of the intellect, and punishment. Since it occurs
contingently, the special divine action can be known through interpreting signs (a kind of
conjectural knowledge). Fourth, I show that not all contingencies are divine interventions.
To differentiate between them, I introduce an orientational criterion of interpretation: the
transfiguration of a person’s life toward her final good.
Religions 2024,15, 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15040417 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions 2024,15, 417 2 of 16
2. Terminological Choices: Specialis and Intervenire
If a believer maintains that God is involved in everything that happens, it might
appear superfluous to speak about divine intervention. God is always at work in His
creation, “continuously active within the universe” (Silva 2022, p. 106). When He helps
me in a particular moment of my life by strengthening my ability to solve a situation,
He is not doing anything special. He has been by my side since my birth, and He is
now simply continuing His foundational support. This concern might seem all the more
justified to a Thomist, as God is the first cause of every natural thing, both in its nature and
operations. In Aquinas’ view, there is no space that God does not inhabit, no God-free zone.
God maintains everything into existence and orients it towards its final end, perfection, by
causing its operations as a first cause. If God were to withdraw from a created thing entirely,
the latter would not be able to exist anymore, let alone operate according to its nature.
However, Aquinas adds to this permanent divine action a special mode of action
reserved for human beings. In human lives, God not only acts at every moment, but at
some particular moments, He acts in a special way. Aquinas justifies God’s intervention
with the notion of special divine providence for human beings. Unlike contemporary
scholars (Russell 1998, p. 89) who use the term “special divine action” indiscriminately
for God’s action in human lives and in non-human nature (for instance, in evolution),
Aquinas restricts the term “special” to divine action in human lives. He talks, first, about
a special providence that God deploys for human beings, distinct from His providence
for all other beings. As I showed in a previous paper (Oliva 2024), this special provi-
dence delineates a particular course of life for each human person to sustain both her and
humanity’s flourishing. To express this idea, Aquinas uses the terms providentia or cura
(care), which he qualifies as specialis (Aquinas 2008,Truth, q. 5, a. 5; Aquinas 1989,The
Literal Exposition on Job, 7:14–18, 14:7–13; Aquinas 1992,Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 111).
Second, Aquinas shows that this special divine providence entails divine interventions
in particular situations that reorient a person’s life toward her salvation. The terms used
in this context are interventionist and indicate the extraordinary character of some life
moments that yield a strong significance for the overall life span: intervene (intervenire),
help (auxilium), punishment (poena), circumstances out of the ordinary (praeter consuetum
modum). For instance, the Aquinas (2020), Commentary on the Sentences II, d. 42, q. 1, a. 2,
associates intervenire with divine grace: etiam sine hoc quod gratia interveniat.
The terminological hesitations in the contemporary divine action debate could find in
Aquinas a possible resolution. Put in the context of his notion of special providence, the
term “intervention,” loathed by many, avoids some concerns voiced in this debate.
In the first cluster of concerns, intervention entails a separation between moments of
divine action on the one hand and moments of non-action on the other. Interventions are
an irruption in the creation by a creator that is usually withdrawn from the world after He
creates it. God is absent from the world, and He shows up only exceptionally to change
some courses of events. Peter van Inwagen notes that “the word ‘intervention’ seems to
imply that nature has some sort of native power, independent of God’s, and that in working
a miracle, God has, as it were, to overpower some part of nature.” (Van Inwagen 1995, p. 46)
This presupposition, which emerged in modern culture, is incongruous with theists’ basic
belief that God remains connected with His creation in one way or another. “Intervention”
runs, thus, counter to theism that is committed to a thoroughly relational worldview. This
concern does not apply to Aquinas, though. For him, interventions are unthinkable apart
from a framework of continuous providence. An intervention is not the exception to an
otherwise inactive God but the intensifcation of an ongoing divine action. Aquinas’ use of
intervenire shows that “intervention” is not a mere modern construct conditioned by a new,
modern notion of a detached God. On the contrary, one can only suspect that the modern
“intervention” is a secularization of medieval use. Understood in its original context, the
term illuminates Biblical episodes of divine action and does justice to a life narrative in
relationship with God (see also Larmer 2021, p. 191). The Bible abounds, indeed, with
divine interventions. God tests Abraham and protects his son Isaac (Genesis 22), saves
Religions 2024,15, 417 3 of 16
Noah from the food (Genesis 6: 14–22), and protects Joseph (Genesis 39: 21–23). God also
punishes sinners: Cain for killing his brother Abel (Genesis 4: 9–16), the Egyptians for
persecuting the Israelites (Genesis 11), and the builders of the tower of Babel for their vanity
(Genesis 11: 1–9).
Another cluster of concerns regards determinism. For some contemporary critics, the
term “intervention” presupposes that the world is deterministic. Since everything in the
world occurs by necessity, through necessary causes ruled by physical laws, the only way
for God to change the course of things is to intervene to break necessity. This threat lurking
behind “intervention” is why, according to Alvin Plantinga, many theologians, scientists,
and philosophers gathered in the massive Divine Action Project 1988–2003 were adamantly
non-interventionist (Plantinga 2008). Indeed, numerous studies on divine action done
through that project labeled themselves as “non-interventionist.” (see Wildman 2004;Kopf
2023, Part I; Böttigheimer 2013, p. 254) Aquinas escapes the deterministic threat because, in
his view, the world contains both necessary and contingent causes (Frost 2014, p. 49). The
divine intervention in human lives accords with this supple coexistence of necessity and
contingency. As we will see, the special divine action mirrors the contingency of human
free will and the causal openness of the world.
Finally, the last type of concern is the one I mentioned at the beginning, the most
relevant to our discussion. Aquinas scholars worry that “intervention” does not do justice
to the ongoing involvement of God in every creature’s nature, existence, and operations.
God is the first cause of every existing thing at every step of its existence: He causes its
nature, existence, and operations. Since God “already” acts on every individual created
being, we must avoid duplicating His action, as Ignacio Silva warns. (Silva 2022, p. 126)
Moreover, the term “intervention” fails to capture the loving presence of God in His
creation, which is a fundamental trait of providence in Michael Dodds’s eyes: “His action
is not called ‘intervention’ since that term fails to represent the intimacy of his presence.
Every creature in its being and action is a sign of God’s continued action in the world,
since none could exist or act apart from his abiding influence as the source of all being and
actuality.” (Dodds 2012, p. 262).
To eschew this misunderstanding, Simon Maria Kopf proposes to understand divine
action holistically, as an orchestrating of all causes, both in their individuality and relations.
Appealing to Aquinas’ term applicatio, Kopf claims that divine action in a Thomistic context
circumvents the interventionism/non-interventionism debate: “
. . .
divine application is
not so much a divine intervention, not even a ‘non-interventionist’ one, but rather what
I shall call a ‘holistic’ divine action ordering all creatures to their ends, by orchestrating
them in their relation, disposition and proximity.” (Kopf 2023, p. 175). Kopf does not clarify
whether his orchestra metaphor admits various degrees of intensity in divine action. My
interpretation of “intervention” in Aquinas’ context accommodates this musical analogy.
