Peter the Representative of the Church: Augustine's Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

The text from the Bible most often used to support Roman Catholicism is Matthew 16:18-19, which reads, “and I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (NKJV). This text is the key text given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to lend support to the idea that the bishop of Rome is the supreme head of the Christian church on earth. The catechism states, “the Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. ‘The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.’ This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”[i] Note here the assertion that Jesus gave “him,” which is a reference to Peter, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. While bishops other than the bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor, are able to exercise the power of binding and loosing, they are only able to do so because of their communion with Peter and his successors, i.e., the subsequent bishops of Rome. Peter “alone” is thus placed in this position of authority over the entire church, and it is only in communion with him and his successors that  anyone else possesses any legitimate authority at all, let alone the ability to exercise the power of binding and loosing. The catechism also asserts that “‘the college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.’ As such, this college has ‘supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.’”[ii]

This article intends to answer one question: did Saint Augustine believe that Jesus gave to Peter alone, in his sole person and the persons of those later occupying the bishopric of Rome, the keys of the kingdom of heaven? This question is at the heart of Roman Catholicism. If Augustine would answer in the affirmative to this question, then one would be able to make a strong case that Saint Augustine was fundamentally a Roman Catholic theologian. However, all evidence suggests  that Augustine would answer the question just posed very much  in the negative. And this means that Augustine was not a Roman Catholic theologian. He was catholic, but not Roman.

Augustine believed that when Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, Jesus was giving the keys to the entire church because the apostle was the representative for the whole church. This may not immediately sound much different than what is said in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the difference can be better seen if we remember this distinction: Roman Catholicism teaches that it is in union with the sole person of Peter and his successors as the head of the church that the church, or more specifically, other bishops, may exercise the power of the keys. Augustine, in contrast to this, teaches that the keys were given to Peter as the representative of the church so that the keys were truly and wholly given, not to Peter in his sole person, but to the entire catholic church. Therefore, Peter and the bishops of Rome, for Saint Augustine, are not set apart by Christ as the head of the catholic church on earth. No one man on earth supremely holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven; the entire church on earth holds the keys. This concept is not merely inconsistent with what the catechism teaches; it is contrary to it.

 Looking at Augustine’s own words, in his book On Christian Combat, Augustine writes:

It is not without reason that, among all the Apostles, it is Peter who represents the Catholic Church. For the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to this Church when they were given to Peter. And when it was said to him, it was said to all: “Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.” The Catholic Church, therefore, ought willingly to forgive Her children, once they have made amends and have become strong in virtue. We see that pardon was granted to Peter, who represents the Church, and that, having made amends and become strong in virtue, he reached the glorious goal of suffering like our Lord. . . . Let us not heed those who deny that the Church of God can remit all sins. Failing to recognize in Peter the “rock,” these unhappy souls have accordingly lost possession of the keys; they are unwilling to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven have been given to the Church.[iii]

We have here stated directly by Augustine that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to the church when they were given to Peter. We should also note Augustine’s statement in this passage regarding another text often employed by Roman Catholics to show Peter’s unique role as the head of the Christian church on earth, John 21:15-17. With respect to this text, Augustine recognizes that when Jesus is speaking to Peter, He is speaking to the entire church, not as the church’s head, but as its representative. “And when it was said to him,” namely Peter, “it was said to all: ‘Lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.’”[iv]            

One should not mistake my assertion for arguing that Augustine does not believe the keys were given to Peter. Augustine certainly believes that they were. The question we are considering is whether the keys were given supremely and solely to Peter as the head of the Christian church. It is evident that Augustine does not think this is the case. In sermon 149, Augustine comments on  Matthew 16:18-19 with the following words:

It’s clear, you see, from many places in Scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, to you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven (Mt 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are these keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.[v]

Augustine locates the text that is “above all” in showing Peter to be, not the church’s head, but its representative, in Matthew 16:18-19. Augustine asks what I believe are clear rhetorical questions expecting a negative answer: “Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them?” One should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see that it would answer in the affirmative against Augustine.

