High in the list of now forgotten sins is simony. It was not always so: the medieval schoolmen believed simony to be the worst of ecclesiastical crimes and waged a centuries long campaign to purge the Church of this financial and spiritual corruption. As the schoolmen robustly defined it, “simony is the deliberate will to buy or sell something spiritual or connected with a spiritual thing.” Under this definition would fall the attempt, even if unsuccessful, of trying to purchase ordination (“something spiritual”) or an annual stipend tied to a parochial appointment (“connected with a spiritual thing”). Once this definition was articulated, it became clear that simony could be committed in many subtle ways, and that Simon Magus was neither the only nor the first biblical figure to commit the sin named after him.
A contender for the first simoniac in the New Testament is Judas. In a passage often referenced in the Middle Ages, Gregory Nazianzus asserted that Judas had sold, not simply betrayed, Christ. After “simony” as a noun developed late in the first millennium, many schoolmen claimed that simony was indeed the specific crime Judas committed. In the thirteenth century William Perault explained how priests who celebrate Masses in exchange for money are worse than Judas. Judas sold Christ only once, and that when Christ was in his humble state of humanity. Yet now priests sell the glorified Christ many times over—and for a lower price than Judas! However, Simon of Bisignano thought it safer to say Judas committed not the crime of simony but of sacrilege since he did not believe Jesus to be God and thus had sold only the mortal body of Christ. The Jesuit Gibalinus agreed, and said that Judas’ sacrilege was of such a reprehensible sort that it only bore an analogical relation to simony.
The New Testament contains other figures accused of simony. It was commonly believed that Caiaphas, who presided over the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus, was a simoniac. The story is not told in the New Testament, but medieval authors relayed Jerome’s claim (based on an obscure passage in Josephus) that Caiaphas had purchased the high priesthood from Herod. Most other discussions of New Testament simony are found in spiritual exegesis of the money changers whom Jesus purged from the Temple. As Gregory the Great says: “What else is it to sell doves but to receive a price for the laying on of hands, and to put to sale the Holy Spirit whom Almighty God gives to men?” As such, throughout the Middle Ages simoniacs were often called “dove sellers.”
In the Old Testament there are sundry examples of simoniacal dealings. The second book of Maccabees tells of Jason who promised silver and other gifts in exchange for the high priesthood. Peter Damian accused Balaam of being a simoniac since in Numbers he was offered money to curse Israel. Saul perhaps committed simony in paying the seer to consult the dead Samuel. A minority of medieval schoolmen held that Korah committed simony when in the book of Numbers he rebelled against Moses and strove to control the priesthood by force. Yet while the schoolmen agreed that a simoniacal exchange could involve favor, obedience, or other gifts besides money, not everyone agreed that the violent seizure of spiritual things constituted simony.
The most commonly discussed Old Testament simoniac was Giezi, the servant of Elisha. After Elisha healed Naaman of leprosy in the second book of Kings, Giezi returned alone to Naaman and charged him payment for the spiritual service. Later when Elisha learned of this, the leprosy of Naaman struck Giezi. The schoolmen observed in this passage that while Simon Magus had attempted to purchase spiritual power, Giezi was involved in the selling of it. Consequently, many schoolmen made a further distinction. While in the broad sense a simoniac is anyone involved in purchasing or selling spiritual things, strictly speaking a “simoniac” is someone who sells, a “giezite” someone who buys, and a “korite” someone who strives to obtain spiritual things through violence.
There was a scholastic question whether Abraham’s purchase of a burial cave in Hebron constituted simony since everyone agreed that Church property, including gravesites, were “connected with a spiritual thing.” However, as Aquinas clarified, Abraham purchased the cave before it was consecrated and thus was not the first to commit simony. That dishonor would fall rather to his grandson.
The transfer of birthright from Esau to Jacob is a mystifying story. The biblical text clearly shows there was a priesthood before the Levites, and a Hebrew tradition held that from Adam firstborn sons possessed a priestly office. From Noah to Shem and onwards to Abraham, the priesthood was part of the birthright due to Esau. Another Hebrew tradition, known to medieval Christians through their standard Bible commentary, the Glossa Ordinaria (now available in English), held that the garments of skin given to Adam by God were priestly vestments, and that these same vestments had been preserved in the Noahic line. And so, when Esau sold his spiritual birthright for pottage, medieval schoolmen judged him guilty of simony.
Yet was Jacob likewise guilty for the purchase of the birthright? Here the verdict was negative. Jacob committed no sin in gaining the birthright. In one of the more subtle scholastic questions on simony, it is asked whether a priest who rightly had possession of a parish and its stipends could licitly give money to another priest who (falsely) claimed possession of the same parish. The answer was yes. Such a priest would not be committing simony since he already had rightful possession of the spiritual thing. The money was paid not to purchase something spiritual but simply to end the legal dispute and restore peace between the litigants. Likewise, Jacob did not purchase the birthright but redeemed what was already his by divine providence. Rachel knew of this special dispensation from when her twins struggled within her womb and God revealed to her that the elder shall serve the younger (Gen. 25:23). For this reason she was right to clothe Jacob with the priestly garments of Esau. Isaac later came to know of this dispensation when Esau returned from the field. Isaac was then struck with fear, and astonished exceedingly (Gen. 27:33). He made no attempt to rectify his blessing of Jacob because in that moment he grasped the mystery of the younger son that runs throughout Scripture, from Abel to Jacob to David: namely that the God who loved Jacob yet hated Esau (Rom 9:13) had ordained that the spiritual birthright would be transferred to the younger.
In a later age, Shakespeare’s King Henry IV speaks of those ruffians who “commit the oldest sins, the newest kind of ways.” So too in the Church there are always those looking for new means of turning a profit on God’s invaluable gifts. To such people the answer is always that of Saint Peter: Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee.
Samuel J. Klumpenhouwer
PhD, Medieval Studies
University of Toronto