Like a conductor that becomes more energetic when the rhythm turns more dynamic or
dramatic, divine action intensifies in certain moments while leading human life on its
path. Intervention is this intensified action. Benedikt Paul Göcke offers a similar analogy:
“Like a piano player whose left hand constantly plays the same chord, God’s special divine
actions can be seen as his right hand adding now and then some fine tunes in order to
create the overall melody of creation.” (Göcke 2015, p. 26). This musical analogy shows that
interventions are seamlessly embedded in the ongoing divine providence, not detached
from it.
A Thomistic paradigm of divine intervention must account for this embedding and,
at the same time, maintain the unique character of special divine action. This paradigm
includes both miraculous and non-miraculous divine action. While some Thomists like
Emmanuel Durand believe that the term “intervention” should be reserved for miracles
(Durand 2014, p. 51), I follow Aquinas’ terminology and use “intervention” also for non-
miraculous divine action, the focus of this paper. In sum, I use Aquinas’ term “special
providence” to indicate the permanent divine action in human life. I use “intervention”
Religions 2024,15, 417 4 of 16
and “special divine action” as synonyms to indicate an intensification of divine action in
particular moments, thereby changing the course of life.
3. Special Providence, Reason and Freedom
Aquinas’ view of special providence relies on some significant ideas: divine goodness,
human freedom, and salvation. The starting point is God’s goodness, the basis of creation
and providence. God creates the world freely, out of His abundant goodness, and orients it
toward His goodness as the final end (see Kretzmann 2000, p. 156). God also keeps created
things in existence and sustains their operations so that they can achieve the perfection
of their nature. This continuous support flows from God’s goodness, too. A good creator
would not abandon His creation but would keep caring for it: “For as it belongs to the
best, to produce the best, it is not fitting that the supreme goodness of God should produce
things without giving them their perfection. Now a thing’s ultimate perfection consists in
the attainment of its end. Therefore it belongs to the Divine goodness, as it brought things
into existence, so to lead them to their end: and this is to govern.” (Aquinas 1984,Summa
Theologiae, I, q. 103, a. 1) Providence represents the ordering of things through God’s plan,
as well as their government, that is, the execution of the plan. While God’s plan is eternal,
the execution occurs through natural causes, called secondary causes, whose first cause
is God.
As it supports them, divine goodness gives created things the power to act, maintains
this power, and causes its deployment (as the first cause). The more it supports creatures,
the more autonomy it gives them—a paradox that also accompanies Aquinas’ view on
special divine action and human freedom. Indeed, granting created things their powers
is a gift of God’s generosity: “Nor is it superfluous, even if God can by Himself produce
all natural effects, for them to be produced by certain other causes. For this is not the
result of the inadequacy of divine power, but of the immensity of His goodness, whereby
He has willed to communicate His likeness to things, not only that they might exist, but
also that they might be causes for other things.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, ch. 70; see
also Torrell 2008, p. 74)
This detailed support of creatures’ powers shows that the divine providence rules not
only over universals but also particular things. Divine providence is minutiose, governing
the large scheme of things and individual details. Aquinas assures us that the two kinds
of government do not compete against each other. The providence over particular things
does not undermine the providence over universals because they both compose the order
that God imprinted in the diversified world: “And so He is not withdrawn from ordering
the most important things because he dispenses the least important things.” (Aquinas 2009,
Compendium of Theology, ch. 131). The detailed providence rests, on the one hand, on perfect
divine knowledge and, on the other hand, on the ontological dignity of particular things.
First, God knows all created things immediately, as He is their first cause. It would be
absurd if a creator would not know the things whose first cause He is. Second, detailed
providence is equally important as universal providence, because particular things do not
have a lower dignity than universals. On the contrary, they have more being than universals.
The latter do not subsist in themselves but exist only in singulars. If all particular things
disappeared, universals could not remain. (Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 75) Particular
things fall under God’s immediate providence even if, in the natural order, they are subject
to secondary causes: “A first cause is said to have more influence than a second cause
in so far as its effect is deeper and more permanent in what is caused than the effect of
the second cause is. Nevertheless, the effect has more resemblance to the second cause,
since the action of the first cause is in some way determined to this particular effect by
means of the second cause.” (Truth, q. 5, a. 9, ad. 10; see also Freddoso 1991). Aquinas’
insistence on God’s providence over every individual being is, according to Sarah Lane
Ritchie, exemplary for every theistic naturalism that strives to account for God’s presence
in the world: “However, I suggested that the sort of thing Thomism achieves should be
Religions 2024,15, 417 5 of 16
the aim of all theistic naturalisms: offering an account of God’s ever-present, ever-active
involvement with all nature at all times.” (Lane Ritchie 2019, p. 344).
After affirming God’s providence over particular things, Aquinas zooms in on humans,
who represent a special category thanks to their rational nature. This special place of
humans in the universe entails a special providence: “And yet there must be some special
kind of providence bestowed on intellectual and rational creatures in preference to others.”
(Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 111). Aquinas borrowed this view on a special providence
for humans from the Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides. For Maimonides, divine
providence is a rational order established by God that differs from the arbitrariness of a
purely voluntaristic divinity. This intellectual element explains why providence is more
intense when applied to created intellectual beings. The bond of intellectual likeness
between humans and God grounds what Maimonides calls “individual providence.” God
takes special care of humans because they are, like Him, intellectual: “But I believe that
providence is consequent upon the intellect and attached to it. For providence can only
come from an intelligent being, from One who is an intellect perfect with a supreme
perfection, than which there is no higher. Accordingly, everyone with whom something of
this overflow is united will be reached by providence to the extent to which he is reached
by the intellect.” (Maimonides 1974, p. 474).
Aquinas owes Maimonides this insistence on the intellectual aspect of providence
and the special care of human beings. At the same time, he does not accept Maimonides’
conviction that the only individuals ruled by God are humans. As we saw earlier, the
metaphysics of being and divine goodness led him to conclude that providence rules
immediately over each thing in the universe, whether human or non-human. The question
arises here: If God governs each particular thing, how does the special providence for
human beings differ from His providence for non-human beings? The answer to the
question lies in the fundamental difference between human and non-human acts. While
non-human beings always follow the species’ inclination, humans act freely, following
their personal inclinations. The non-human realm is uniform. In contrast, the human
realm is diversified by the personal characteristics of human action: “Again, whenever
beings are directed in their acts, solely on the basis of what pertains to the species, the
capacity to act or not to act is not present in them. For things that are associated with the
species are common and natural to all individuals contained in the species. Now, natural
functions are not within our power to control. So, if man were able to direct his acts only
in accord to what is suitable to the species, he would not have within him the capacity
to act or not to act. Rather, he would have to follow the natural inclination common to
the whole species, as is the case with all irrational creatures./
. . .
/But many actions are
evident, in the case of the rational creature, for which the inclination of the species is not
enough. The mark of this is that such actions are not alike in all, but differ in various cases.
