1057 Loosing and Binding tom and the rows of weft were packed upwards. Numerous excavated loom weights witness the wide usage of warp-weighted looms in ancient Israel, even in the Iron II period. Dyed threads for portions of the warp or weft were used for making bands of color. Warp-weighted looms conveniently enabled complicated patterns in the weft created by placing various colors in small areas. This kind of weaving was most effectively performed with linen warps and wool wefts. The productions of curtains for the tabernacle as well as of the vestments of the high priest (Exod 26; 28; 39) may have necessitated such processes. 2. The Vertical Two-beam Loom. In this type of loom the warp was stretched between two beams more or less vertically. Weaving started from the bottom of the loom and packing the weft threads took place with a downward movement which was contrary to the warp-weighted loom. The weaver could roll woven textiles onto the bottom beam (Isa 38:12). This structural feature seems to have allowed the weaver to sit and accordingly to work longer. However, it is still discussed among scholars how this type of loom could have functioned for seated weavers, since there is no device known for bringing the working area into reach. Ancient Egyptian murals do not clearly indicate what kind of device the weavers were using. The metaphor in which the shaft of a strong man’s spear is compared with a “weaver’s beam” (1 Sam 17:7; 2 Sam 21:19; 1 Chr 11:23; 20:5) could possibly indicate the size of the bottom beam of this type of loom. 3. The Ground Loom. The earliest pictorial delineation of this type of loom is found on a dish deriving from the grave of a woman at Badari dating to the early 4th millennium BCE. It is probable that the ground loom had been used in the Middle East and Egypt since the Neolithic period. The Egyptian depictions are so detailed that they provide sufficient knowledge about how this loom functioned and what its essential elements were. In Egyptian murals, two weavers usually collaborated with each other in handling the loom. On a horizontal ground loom, the warp threads were stretched between beams fixed to the ground. There were at least three rods in addition to the warp beam and cloth beam. This kind of loom is apparently found in the text about Samson (Judg 16:13–14). In the story Delilah wove Samson’s locks with a loom after he fell asleep. When Samson awoke, he pulled away the pins of the loom (ereg; Judg 16:14) that fixed the beams to the ground. Bibliography: ■ Browning, D. C., “Spinning, Weaving, Loom,” EDB (Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge 2000) 1247– 48. ■ Edwards, D. R., “Dress and Ornamentation,” ABD 2 (New York/London 1992) 232–38. ■ Barber, E. J. W., Prehistoric Textiles: the Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean (Princeton, N.J. 1992) 79–125. Johannes Unsok Ro Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 16 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2018 1058 Loosing and Binding I. II. III. New Testament Judaism Christianity I. New Testament The combination of loosing and binding occurs twice in the NT, both occurences in Matthew’s gospel (16:19; 18:18; though see also John 20:23). In these verses, Jesus makes the same basic statement – first to Peter in 16:19, and then to all the disciples in 18:18 – “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Parallels from Jewish literature indicate that binding and loosing can refer to the extensive authority of religious leaders to determine what or who is forbidden and permitted for the religious community (e.g., Josephus, J.W. 1.111; cf. Strack/Billerbeck: 738–47). This interpretation of binding and loosing fits within Matthew’s gospel, which approves the transfer of authority from the current religious leadership to Peter and the other disciples. According to Matthew, segments of the current religious leadership, as guardians of the way to the kingdom, are actually locking people out because of their hypocrisy and inability to discern what is essential for righteousness (ch. 23, esp. v. 13; cf. 16:5–12). As a result, the kingdom is taken away from them and is given to a new community (21:43). This new community constitutes Jesus’ church (ἐκκλησία), which is the realm over which Jesus says Peter and the other disciples are to exercise the authority to bind and to loose (16:18; 18:17). Peter and the disciples have authority to teach the church – comprised