Therefore, the rational creature must be directed by God in his acts, not only specifically,
but also individually.” (Summa Contra Gentiles III, 113). Because of this difference between
the inclination of the species and the free individual act, providence governs humans both
specifically and individually. God rules over non-human beings simply for the sake of the
species. Aquinas gives the crude example of one particular sheep killed by one particular
wolf (rather than another wolf). This is a particular order, yet it only follows the good of
the species. In other words, God does not order it for any merit or demerit of this particular
sheep and this particular wolf but for the good of the species, in the sense that each species
has its proper food (The Literal Exposition on Job, 7:14–18). In contrast, God rules over human
beings both for the sake of the species and for the sake of the individual. The providence
over human beings has an added touch. It occurs by crafting each person’s unique path
and following her merits and demerits.
In the case of human beings, divine action considers each human person’s merits
and faults. It is, thus, “customized” according to the ups and downs of human action
that combines the spontaneity of free will with the contingency of events. Therefore, God
intervenes in human lives to help or to punish: “Since a rational creature has, through its
Religions 2024,15, 417 6 of 16
free-will, control over its actions, as was said above (Q. 19, A. 10), it is subject to divine
providence in an especial manner, so that something is imputed to it as a fault, or as a merit;
and there is given it accordingly something by way of punishment or reward. In this way
the Apostle withdraws oxen from the care of God; not, however, that individual irrational
creatures escape the care of the divine providence; as was the opinion of Rabbi Moses.”
(Summa Theologiae I, q. 22, a. 2). The ox receives individual care from God, but not of the
sort that humans do. Humans benefit from intense interventions corresponding to their
aspirations, needs, decisions, or failures. It would be absurd to expect an ox or computer
to receive grace. The lack of freedom and personal trajectory of an ox or a computer
(Pinsent 2015, p. 175)
does not qualify them for such intense divine action. In contrast,
humans need divine interventions because their lives exhibit an unpredictable decision-
making process and an interaction with contingency. Consequently, these interventions act
both externally and internally. They act on external events and states of affairs involved in
a person’s life. Furthermore, they act on a person’s soul, bestowing upon her sanctifying
grace, moving her will, or enlightening her intellect. Nonetheless, the divine action on a
person’s soul is more important than the divine adjustment of external circumstances. The
mind, notes Sarah Lane Ritchie, is an important “locus of intensified God-human interac-
tion.”
(Lane Ritchie 2019, p. 16)
. According to Justin Anderson, Aquinas fully endorsed
this priority in reaction to the Liber de bona fortuna, a medieval compilation of Aristotelian
passages about fortune: “
. . .
with the Liber de bona fortuna tucked underarm, Aquinas would
have a clear rationale regarding the inward working of God in the human agent. This inner
working would be apart from an external circumstance appointed by divine providence.”
(Anderson 2020, p. 98).
Because of this unique character of human lives, God’s action in one human life is not
replicated within another human life. In the physical world, divine action is followed by
some replication. For instance, in evolution, the effect of God’s action upon an individual
is carried by the following individual, provided that the environmental conditions remain
the same. This does not always happen in human lives, although God’s action also occurs
for the sake of the species, that is, humankind. For example, God’s request to Abraham to
sacrifice his son is not carried by Abraham’s successors. They do not have to face the same
kind of challenge. In this sense, Kierkegaard observes: “Abraham cannot be mediated,
which can also be put by saying he cannot speak.” (Kierkegaard 2003, p. 89). Abraham
is doubtless a model of unconditional faith for the entire humankind. Nevertheless, one
does not follow his model by killing one’s son but rather by responding to God’s call,
whatever that might be. Abraham cannot speak because he cannot elevate his episode to
universal validity: It is God’s action for him alone. This is the meaning of Aquinas’ notion
of divine intervention that rests on the special divine providence for the human person,
which creates a unique bond between her and God.
4. Special Divine Action and Contingency
As it befits human freedom and the unique path of each human life, special divine
action occurs in a contingency mode. This mode is not an exception or a gap that God has
to carve within an otherwise purely necessary or at least highly regular chain of patterns
(Kopf 2023, p. 147). On the contrary, it corresponds to the contingent nature of human
freedom and the openness of events in which it affirms itself. First, human freedom is, by
nature, contingent. A person can decide A or B, A or the opposite of A, etc. Her decision is
not predictable through internal determinations nor constraint by external pressures. If it
were, it would not be free anymore. Second, human freedom needs to operate within a
causally open space. If the future is not open, how can we be free to decide? Contingency
is thus both the mode of human freedom and the mode of events and external states of
affairs within which freedom operates. It comes as no surprise that the special divine
action assumes this mode. Contemporary Aquinas scholars agree upon this vital role of
contingency in providence in general and special divine action in particular (Dodds 2012;
Durand 2014;Silva 2015,2022;Silva and Kopf 2021;Kopf 2023).
Religions 2024,15, 417 7 of 16
Following Aristotle’s theory of causation in Physics II, Aquinas distinguishes between
necessity and contingency. Necessary causes produce their effects so that they cannot not
happen. What comes about by necessity cannot not be. Contingent causes produce their
effects so that they may or may not happen. What comes about by contingency can be or
not be (Summa Contra Gentiles I, 67; Aquinas 1995a,Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics I,
lesson 13).
There are several types of necessity. First, natural necessity pertains to an intrinsic
principle, either material or formal. For instance, materially, everything composed of
contraries is necessarily corruptible; formally, the three angles of a triangle must be equal
to two right angles. Second, the extrinsic necessity is either the necessity of end or the
necessity of coercion. In the former case, necessity regards the realization of an end. For
instance, food is necessary for life; a horse is necessary for a journey. In the latter case,
necessity regards the coercion exercised by an agent. For instance, somebody is forced by
somebody else to do something (Summa Theologiae I, q. 82, a. 1; Aquinas 1995b,Commentary
on Aristotle’s Physics II, lect. 15).
The special divine action does not occur through necessary causes. If it were so, it
would constantly repeat every time the combination of necessary causes obtains. Moreover,
if God would bestow upon human beings a new formal necessity, it would cancel their
formal necessity, that is, their nature. For instance, if sanctifying grace were given as a
substantial form, it would replace the human substantial form, that is, the soul: “And
because grace is above human nature, it cannot be a substance or a substantial form, but is
an accidental form of the soul. Now what is substantially in God, becomes accidental in
the soul participating in divine goodness, as is clear in the case of knowledge. And thus
because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the
Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the
soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the
Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.”
(Summa Theologiae I–II, q. 110, a. 2). Divine interventions aim at helping human beings
in specific moments while preserving their freedom and maintaining an open future for
the latter to manifest itself. They cannot be necessarily repetitive or substitutive of human
nature. They are, thus, contingent.
Contingency has, sometimes, a bad name. Aquinas acknowledges this reputation in
some textual places where he associates contingently caused effects with defects and claims
that God merely permits them. For instance, in Summa Contra Gentiles III, the chapter on
contingency (chapter 72) follows the chapter on evil (chapter 71). Here, Aquinas compares
God’s permission of contingency to God’s permission of evil: “Just as divine providence
does not wholly exclude evil from things, so also it does not exclude contingency, or impose
necessity on things. It has already been shown that the operation of providence, whereby
God works in things, does not exclude secondary causes but, rather, is fulfilled by them in
so far as they act by God’s power. Now, certain effects are called necessary or contingent in
regard to proximate causes but not in regard to remote causes. Indeed, the fact that a plant
bears fruit is a fact contingent on a proximate cause, which is the germinative power which
can be impeded and can fail, even though the remote cause, the sun, be a cause acting from
necessity. So, since there are many things among proximate causes that may be defective,
not all effects subject to providence will be necessary, but a good many are contingent.”
(Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 72). If we would stop at this negative outlook, we would
have to admit that God intervenes in human lives through the back door. Contingent
special divine action would be just a maneuver of defects, like a hedge fund investor who
speculates on a market crash. Intuitively, this does not square well with the divine goodness
that grounds providence.
However, Aquinas corrects this apparent negative status of contingency and argues
that God wills contingency for the sake of the perfection of the universe: “God wills some
things to be done necessarily, some contingently, to the right ordering of things.” (Summa
Theologiae I, q. 19). Gloria Frost notes that we must distinguish between contingently
Religions 2024,15, 417 8 of 16
existing effects and contingently caused effects: “An effect is contingent with respect to
existence, or contingently existing, if it is such that the effect considered in itself could
have possibly not existed. An effect is contingently caused if it is such that its proximate
cause has the power to elicit the operation through which the effect is caused.” (Frost 2014,
p. 49). The world is contingent because God creates out of love and not necessity, and
thus, could have decided not to create it (see also Laughlin 2009). Within the contingently
existing world, there are necessarily caused and contingently caused effects. The latter
pertain to God’s distribution of degrees of perfection throughout the world. While they
can fail, contingent causes contribute to movement, generation, and corruption. They
compose a variegated world picture, which is beautiful in its own right (Summa Contra
Gentiles III, ch. 72). They sustain, in that sense, specific degrees of perfection throughout
the world. For instance, a blooming flower can be impeded by freeze, yet its perfection
and beauty are not lower than the beauty of unchanging numbers. Without contingency,
the world would be less perfect because it would have a lower diversity of degrees of
perfection (
Te Velde 2013
). Besides, it would run by blind necessity instead of being ruled
by a prudential governor (Davies 2016, p. 250).
Furthermore, the contingency of human free will represents an exception from the
flaw-based contingency. Unlike non-human contingency associated with a defect, freedom
does not arise from a defect of human nature but, on the contrary, represents its perfection.
Human free will expresses the rational nature of human beings, which makes them similar
to God. It yields a diversity of outcomes that enriches the diversity of the world. For
this reason, Aquinas claims, it makes sense that God preserves this human contingency
even more than the non-human one: “Now, among inanimate things the contingency of
causes is due to imperfection and deficiency, for by their nature they are determined to one
result which they always achieve, unless there be some impediment arising either from a
weakness of their power, or on the part of an external agent, or because of the unsuitability
of the matter. And for this reason, natural agent causes are not capable of varied results;
rather, in most cases, they produce their effect in the same way, failing to do so but rarely.
Now, the fact that the will is a contingent cause arises from its perfection, for it does not
have power limited to one outcome but rather has the ability to produce this effect or
that; for which reason it is contingent in regard to either one or the other. Therefore, it is
more pertinent to divine providence to preserve liberty of will than contingency in natural
causes.” (Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 73).
Lastly, contingent free will interacts with external contingency. In this sense, John
Bowlin shows that, for Aquinas, moral action entails a confrontation with difficult contin-
gencies that escape the agent’s control. Virtue and achievement only arise through an effort
to overcome difficulties (Bowlin 2001, p. 6; also Bradford 2015, ch. 2). We would not call
somebody courageous if she had no danger to fight, no risk to take. The divine help is the
counterpart of this difficult contingency: “For it appears that it is only with the assistance
of God’s grace that he [Aquinas, n.n.] can imagine human virtue and happiness apart from
difficulty, yearn for a life that is both human and god-like, and hope for that day when it
will come.” (Bowlin 2001, p. 166).
In sum, contingency is not a second-hand tool in the hand of God but represents a
causal mode important for the perfection of the universe. We could even call it, following
Ignacio Silva, a providential benefit: “There is an advantage, a benefit, for the existence of
randomness and chance in the universe, a benefit /
. . .
/ that God puts to good use.” (Silva
2022, p. 1). In the case of human lives, it makes even more sense that divine interventions
assume this mode, because it accords with the perfection of human freedom. As we saw in
the previous section, human freedom is why God takes special care of human beings. It is
appropriate that divine interventions support human perfection by interacting with human
action in a similar mode (see also Schmidbaur 2003, p. 530; Matthews Grant 2021, p. 166).
There are two types of contingency: things that happen regularly, for the most part
(ut in pluribus), and things that happen out of the ordinary or rarely (in minori parte)
(Aquinas 1962,Commentary on Aristotle’s On Interpretation, lect. XIV; Commentary on
Religions 2024,15, 417 9 of 16
Aristotle’s Physics, II, lect. 8; Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 74). The first type is a “regular”
contingency, not much different from necessity: “Indeed, things that are contingent in most
cases differ from necessary things only in this: they can fail to happen, in a few cases.”
(Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 74) For instance, a tree’s growth is contingent because it
depends on several factors (the right amount of warmth, sunlight, rain, etc.). In some cases,
trees do not grow; however, in most cases, they do, following their nature.
The second type of contingency is chance or fortune in the specific case of human life.
In chance, the effect is not directly caused (or intended) by any participant cause: “Now,
from the concurrence of two or more causes it is possible for some chance event to occur,
and thus an unintended end comes about due to this causal concurrence.” (Summa Contra
Gentiles III, ch. 74; Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics VI, lect. 3; see also Shields and
Pasnau 2016, p. 185). Aquinas explains chance also in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic ends:
“When things which come to be simply for the sake of something do not come to be for
the sake of that which happens, but for the sake of something extrinsic, then we say that
these things come to be by chance. But we say that among the things which come to be
by chance, only those things which happen in those who have free choice come to be by
fortune.” (Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics II, lect. 10).
Through what type of contingency does the special divine action occur? Is it the
regular contingency? If that were the case, the special divine action would be repeated
constantly as long as no impeding factors intervened. Here, we face an objection similar
to the one we raised against necessity. Perhaps, in this case, special divine action would
be less repetitive than in the necessary scenario and would not eliminate human nature.
Nonetheless, it would still be repetitive, even if to a lower degree. Moreover, it would
depend on the absence of impeding factors, as if God would intervene only when impeding
factors do not stay in His way.
Thus, the only viable alternative is the second type of contingency, which entails
unusual circumstances. This contingency arises accidentally without a natural cause,
although it occurs through a chain of natural causes. The per se cause of such contingent
effects can only be the providence: “No natural cause can therefore have for its proper
effect that a man intending to dig a grave finds a treasure./
. . .