of both Jews and Gentiles – a new way of life, which was first proclaimed by Jesus as a fulfillment of Israel’s Scriptures (esp. chs. 5–7; cf. 28:18–20). In sum, the former religious leadership forfeited its authority to bind and to loose, and now that authority is given to Peter and the other disciples, who teach the message of Jesus as they lead the new community along the difficult road. In Matt 18:18, Jesus states that all the disciples have extensive (ὅσα ἐὰν) authority to bind and to loose. Here, this authority is mentioned in relation to the excommunication of an unrepentant member of the church (18:15–17), and there is an emphasis on collegial agreement to ensure effectiveness (18:19–20). Earlier in Matt 16:18–19, Jesus gives the same extensive authority singularly to Peter. Jesus says that Peter is the rock (πέτρος) on which Jesus will build his church, that Peter possesses the keys of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Isa 22:22; Rev 1:18; 3:7), and that Peter has the authority to bind and to loose. Peter’s primacy is widely presupposed among the NT writings (e.g., Mark 3:16; 16:7; John 21:15–17; Acts 1–12; 15; Gal 1:18– 19; 2:7; 1 Cor 15:5). Many of these writings also Authenticated | jared.m.halverson@vanderbilt.edu Download Date | 12/14/18 4:59 PM 1059 1060 Loosing and Binding present Peter as a flawed figure (e.g., Gal 2:11–14; Mark 14:29–30). In the pericope immediately following Matt 16:13–20, Jesus accuses Peter of being a stumbling block and possessed by Satan (16:21– 23). So Matthew’s Peter is both “authoritative and fallible” (Bockmuehl: 76). His position as the foundational rock of the church, along with his possession of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, means that his authority to bind and to loose is both “unique and paradigmatic” among his fellow disciples (ibid.: 76). Matthew’s gospel does not contain the idea that the authority to bind and to loose transfers from Peter and the other disciples to their successors. The notion that Peter’s primacy among the disciples is conferred to his successor does not appear in the NT. Bibliography: ■ Bockmuehl, M., Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory (Grand Rapids, Mich. 2012). [Esp. 73–77] ■ Büchsel, F., “δέω (λω),” TDNT 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1964) 60–61. ■ Collins, R. F., “Binding and Loosing,” ABD 1 (New York 1992) 743–45. ■ Davies, W. D./D. C. Allison, Matthew 8–18 (ICC; Edinburgh 1991). ■ Duffy, E., Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven, Conn. 32006). [Esp. 1–13] ■ Foster, P., Community, Law and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel (WUNT.2 177; Tübingen 2004). ■ Luz, U., Matthew 8–20 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn. 2001). ■ Strack, H./P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 1 (Munich 1922). J. Christopher Edwards II. Judaism The Hebrew verbs āsar and hittîr, whose original meanings are “binding” and “loosing” respectively, occur often in rabbinic sources in the sense of “to prohibit” and “to permit.” In the Hebrew Bible, these verbs, and words derived from them, still have primarily the tangible meaning of tying and opening. Exceptions are the verb asar and the noun issar when occurring in the context of making vows (Num 30:2–17), that is, of a person prohibiting themselves from doing something. The metaphoric use reflected in Numbers, however, is not “prohibition” in the general sense, but rather indicates tying oneself to one’s own commitment (see HALOT 1:85). Hence, the verb used in this context as the opposite of āsar is not hittîr but hēfēr, which means the breaking of a promise or a covenant. The semantic shift between biblical and rabbinic Hebrew was probably influenced by the meaning of the cognate verbs āsar and šerî in Aramaic. Scholars of the New Testament have made efforts to utilize Jewish sources in order to validate their interpretation of the terms “binding” and “loosing” used by Jesus (Matt 16:19; 18:18), which are usually interpreted as referring to declarative authority in doctrinal and disciplinary matters. While this interpretation or others may be true, they cannot be derived from the use of these verbs in rabbinic Hebrew, which only mean “prohibiting” and “permitting,” with no specific context. The phrase combining these two verbs – issur we-heter (prohibition and permission) – appears here and there in rabbinic literature, but with no single specific