/ What happens here by
accident, both in natural things and in human affairs, is reduced to a pre-ordaining cause,
which is Divine Providence.” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 116. a. 1). Consider the example of a
master who sends two servants separately to the same place. The servants do not know
about each other’s tasks. Thus, the two servants’ meeting happens by chance because they
did not intend to meet. Like God, the master intended their meeting because he sent them
to that place (Summa Theologiae I, q. 116).
God’s intervention occurs in the mode of irregular contingency. Aquinas defends this
idea in his interpretation of the Book of Job. Job is very pious and virtuous, has a happy
family, and enjoys prosperity and social prestige. Satan challenges God that Job is only
pious because he did not face adversity. God allows Satan to harm Job so that his faith may
become manifest to all. In Aquinas’ interpretation, Job’s hardship comes about through
a divine test, even though the executor of the test is Satan. Job understands that he is
experiencing a divine intervention because the circumstances of his hardship differ from
ordinary conditions in which hardships occur (praeter consuetum modum humanarum). “Now
next he shows that such adversities have been sent upon him by God from the fact that
they have arrived outside the usual manner of human adversities.” (The Literal Exposition
on Job, 30:10–17). Aquinas describes in detail these conditions and underlines their unusual
character, different from the usual human affairs. He calls them “signs” because they
indicate special divine action. These signs pertain to the unusual magnitude and manner
of Job’s adversities.
The unusual magnitude of Job’s hardship lies in its overwhelming, sudden, and
holistic character. (1) First, Job did not lose his prosperity gradually, as usual in human
affairs, but suddenly. Aquinas comments that such sudden loss is unlikely to happen
through mere chance: “It does not seem possible that this happened by sudden disaster, but
Religions 2024,15, 417 10 of 16
as a result of divine ordination alone.” (The Literal Exposition on Job, 16:10–15). (2) Second,
Job was ruined totally, namely lost his entire prosperity. Usually, people lose only part
of their prosperity. (3) Third, his adversities occur simultaneously. Usually, adversities
come progressively. But Job loses his possessions and his children and becomes sick all at
once. (4) Fourth, Job cannot do anything to resist his adversities and impede them from
taking hold of his life. Usually, people can do something to slow down or mitigate their
hardship, either by themselves or helped by others. Yet, Job’s adversities came without
any possibility of resistance or remedy, which, Aquinas shows, is a sign that they arose
through divine intervention: “The fourth sign is that because his trial proceeded from
divine providence, it could neither be resisted nor could a remedy be applied, according to
what was said above at 9:13: ‘God, whose anger no one can resist
. . .
’” (The Literal Exposition
on Job, 16:10–15).
The unusual manner of Job’s adversities is visible in the unusual dynamics of the
raids he was the victim of. (1) First, the raids came from an unusual place, namely from
the South. Usually, in those lands, raids came from the North, where warlike people lived.
In Job’s case, his afflictions began with the Sabaeans, who came from the South, taking
his cater and killing his herdsmen. (2) Second, the multiplicity of the raid was different
from the usual harms that only afflict an aspect or a few aspects of the person. The raids
occurred with easiness, without encountering any obstacle: “Hence, he adds They have
undermined my feet, that is, they have destroyed all my faculties, and they have done it easily
and totally. Hence, he adds and they have oppressed, namely, my feet just mentioned, with
their paths, as in their passing without difficulty. And he adds an example when he says as
if with waves. For the waves of the sea both cover the land or a ship suddenly and swallow
it up totally.” (The Literal Exposition on Job, 30:10–17). (3) Third, the raids were efficient and
fully destroyed his life. Usually, even successful attacks still have some flaw. Job’s enemies,
on the contrary, succeeded in their attacks. This unusual total success indicates a special
divine action: “Third, he shows from their effect that such adversities were sent by God
since, namely, through them he had been left totally destitute.” (The Literal Exposition on Job,
30:10–17).
This extraordinary character of his adversities, different from the usual manner and
magnitude of human hardship, leads Job to believe that God tests him through Satan.
Aquinas comments: “And lest anyone should believe that Job was of the opinion that such
punishments had not been inflicted on him by God, since he had said that he had been
afflicted by an enemy, to exclude this belief he adds God has shut me up with the iniquitous
one, that is, the devil, namely turning me over to his power, and has betrayed me into the
hands of impious men, referring to those who, at the instigation of the devil, had afflicted him
either by words or by deeds. For Job understands that his afflictions had been imposed
upon him by the devil, of course, but with God’s permission.” (The Literal Exposition on Job,
16:10–15; see also Chardonnens 1997, p. 272). The test matches the strength of Job’s faith
and virtue. “Nevertheless, He knows my way, and He will prove me like gold which passes
through fire” (Job 23:10). Job understands, thus, that his virtue must be manifested to all
human beings the same way in which the true nature of gold is manifested in its resistance
to fire: “And just as gold does not become true gold but its genuineness is manifested to
men as a result of the fire, so Job has been proved through adversity not so that his virtue
might appear before God but so that it might be manifested to men.” (The Literal Exposition
on Job, 16:10–15, 23:8–13). At the same time, the full extent of this test remains enigmatic
since Job adds that he is confused and fears God: “For He Himself is alone, and no one can
observe His reflections, and His soul has done whatever it wished since He has fulfilled
His wish in me, and many other similar things are in his power; therefore, I am disturbed,
and considering Him I am worried by fear. God has soften my heart and the Almighty has
thrown me into confusion.” (Job 23:13–16).
Job’s test is based primarily on external contingency, namely on adversities brought
against him by enemies and Satan. Other divine interventions act directly on a person’s
soul by granting it a special quality, enlightening the intellect, or moving the will. Sancti-
Religions 2024,15, 417 11 of 16
fying (habitual) grace is an accidental form that elevates the soul to a spiritual existence,
facilitating moral life, knowledge, and the relationship with God: “Grace, as a quality, is
said to act upon the soul, not after the manner of an efficient cause, but after the manner
of a formal cause, as whiteness makes a thing white.” (Summa Theologiae I–II, q. 110, a. 2).
The transfiguration of the soul occurs in an accidental mode: “In the same way, because
accidents do not subsist, they do not properly have existence, but the subject is of a particu-
lar sort as a result of them. For this reason they are properly said to be ‘of a being’ rather
than beings. For something to be in some category of accident, then, it does not have to
be composite with a real composition, but may have only a conceptual composition from
genus and differentia. Such composition is found in grace.” (Truth, q. 27, a. 1).
Likewise, God gives grace contingently when He moves the will or enlightens the
intellect in particular moments. God moves the will to help somebody face a difficult
situation or ease them into conversion: “First, inasmuch as man’s soul is moved by God
to know or will or do something, and in this way the gratuitous effect in man is not a
quality, but a movement of the soul.” (Summa Theologiae I–II, q. 110, a. 2). God enlightens
the intellect, especially regarding matters humans cannot know naturally, like future
contingents. For instance, God gives the prophetic light “by way of a passion or transitory
impression./
. . .
/ Hence it is that even as the air is ever in need of a fresh enlightening, so
too the prophet’s mind is always in need of a fresh revelation.” (Summa Theologiae II–II,
q. 171, a. 2).
Finally, God also punishes human beings contingently. Aquinas distinguishes between
three types of punishment according to three types of order violated by the person at fault:
the order of one’s reason, the order of somebody else regarding spiritual and temporal
matters (like the political order), and the universal order of the divine government (Summa
Theologiae I–II, q. 87, a. 1). When seen from the perspective of the highest and widest order
of divine providence, punishment acquires aspects not found in human punishment, as
Peter Koritansky shows (Koritansky 2011, p. 107). God can punish not only for an actual
sin but also for the original sin, as a medicinal punishment meant to manifest divine order.
Thus, Aquinas comments on the case of the blind man in John: “If, therefore, an infirmity
occurs in order that God’s works be manifested, and God is made known through this
manifestation, it is clear that such bodily infirmities occur for a good purpose.” (Aquinas
2013,Commentary on the Gospel of John, ch. 9, lect. 1).
Furthermore, divine punishments do not necessarily follow human expectations. In
this sense, Aquinas notes that some people do not become aware of divine punishments
because they are too focused on objects of sense (Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 146). Because
they cling to temporal goods, they do not notice the withdrawal of spiritual goods: “With
them, injuries of the body are deemed the greatest punishment, together with the loss of
external things; whereas they regard disorder of soul, loss of virtue, and the deprivation of
the divine enjoyment, in which man’s ultimate felicity consists, as of slight or no importance.
Now, the result of this is that they do not think that men’s sins are punished by God, for
they see many sinners enjoying bodily vigor, highly favored by external good fortune, of
which goods virtuous men are sometimes deprived.” (Summa Contra Gentiles III, ch. 141).
Lastly, divine punishments do not fit into a predictable chronology because they per-
tain to the wide order of providence. Usually, human punishments immediately follow a vi-
olation. Once police apprehend a murderer, the trajectory of punishment is pre-established:
trial, then a prison sentence. God, on the other hand, might intervene exactly when one
does not expect Him. The timing of divine intervention is unpredictable because it per-
tains to the larger plan of God, which connects particular matters in a web inaccessible
to human knowledge. As David Fergusson puts it, “The economy of salvation betokens
the foresight and wisdom of God, rather than a sudden scrambling to initiate a recovery
process.” (Fergusson 2018, p. 38). Consider Milady de Winter, one of the most famous
villains in literature. Milady de Winter is the right hand of Cardinal Richelieu in Alexander
Dumas’ Three Musketeers; her role is to work behind the curtains on behalf of the Cardinal
against the king. She is a fascinating villain endowed with remarkable qualities: smart,
Religions 2024,15, 417 12 of 16
beautiful, and insightful. However, she is also cruel, manipulative, and unscrupulous.
Her evolution in the novel shows a turning point of providence. Her qualities are initially
matched by favorable circumstances that allow her to realize her plans and escape dangers
or justice. However, at a certain point, providence replaces favorable circumstances with
unfavorable ones. “Great criminals bear a sort of predestination with them that enables
them to surmount all obstacles and to escape all dangers until that moment which provi-
dence, grown weary, has marked as the shoal on which their impious fortune will founder.
It was so with Milady. She passed between the cruisers of two nations and arrived at
Boulogne without mishap.” (Dumas 2006, p. 531). Before, everything was easy for her.
Suddenly, everything becomes difficult at the climactic moment of the novel, when she is
apprehended by the three musketeers on behalf of the king, put on trial and condemned.
Dumas describes this turning point as a withdrawal of divine help: “She understood that
heaven was refusing her its aid, and she remained in the attitude in which she found herself,
her head bowed and her hands joined.” (Dumas 2006, p. 575). Milady understands that
she is dealing with God’s special intervention, which ends her cynical machinations. The
sudden hardening of her circumstances is indeed unusual and symmetrically opposed to
the easiness of her evildoing.
We can thus conclude that divine interventions occur in the mode of contingency and
in unusual circumstances. One can ask, though, whether all contingent, unusual events in
our lives qualify as special divine action. Is winning a lottery a divine reward? Is being
hit by a hurricane a divine punishment? Cornelio Fabro thinks that, after reading the
Liber de bona fortuna, Aquinas adopted Aristotle’s distinction between divine and natural
fortune. In Eudemian Ethics, Aristotle writes: “It is clear, then, that there are two kinds of
good luck, the one divine—and so the lucky seem to succeed owing to god—, the other
natural.” (Aristotle 1995, 1248b, pp. 2–4). Fabro shows that Aquinas brings both divine
and natural luck under the purview of providence. While the natural fortune is a matter
of the overall arrangement of providence, the divine fortune represents a direct divine
intervention (Fabro 1988, p. 570). So, not all contingent events are divine fortune. Some are
simply natural fortune.
Once this difference is established, how do we know if a life event or mental state
pertains to divine fortune? Aquinas argues that, first of all, we can never know with
certainty whether we experience a divine intervention due to its contingent character and
the incomprehensibility of divine will: “Concerning divine judgments the most certain and
demonstrative proof cannot be introduced because of the incomprehensibility of the divine
will. Hence, he adds For He Himself is alone, as if to say: He has no other creature similar or
equal to Him, and consequently not His will either. Hence he adds and no one can observe,
that is, know with certainty, His reflections, that is, the dispositions of his judgments” (The
Litteral Exposition on Job, 23:8–13; see also 11:1–7). We can only have conjectural knowledge
of divine interventions. Aquinas defines this type of knowledge (Franklin 2001, p. 203)
based on the contingent character of its object and opposes it to certain knowledge, which
deals with necessary objects: “Other future effects, however, do not exist so determinately
in their causes that something else might not happen; their causes are merely disposed
more to one effect than another; and these effects are contingent events, which happen
more or less often as the case may be. As a consequence, effects of this type cannot be
known in their causes with infallibility, but only with conjectural certitude.” (Truth I, q. 8,
a. 12).
I propose to distinguish between two types of conjectural knowledge that mirror the
two types of contingency: regular and irregular. Applied to regular contingency, conjectural
knowledge works with probability and concludes with approximate prediction. “We can
conjecture about future effects depending upon free choice by considering men’s habits
and temperaments, which incline them to one course of action.” (Truth, q. 8, a. 12; see also
Aquinas 2012,The Power of God, q. 5, a. 6).
Applied to irregular contingency, conjectural knowledge proceeds through sign in-
terpretation. As we have seen earlier, Aquinas called the extraordinary circumstances of
Religions 2024,15, 417 13 of 16
Job’s adversities “signs” of a divine intervention. Job’s reflections on his hardship include
interpreting signs that make him aware of the divine intervention. Moreover, the interpre-
tation of signs is not limited to the divine action on external circumstances but also regards
the divine action on the human soul. When discussing whether a person can know that
she has grace, Aquinas shows that such knowledge occurs through revelation or through
the interpretation of signs. While revelation depends exclusively on God, conjectural
knowledge is open to everybody: “Thirdly, things are known conjecturally by signs; and
thus anyone may know he has grace, when he is conscious of delighting in God, and of
despising worldly things, and inasmuch as a man is not conscious of any mortal sin./
. . .