meaning. It has different concrete and literal meanings, each of which depends heavily on the specific context. Thus, it can be used to describe a matter that in one aspect is permitted and in another is prohibited (mZev 7:4), or a physical mixture of something permitted for eating with something prohibited from eating (bPes 45b). Only in the Geonic period (8th cent. CE onward) do we find this phrase used as a term with a specific meaning: a body of religious instruction. In Sheiltot de-Rav Ahø ai Gaon (no. 82), referring to the law that one should not teach when drunk, the Gaon interprets the biblical word le-horot, to instruct, as referring to matters of issur we-heter. Similarly, in a Geonic responsum (Shaarei teshuvah 217) we hear of a nomination letter written by the exilarch to a rabbi, “giving him permission to go and teach the people issur weheter.” In the period of the rishonim (early decisors; the first half of the second millennium), the use of this term became widespread as the conventional name given to the entire corpus of religious instruction dealing with ritualistic, as opposed to legal, matters - such as the various prohibitions on eating, sexual relations, or working on rest days. The reduction of this term to its current meaning, referring solely to Jewish dietary laws (kashrut), took place in the last few centuries. The biblical term which best fits the meaning of the term issur we-heter as it was used in the Middle Ages, namely, as referring to the entire body of ritual law, is “Torah” – a word whose literal meaning is “instruction, teaching.” In the Hebrew Bible, this word can refer to a body of instructions regarding a specific ritual topic, like a specific kind of sacrifice or type of impurity, or it can refer to religious teaching in general; but it always refers to ritual matters, not to matters of civil or criminal law. The biblical usage of “Torah” fits well, then, with the medieval use of issur we-heter, and indeed the rabbis themselves equated the two terms. Bibliography: ■ Manns, F., “La halakah dans l’évangile de Matthieu: note sur Mt. 16,16–19,” Bibbia e Oriente 25 (1983) 129–35. ■ Mantey, J. R., “Distorted Translations in John 20:23: Matthew 16:18–19 and 18:18,” Review & Expositor 78 (1981) 409–16. Avi Shveka III. Christianity Greek and Latin Patristics and Orthodox Churches ■ Medieval Times and Reformation Era ■ Modern Europe and America ■ A. Greek and Latin Patristics and Orthodox Churches “Binding and loosing” is a rabbinic expression meaning “forbidding and permitting” something; it goes back to biblical expressions such as “bind- Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 16Authenticated | jared.m.halverson@vanderbilt.edu © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2018 Download Date | 12/14/18 4:59 PM 1061 Loosing and Binding ing” (āsar; Num 30:3) for a vow; sometimes it was interpreted in connection with a magic spell. In the late 1st century CE, Josephus attributed the power of “binding and loosing” to the Pharisees (J.W. 1.5.2), and rabbinic sources attribute it to the rabbis. The starting point of patristic reflection lies in Jesus’ attribution of the power of binding and loosing to his disciples (Matt 16:19, to Peter; 18:18; John 20:23, after the disciples have received the Holy Spirit), thereby investing them with the authority of scribes and Pharisees (Matt 23:2–4). The Johannine formula, which explicitly speaks of the power to retain or remit sins, and the Matthean formula to Peter about “the keys to the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” and the one to the disciples, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” were highly influential on patristic reflections. These formulas were linked to Isa 22:22, which shows the same connection between the “keys” and the power of opening or closing: “I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one will close, when he closes, no one will open.” Patristic authors mostly cited Jesus’ declarations on binding and loosing to support the Church’s power to confer forgiveness, mostly regarded as conditional on repentance and conversion (Ramelli 2011 and 2012; Radzik; Bash: 64, 72). Origen, commenting on Matthew, interpreted the promise given to Peter as “not restricted to him alone, but applicable to all disciples like him.” According to Origen, indeed, the Church rests not only on Peter, but on a number of Peters: “all those against whom the gates of hell will not prevail, who