/
Whoever receives it knows by experiencing a certain sweetness, which he who does not
receive it, does not experience.” (Summa Theologiae I–II, q. 112, a. 5; see also Commentary on
the Sentences I, d. 17, q. 1, a. 4; Commentary on the Sentences III, d. 23, a. 2).
However, interpretation by itself is not enough. How do we avoid superstitious and
arbitrary interpretations that inflate the significance of some life events? It seems that we
need an orientational criterion. Since the special divine action is a subtype of providence,
this orientation emerges from the teleology of providence, that is, from the final end of the
human person.
5. Special Divine Action and the Final Good of the Person
The special divine action does not occur only to fix a temporary issue. Instead, it aims
at transfiguring one’s life toward the final good of the person, namely union with God. An
interpretation of life events that might constitute divine interventions must account for
the overall order of one’s life toward this final goal. We can miss this underlying order if
we focus on divine action as a mere episode of divine will. As Simon Maria Kopf argues,
this might be the problem with some contemporary theories of special divine action that
work with a narrow action model fashioned after human action. Divine providence has a
different breath; it spans over the entire order of the universe and aims at an end that is God
Himself. Therefore, Kopf thinks Aquinas’ prudential-ordinative paradigm can contribute
much to the contemporary debate (Kopf 2023, p. 107). Providence is a rational order
oriented toward fulfilling human nature through union with God. Divine interventions are
not merely voluntaristic initiatives but manifest the prudential arrangement of human life
toward the final good.
Human beings reach their perfection through beatitude, the vision of God and union
with God in the afterlife. This is a special end (specialis finis), which differentiates humans
from non-human creatures: “But He directs righteous men to Himself as to a special end,
which they seek, and to which they wish to cling.” (Summa Theologiae I–II, q. 109, a. 7).
Thus, humans have a special place within providence both regarding their nature (as we
saw in Section 3) and their end. While it perfects human nature, beatitude surpasses its
boundaries. In other words, humans are created for a goal that fully perfects them but
cannot be achieved with human efforts alone. The final good of the human person is
supernatural. To reach that, humans need additional help from God (Summa Theologiae,
q. 109). Through His interventions, God stirs the course of human lives toward the
supernatural good. Divine interventions are not disruptions of nature but rather additions
that strengthen the orientation of persons toward this supernatural good. “Other creatures,
which are irrational, are accepted by God only with regard to natural goods. Consequently,
in their case divine acceptance does not add anything above the natural condition by which
they are made proportionate to such goods. But man is accepted by God with regard to a
supernatural good; and so there is required something added to his natural gifts by which
he is proportioned to that good (Truth, q. 27, a. 1).
The final end guides our lives and engages us in all particular moments. Yet, as
Emmanuel Durand remarks, not all moments of human life are equivalent; some have a
higher stake in salvation than others (Durand 2014, p. 177). God intervenes, especially
in those high-stakes moments. His intervention brings up a novelty in our lives, calls for
an interior engagement, has long-term consequences, and stimulates our interpretation
Religions 2024,15, 417 14 of 16
(Durand 2014, p. 89). At the same time, Durand warns that, although they create novelty,
some special divine actions in everyday life might be less bombastic than one would
imagine when comparing them to the grand Biblical events (for instance, the Incarnation
and Resurrection of Christ). In such cases, the concerned person might not even realize,
at the moment, that she is dealing with a divine intervention. For this reason, Durand
resists using the term “event” employed in religious phenomenology (Durand 2014, p. 80).
“Event” captures the novelty and soteriological quality of the special divine action but
does not admit that said action can often be hidden or less distinguishable from the rest of
natural processes or states of affairs.
Aquinas shows how the special divine action in Job’s case involves his salvation
(see also Ausin 1976, p. 538; Nutt 2015, p. 57). First, God puts humans sometimes on
trials for their salvation: “Now it happens sometimes that God permits either trials or
even more spiritual defects to befall some men in order to procure their salvation.” (The
Literal Exposition on Job, 9:11–15). Commenting on the Biblical description of human life
as a military campaign, Aquinas compares God to a general who sends to battle his best
soldiers. Job is, in this sense, chosen by God for a tough battle: “It is manifest that the
general of an army does not spare vigorous soldiers from dangers or labors, but as the
plan of the campaign requires, he sometimes exposes them both to greater labors and to
greater dangers, but after victory has been won he honors the more vigorous soldiers more.
/../ Hence, neither is divine providence disposed to exempt good men more from the
adversities and labors of the present life, but to reward them more generously in the end.”
(The Literal Exposition on Job, 7:1–6). Job is tested to manifest virtue not only for his own
good but also for the good of the others who can take him as a model: “Now one should
consider that God not only orders the life of just men to their own good but also makes it
conspicuous to others.” (The Literal Exposition on Job, 1:7–9). Second, Aquinas shows that
God’s restoration of Job’s health, prosperity, and family in the aftermath of his adversities
is a sign of Job’s salvation: “Hence, by the fullness of days is also designated his abundance,
both with respect to the goods of fortune and with respect to the goods of grace, by which
he was led to future glory, which lasts forever and ever. Amen.” (The Literal Exposition on
Job, 42:10–16).
Thus, considering the final good emphasizes the special character of some moments
in our lives and helps to interpret whether a person receives divine intervention. This
interpretation must reckon, though, with the hiddenness of God. While the circumstances
of such interventions are special, their unusual character is less visible than that of a
miraculous intervention.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, I proposed an account of the special divine action in human life based on
Aquinas’ philosophy of providence. I showed that God intensifies His action in moments
of our lives that are particularly significant for our salvation. In such moments, God
intervenes in a contingency mode and reorients our lives for the sake of our final good.
Aquinas’ use of the terms specialis and intervenire differs from the understanding of
“intervention” in contemporary debates on divine action. For him, divine interventions are
part of God’s special providence for human beings. Humans have a special place in the
created order thanks to reason and freedom. While God governs each non-human thing
only for the sake of the species, He governs each human person for the sake of the species
and her own good. Because of this special care, He intervenes in human lives in particular
moments. This intervention, I argued, is compatible with God’s permanent providence in
human lives as the first cause of human beings’ existence and operations.
The special divine action occurs in a contingency mode, which befits human free-
dom and its manifestation in a causally open world. Given the unusual circumstances of
divine intervention, this mode pertains to irregular contingency. Unlike regular contin-
gency, in which causes rarely fail to obtain their effects, irregular contingency excludes
repetition and is not intended by its natural causes. I used Aquinas’ description of the
Religions 2024,15, 417 15 of 16
unusual circumstances of Job’s adversities to flesh out this special mode of contingency
in divine interventions. I then considered other cases of divine intervention: habitual
grace, God’s moving of the human will, God’s enlightening of the human intellect, and
divine punishment.