have in themselves a work called Peter (‘rock’), are also Peters” (Comm. Matt. 12.10–11; cf. Comm. ser. Matt. 139). Therefore, Jesus gives “the keys of the Kingdom” and the relevant faculty of binding and loosing, not only to Peter, but also to these other Peters, good believers, men and women alike; conversely, an ordained bishop who judges unrighteously does not really possess “the power of the keys” (Comm. Matt. 12.14; see Ramelli forthcoming: ch. 6). Origen associated Matt 16:18–19 with Eph 6:12 as expressions of the battle between good and evil, a cosmic battle that is reflected in the moral conscience of each of us: each power and world-ruler of this darkness (the world as ruled by evil) is a gate of Hades and a gate of death. Good Christians should fight against the principalities and powers, the gates of Hades, while the angels, who assist believers, are the gates of righteousness. The final victory will go to the latter; this will happen at the final restoration or apokatastasis, when all sins will be purified and there will remain no sin to loose (Ramelli 2013). Hilary of Poitiers (Comm. Matt. 16, PL 9.1010), who was a follower of Origen, and Augustine, who Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 16 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2018 1062 was inspired by both Origen and Hilary, also linked Christ’s words about binding and loosing to the power of the Church to forgive sins: “How could Christ have shown greater liberality and mercy than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins … He gave these keys [claves] to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven” (quae solveret in terra soluta essent in caelo; Doctr. chr. 1.17–18). Like Origen, moreover, Augustine often admits that the power to bind and loose was bestowed not merely on Peter, but, through him, to the whole Church, which exercises the authority of the forgiveness of sins (Tract. Ev. Jo.1.12; cf. Reale/ Ramelli; Serm. 295, PL 38.1349). Other Fathers, however, emphasized that the power to bind and loose was given to Peter alone in order to highlight his primacy among the apostles (Optatus, De schismate Donatistarum adversus Parmenianum 7.3). Indeed, this line of interpretation was often taken up from an anti-heretical perspective. Pope Gregory the Great, writing to the Emperor Maurice, quoted Jesus’ words in Matt 16:18–19, and commented as follows: “Behold, Peter received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; the power of binding and loosing is bestowed upon him: the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him” (Ep. 5.20). Maximus of Turin, in a sermon on the feast of Peter and Paul (PL 57.403; see Merkt), distinguishes between “the key of power” (clavis potentiae) given to Peter and the key of knowledge (clavis scientiae) given to Paul – an idea that depends on Luke 11:52, in which Jesus says to the Pharisees: “You have taken away the key of knowledge.” Maximus thus put forward a distinction, between clavis potentiae and clavis scientiae, that will become widespread among medieval writers. Bibliography: ■ Bash, A., “Forgiveness, Reconciliation and Spirituality,” Journal for the Study of Spirituality 4.1 (2014) 58– ■ Merkt, A., Maximus I. von Turin (Leiden 1997). 72. ■ Radzik, L., Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews [available at http://ndpr.nd.edu]. ■ Ramelli, I., “Unconditional Forgiveness in Christianity? Some Reflections on Ancient Christian Sources and Practices,” in The Ethics of Forgiveness (ed. C. Fricke; London 2011) 30–48. ■ Ramelli, I., “Forgiveness in Patristic Philosophy,” in Ancient Forgiveness: Classical, Judaic, and Christian Concepts (ed. C. Griswold/D. Konstan; Cambridge 2012) 195–215. ■ Ramelli, I., The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis (Leiden 2013). ■ Ramelli, I., Origen of Alexandria’s Philosophical Theology. [Forthcoming] ■ Reale, G./ I. Ramelli, Sant’ Agostino: Commento al Vangelo di Giovanni, 2 vols. (Milan 2010). Ilaria L. E. Ramelli B. Medieval Times and Reformation Era The Bible recorded Christ’s use of the language of loosing and binding three times (Matt 16:19; 18:18 and John 20:23). Different interpretations of these passages in the medieval and Reformation era would shape Christian debates about a wide range of issues including ecclesiastical authority and hier- Authenticated | jared.m.halverson@vanderbilt.edu Download Date | 12/14/18 4:59 PM 1063 Loosing and Binding archy, sin and forgiveness, and judgment and power. For some medieval writers, like Gelasius I (492– 496 CE), the power of loosing and binding conferred by these passages was a vital foundation of the Church’s authority, second only in importance to the prophets, evangelists, and scriptures (PL 59:167). This Gelasian interpretation was frequently used to defend the authority of the Church. Carolingian authors like Alcuin (735–804 CE) cited it to command errant prelates to respect the authority of the Church, as did Lanfranc (1005–1089), insisting that Berengar accept the teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, and Anselm of Lucca (1036–1086), condemning Guibert the antipope (PL 149:449; 150:426; MGH EP, 4:61). Adhelmus (639– 709) nevertheless wrote that the Gelasian reading did not make the popes tyrants, but liberators, while another anonymous early medieval author saw this reading as God’s promise to free Christians from sin, if they accepted the authority of the Church, just as Joseph’s brothers were freed from hunger once they accepted Joseph’s authority (Gen 45; PL 51:757; 89:87). More specifically, scriptural passages conferring the power of loosing and binding were used to explain the structure of authority within the Church and to justify papal claims to govern the whole Church. Many authors interpreted Matt 16:19 to mean that because of his profession of faith Christ had given Peter alone the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power of loosing and binding (PL 54:430). Hincmar of Rheims (806–882 CE) argued that no one could be saved who did not accept the authority of the keys of the Roman Church (MGH, EP, 8:140). He explained that all Western Sees owed their power of loosing and binding to the see of Peter, their source of apostolic succession (PL 125:213). Urban II (1088–1099) cited this passage in support of his authority to ordain bishops, as did Adrian IV (1100–1159) when justifying the ordination of Latin bishops for Venetian communities in Constantinople (PL 151:310; 188:1519). Indeed, the popes also used this passage to affirm their authority over sees in the East, especially when they saw the see of Constantinople contesting this authority. John VIII (872–882 CE) appealed to the authority granted Peter by this passage to claim that the Bulgarian Church should come under Roman jurisdiction and in the 13th century, and the Bulgar leader Kaloyan referenced this passage when he offered to submit to Innocent III’s authority (PL 126:859; 215:155). Eugenius II (824–827 CE) cited Matt 16:19 to demand the Byzantines obey the papacy, while Innocent III (1198–1216), addressing the Greek and Armenian patriarchs, used this passage to claim that the Roman Church, while not perfect, was still the mother and superior of all the Churches (PL 129:992; 214:328). Some writers, in- 1064 cluding Rabanus Maurus (780–856), wrote sermons for the feast of Peter, focusing on the Epistle, taken from Acts, in which an angel broke the chains holding Peter and freed him from prison (Acts 12). The homilists explained this passage as an allegory, expressing that Peter and his successors could not be bound by any chains, since they had received the full power of loosing and binding (PL 110:350). The power of loosing and binding was not seen as reserved exclusively to the papacy. Adrian I (772– 795 CE) acknowledged that although Christ singled Peter out to govern the Church, he granted the power of loosing and binding to all bishops as successors of the apostles (PL 96:1240). Other writers clarified that Christ had granted the power of loosing and binding to Peter first, but had later extended it to all the apostles in the Upper Room (PL 107:992). Victor I (189–199) explained to the patriarch of Alexandria, that this passage gave him the authority to sit in judgment on any matters pertaining strictly to his own patriarchate and its dioceses, but that he should consult the Roman pontiff in all other matters (PL 124:993). Carolingian rulers, including Louis the Pious (814–840), also cited this phrase to emphasize the dignity of all bishops, referring to them as vicars of Christ and even as “key-keepers” clavigeros, of the kingdom of heaven (MGH, CAP, 2:51). The use of this phrase is striking since the power of the keys, if not of loosing and binding, was usually understood as granted to Peter alone, as the keys are not referenced in the postresurrection loosing and binding discourse. Protestant authors