Finally, I showed that not all contingent events, states of affairs, mental processes,
or mental states might qualify as special divine action, even though they are within the
purview of providence. I thus introduced an orientational criterion of interpretation, the
final good of the person. Irregular contingency can be interpreted as a divine action if it
transfigures a person’s life for the sake of her final good, salvation. This interpretation is
what Aquinas calls conjectural knowledge, available to everybody, although not as certain
as demonstration. We cannot know with certainty whether an event is a divine intervention,
but we can conjecturally understand our lives as we seek our salvation in relationship
with God.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: I thank Clifford Williams and the peer-reviewers of this article for their suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interests.
References
Anderson, Justin M. 2020. Virtue and Grace in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1962. Aristotle: On Interpretation. Commentary by St. Thomas and Cajetan (Peri Hermeneias). Translated by Jean T.
Oesterle. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1984. Summa Theologiae. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Notre Dame: Christian Classics.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1989. The Literal Exposition on Job. A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence. Translated by Anthony Damico.
Atlanta: The American Academy of Religion.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1992. Summa Contra Gentiles. Translated by Vernon J. Bourke. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1995a. Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Translated by John P. Rowan. Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1995b. Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. Translated by Richard J. Blackwell, Richard J. Spath, and W. Edmund
Thirlkel. Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books.
Aquinas, Thomas. 2008. Truth. Translated by Robert W. Mulligan. Eugene: Wipf & Stock.
Aquinas, Thomas. 2009. Compendium of Theology. Translated by Richard J. Regan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aquinas, Thomas. 2012. The Power of God. Translated by Richard J. Regan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aquinas, Thomas. 2013. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by Fabian Larcher. Lander: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of
Sacred Doctrine.
Aquinas, Thomas. 2020. Commentary on the Sentences. Aquinas Institute. Available online: https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.I (accessed
on 10 January 2024).
Aristotle. 1995. Eudemian Ethics. Edited by Jonathan Barnes. The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, vol. I.
Ausin, Santiago. 1976. La providencia divina en el libro de Job. Scripta Theologica 8: 477–550. [CrossRef]
Bowlin, John. 2001. Contingency and Fortune in Aquinas’s Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Böttigheimer, Christoph. 2013. Wie Handelt Gott in der Welt? Reflexionen im Spannungsfeld von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft. Freiburg i.
Breisgau: Herder.
Bradford, Gwen. 2015. Achievement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chardonnens, Denis. 1997. L’homme sous le regard de la Providence. Providence de Dieu et condition humaine selon l”Exposition littérale sur le
Livre de Job’ de Thomas d’Aquin. Paris: Vrin.
Davies, Brian. 2016. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles. A Guide and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dodds, Michael. 2012. Unlocking Divine Action. Contemporary Science & Thomas Aquinas. Washington, DC: Catholic University of
America Press.
Dumas, Alexandre. 2006. The Three Musketeers. Translated by R. Peaver. New York: Viking Adult.
Durand, Emmanuel. 2014. Évangile et Providence. Une théologie de l’action de Dieu. Paris: Cerf.
Fabro, Cornelio. 1988. Le «Liber de bona fortuna» de l’«Éthique àEudème» d’Aristote et la dialectique de la divine Providence chez
saint Thomas. Revue Thomiste 88: 556–72.
Fergusson, David. 2018. The Providence of God. A Polyphonic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Religions 2024,15, 417 16 of 16
Franklin, James. 2001. The Science of Conjecture. Evidence and Probability before Pascal. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins Univer-
sity Press.
Freddoso, Alfred J. 1991. God’s General Concurrence with Secondary Causes: Why Conservation Is Not Enough. Philosophical
Perspectives 5: 553–85. [CrossRef]
Frost, Gloria. 2014. Aquinas and Scotus on the Source of Contingency. In Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy. Edited by Robert Pasnau.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. 2.
Göcke, Benedikt Paul. 2015. The Many Problems of Special Divine Action. In Special Divine Action. Edited by Andrew Pinsent and
Timothy McGrew. Special issue, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7: 23–36. [CrossRef]
Kierkegaard, Søren. 2003. Fear and Trembling. Translated by Alastair Hannay. London: Penguin.
Kopf, Simon Maria. 2023. Reframing Providence. New Perspectives from Aquinas on the Divine Action Debate. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Koritansky, Peter Karl. 2011. Thomas Aquinas and the Philosophy of Punishment. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Kretzmann, Norman. 2000. The Metaphysics of Providence. Medieval Philosophy and Theology 9: 91–183.
Lane Ritchie, Sarah. 2019. Divine Action and the Human Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larmer, Robert A. 2021. Defending Special Divine Acts. In Philosophical Essays on Divine Causation. Edited by Gregory E. Ganssle.
London: Routledge, pp. 174–95.
Laughlin, Peter. 2009. Divine Necessity and Created Contingence in Aquinas. The Heythrop Journal 50: 648–57. [CrossRef]
Maimonides, Moses. 1974. The Guide of the Perplexed. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Matthews Grant, W. 2021. Free Will and God’s Universal Causality. The Dual Sources Account. London: Bloomsbury.
Nutt, Roger W. 2015. Providence, Wisdom, and the Justice of Job’s Afflictions: Considerations from Aquinas’ Literal Exposition on Job.
The Heythrop Journal 56: 44–66. [CrossRef]
Oliva, Mirela. 2024. The Personal Purpose of Life. In For Freedom, Set Free. Structure and Telos. Edited by James G. Hanink and Michael
D. Torre. Rochester: American Maritain Association.
Pinsent, Andrew. 2015. Special Divine Insight: Escaping the Snow Queen’s Palace. In Special Divine Action. Edited by Andrew Pinsent
and Timothy McGrew. Special issue, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7: 173–96. [CrossRef]
Plantinga, Alvin. 2008. What is ‘Intervention’? Theology and Science 6: 369–401. [CrossRef]
Russell, Robert John. 1998. Does the “God who Acts” Really Act in Nature? In Science and Theology: New Consonance. Edited by Ted
Peters. Boulder: Westview Press.
Schmidbaur, Hans Christian. 2003. Gottes Handeln in Welt und Geschichte. Eine trinitarische Theologie der Vorsehung. St. Ottilien:
EOS Verlag.
Shields, Christopher, and Robert Pasnau. 2016. The Philosophy of Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silva, Ignacio, and Simon Maria Kopf. 2021. Divine and Human Providence. Philosophical, Psychological and Theological Approaches. London:
Routledge.
Silva, Ignacio. 2015. Providence, Contingency, and the Perfection of the Universe. Philosophy, Theology and the Sciences 2: 137–57.
[CrossRef]
Silva, Ignacio. 2022. Providence and Science in a World of Contingency. London: Routledge.
Te Velde, Rudi. 2013. Thomas Aquinas on Providence, Contingency and the Usefulness of Prayer. In Fate, Providence and Moral
Responsibility in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought. Edited by Pieter d’Hoine and Gerd van Riel. Collected Studies in
Honour of Carlos Steel. Leuven: University Press.
Torrell, Jean-Pierre. 2008. Nouvelle Recherches Thomasiennes. Paris: Vrin.
Van Inwagen, Peter. 1995. God, Knowledge, and Mistery. Essays in Philosophical Theology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wildman, Wesley J. 2004. The Divine Action Project, 1988–2003. Theology and Science 2: 31–75. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