further promoted broader interpretations of the authority to loose and bind. Luther (1483–1546) argued that Christ had given this power to all the apostles and not just to Peter and therefore that all pastors had received the power of loosing and binding from God directly, independent of the Roman see (LW 8:185). He noted that the Holy Spirit did not descend on Peter alone at Pentecost, but on all the apostles (LW 31:389). Calvin (1509–1564) went further and claimed that Christ was speaking to the apostles as representatives of the whole Church, therefore all Christians had received this power and that loosing and binding referred to Christians’ opportunities to believe in Christ, save themselves from their sins, and achieve salvation (Bretschneider: 27:605). Other writers nevertheless maintained that Peter was confirmed in his primacy among the apostles when Christ commissioned him to feed the lambs and sheep of the Church (John 21). They interpreted the pastoral dignity conferred by this dialogue as extending Peter’s authority of loosing and binding to the whole Church including the other apostles (PL 118:477). Some authors even argued the other apostles received this power from Peter himself rather than directly from Christ (MGH, Lib, 2:147). Debates about the authority of loosing and what it meant to be loosed shaped understandings about Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 16Authenticated | jared.m.halverson@vanderbilt.edu © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2018 Download Date | 12/14/18 4:59 PM 1065 Loosing and Binding the sacrament of penance. Luther maintained that contrition gained a sinner access to Christ’s mercy and forgiveness (LW 21:153). Confessing to a priest was for him a way of publicly expressing this contrition and submitting to God’s law, but did not itself loose the sinner from sin (LW 31:98). Earlier in his career, Luther accepted that the efficacy of the sacrament depended on the sincerity of the sinner rather than the priest, but this interpretation led him to argue that if the power of the sacrament didn’t depend on the holiness of the minister, it didn’t depend on the minister’s rank either (LW 32:42). He concluded that any Christian could forgive sins and that the sacrament of penance, while an important affirmation of God’s mercy and forgiveness, was not necessary to loose Christians from their sins (LW 36:258). Catholic contemporaries like John Fisher (1469–1535), responded to Luther’s interpretation by affirming the importance of the priests, men chosen and instituted by Christ to dispense the power of loosing from sin he had granted to his Church, despite their corruptible and sinful bodies (CCath 9:29). Johann Eck (1486–1543) defended the Catholic position on the necessity of confession by appealing to a medieval interpretation employed by Cistercian writers like Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) (CCath 34:123). These authors referred to the Jewish law that lepers healed from leprosy had to present themselves to the priests to be readmitted to society (Lev 14:3–7). By confessing their sins to a priest and receiving absolution, the contrition of sinners was made perfect, Bernard argued, and they could be loosed from sin and readmitted to the life of grace as members of the Church (PL 186:287). Interpretations of the concept of binding and its limits also influenced views on the Church’s authority to judge and punish, and in particular to excommunicate. Gelasius justified Felix III’s excommunication of Acacius by referring to this passage (PL 59:27). Charlemagne and Stephen IV both condemned the second council of Nicea (787 CE) for not consulting the pope on a matter of faith. For them, the successor of Peter had received not only the power of forgiving sins granted to all the apostles, but also the power of judging how and what to loose and bind, symbolized by the keys (PL 107:992). Eck and Ivo of Chartres (1040–1115) both invoked this concept to justify papal authority to excommunicate (CCath 34:235). Ivo nevertheless clarified that Christ had not granted his Church the power to bind the dead. It was not possible to excommunicate those who had already died, nor to excommunicate offspring for the sins of the deceased (PL 161:1229). Luther argued that the papacy had overreached the limits of the authority supported by this passage. He argued that binding simply referred to the bondage of unacknowledged or unrepented sins and that this passage was Christ’s Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 16 © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2018 1066 call to a ministry of forgiveness and absolution, not of judgement (LW 21:153). He complained that the popes had corrupted the concept of loosing and binding to create new laws not contained in the Bible, such as indulgences, and set themselves up as judges (LW 41:195). Expanding on Ivo’s argument, he wrote that since loosing and binding did not apply to the dead it was not possible to win remission from temporal punishment exacted after death and condemned the papal interpretation of this passage as drawn from nowhere (LW 31:100–104; 41:53). Calvin also rejected any sense that this phrase supported the authority of the Church to punish, citing Paul’s blinding on the road to Damascus to argue that the authority to punish was reserved for God alone (Acts 9; Breschneider: 50:116). Understandings of loosing and binding also affected relations between sacred and secular authority. Authors, including Luther, argued that some of the power to loose and bind could be delegated by pastors to secular authorities, but insisted that this power was ultimately derived from the Church (LW 39:42). Innocent III argued that this interpretation was at the heart of the Donation of Constantine, the emperor acknowledging that the Church was the source of his legitimate authority (PL 217:481). Other medieval popes invoked the authority conferred by this passage, in particular the authority to bind, on earth, to justify acts of excommunication (MGH, SS 1:489; 28:262). Earlier, Stephen III (768– 772 CE), had emphasized the concept of loosing and binding to encourage the Carolingians to come to Italy and deliver him from the Lombards. He stressed that earthly rulers should protect the Roman pontiff because his power to loose and bind was the source of the forgiveness of sins all Christians needed if they were to be saved (PL 89:1004). Stephen at once dignified the Carolingian campaign as a holy war in defense of the papacy and by legitimating their subsequent conquest, reinforced the interpretation that the temporal sword derived its authority to loose and bind, from the spiritual sword of the papacy (MGH, SS 3:47). Bibliography: ■ Bretschneider, K. G. (ed.), Corpus Reformatorum, 86 vols. (Feilnbach 1990). ■ Luther, M., Luther’s Works, 55 vols. (St. Louis, Mo./Philadelphia, Pa. 1955–86) [LW]. ■ Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin 1877–1939) [MGH]. Richard Allington C. Modern Europe and America “Loosing and Binding” refers to Jesus’ promise to Peter that, with the “keys of the kingdom,” what he bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19). Because this text historically formed the basis of papal legislative and judicial authority, it predictably became a locus of contention during the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther, William Tyndall, and John Calvin all contested the way in which the biblical text had Authenticated | jared.m.halverson@vanderbilt.edu Download Date | 12/14/18 4:59 PM 1067 1068 Lope de Vega y Carpio, Félix been used to legitimate papal power, and interpreted the passage with a pastoral aim. New world colonization simply transplanted this Catholic/Protestant debate onto American soil. In 1729 a Catholic priest in Canada warned against conversion to Protestantism by asserting that the authority to bind and loose was given solely to Peter and his apostolic successors, not to the Protestant reformers. Calvinist Solomon Stoddard, meanwhile, claimed that clergymen in general possessed the keys of the kingdom and explained that binding and loosing referred to the “power to inflict Church Censures, and also to deliver from them.” Stoddard’s reputation as “Pope of the Connecticut Valley” might explain his defense of what he called the “coercive power” of the clergy, but the debates over closed communion, the Halfway Covenant, and a gathered church of visible saints evidenced widespread contention over the authority to bind and loose. In fact, in colonial America the passage in question was frequently cited in Protestant ordination sermons, often in tandem with Matt 18:18, which repeats the “binding and loosing” phrase but extends that authority beyond Peter alone. Ebenezer Frothingham, for example, cited both texts in a 1750 sermon to argue that the power to bind and loose was given to “the Church, as a Body,” and considered it “Madness and Folly to suppose that Christ should give Peter that Power as an Officer over the Church, in a single Capacity.” Recognizing that the legitimacy of the Protestant Reformation hinged on this interpretation he candidly admitted, “And if this be not the Truth, we conclude the Pope has the Right of the Case.” In short, when it came to the keys to bind and loose, Catholics simultaneously narrowed the scope of stewardship (who possessed them) and expanded the scope of authority (what they could do). Protestants, meanwhile, did the reverse. Authority was neither papal nor plenipotentiary, they argued; it was a priesthood of all believers and, as Presbyterian Samuel Buell said in 1754, the keys were “not of Doctrine but of Discipline.” Other interpretations of this phrase go beyond the traditional Catholic/Protestant debates over authority. Certain charismatics cite it (together with Matt 12:29) in the context of exorcism, concluding that believers have the authority to bind Satan or other demonic spirits. Others speak of “loosing” the spirit of revival, of healing, or of other spiritual gifts. Some suggest it refers to the application of scripture to contemporary contexts. The phrase has also become popular among Word of Faith teachers and within the prosperity gospel, in which believers are said to be able to “bind” God, angels, or other spiritual powers in order to receive desired blessings, heaven in turn “loosing” them from the bonds of such afflictions as sickness, obesity, or financial distress. The idea of “binding and loosing” is of paramount importance within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon). The phrase appears repeatedly in the faith’s canonical Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), in which it is linked with pronouncing patriarchal blessings (D&C 124:92–93), performing and documenting vicarious baptisms for the dead (D&C 127:7; 128:8–10), and “sealing” (the Mormon term for “binding”) families into eternal unions (D&C 132:46). Joseph Smith declared that this “sealing and binding power” constituted “the keys of the kingdom” (D&C 128:14), and claimed that it was bestowed upon him by the Old Testament prophet Elijah in a heavenly manifestation in 1836. Within Mormonism, it is through this authority that “all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations” are ensured “efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection of the dead” (D&C 132:7). Historically, then, whether claimed by Catholic Pope, Protestant clergy, or LDS prophet, the power to bind and loose is considered a signal honor granted God’s earthly representative(s). As Reverend Theophilus Hall said during an ordination sermon in 1765, “To be an ambassador of Jesus Christ, … and to be so cloathed with his divine authority, that if it be rightly exercised, ‘whatsoever he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he looseth on earth, shall be loosed in heaven:’ this, I say, is an honor, that far exceeds all worldly grandeur.” Bibliography: ■ Bowler, K., Blessed: A History of the American Prosperity Gospel (New York 2013). ■ Kling, D. W., The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times (New York 2004). [Esp. ch. 2] ■ The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Containing Revelations Given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet with Some Additions by His Successors in the Presidency of the Church (Salt Lake City, Utah 2013). ■ Yarn, D. H, Jr., “Sealing,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism (ed. D. H. Ludlow; New York 1992). Jared Halverson See also / Absolution; / Key, Keys; / Pope, Papacy Lope de Vega y Carpio, Félix A prolific Spanish dramatist, poet, and novelist, Félix Lope de Vega Carpio (Madrid, 1562–1635) is one of the most celebrated writers of the so-called Golden Age (16th to 17th cent.), a period of cultural and artistic flourishing in Spain. Acclaimed during his own lifetime as a playwright, he introduced crucial changes in the dramatic aesthetics of the period, creating the so called “New Comedy,” a form characterized by the transgression of the Aristotelian units, a mixture of tragedy and comedy, and dynamism of the plot. His most famous dramatic pieces are produced to this day on contemporary Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 16Authenticated | jared.m.halverson@vanderbilt.edu © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2018 Download Date | 12/14/18 4:59 PM