Towards the end of this passage, however, Augustine seems to affirm what would be more reminiscent of the Roman Catholic perspective when he says, “what was given to him (Peter) alone was given to the whole Church.” (italics mine). It is clear that Augustine is making a statement regarding the fact that the words of Jesus are only addressed to Peter when He says “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is not addressing these words at this point and time to any of the other disciples present. He is speaking to Peter alone. But what is given to Peter alone in the text Augustine states is “given to the whole Church.” Augustine’s rhetorical question, “Or are these keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day?” shows his position clearly: the keys were not given to Peter in his sole person but were given to the whole church to minister the forgiveness of sins to all who would come to her. One can see the clear implication behind this perspective. For Augustine, there is no one person that is the supreme head of the church on earth.

This conclusion is also reached  by Edmund Hill, the translator and author of the notes for New City Press’ publication of Augustine’s Sermons in The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century. In note 4, commenting on Augustine’s words noted in footnote 5 of this article, he writes:

For Augustine, following Cyprian, and indeed in agreement with practically all the Fathers before Leo the Great a generation later, Jesus chooses one man, Peter, to represent the Church, in the great Petrine texts . . . in order to stress the unity of the Church. They did not interpret these texts as giving Peter a primacy of authority over the other apostles which would be inherited by the bishop of Rome, the Pope. Augustine certainly acknowledged the primacy of the Roman Church, which he commonly called the Apostolic See, over all the other Catholic Churches. But for him, and others like Ambrose of Milan, that primatial authority belonged to the Roman Church because it possessed the tombs of the two leading apostles, Peter and Paul, not because its bishop was the heir to a unique authority conferred by Christ on Peter. For Augustine, Peter represents the faith and unity of the universal Church, not the special place in this Church of the local Roman Church and its bishop.[vi]

Though the beliefs of other early church fathers aside from Augustine is not addressed in this article, it is not insignificant that Edmund Hill asserts Augustine’s view is not Augustine’s alone but is also the majority view of the early church up until the time of Leo the Great. The great Protestant church historian Philip Schaff holds this understanding as well. He writes in volume three of his History of the Christian Church that

Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, descended from the apostles, especially from Peter, through the succession of bishops; and according to the usage of his time he called the Roman church by eminence the sedes apostolica (apostolic see). But on the other hand, like Cyprian and Jerome, he lays stress upon the essential unity of the episcopate, and insists that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed not to a single man, but to the whole church, which Peter was only set to represent.[vii]

To conclude, Augustine believes the reason the church is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven is to minister the forgiveness of sins to people and exercise correction and discipline towards those in the community of the church. Augustine says as much in book seven of On Baptism:

Taking all these things, therefore, into consideration, I think that I am not rash in saying that there are some in the house of God after such a fashion as not to be themselves the very house of God, which is said to be built upon a rock, which is called the one dove, which is styled the beauteous bride without spot or wrinkle, and a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed, a well of living water, an orchard of pomegranates with pleasant fruits; which house also received the keys, and the power of binding and loosing. If any one shall neglect this house when it arrests and corrects him, the Lord says, “Let him be unto you as an heathen man and a publican.”[viii]

Here the “house” is clearly the church in context. In letting an unrepentant man be to her a “heathen man and a publican,” it is exercising the power of the keys given to her by Christ. This power is never connected by Augustine to being in communion with any one singular bishop, whether it be the bishop of Rome or Hippo or any other province.

The further question of whether Augustine’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 is correct need not concern us. Many people would say the rock is Peter’s confession, or even Christ Himself. My only aim here is to show that Augustine does not interpret Matthew 16:18-19 in the way the Catechism of the Catholic Church does. He does not affirm the Roman Catholic understanding that Jesus set apart Peter in his sole person as the head of the church. Augustine did not believe the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given exclusively and supremely to Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome, and that the only way for any other bishop to exercise the power of the keys was by being under the authority of and in communion with the bishop of Rome. Therefore, it cannot rightfully be said that Augustine is consistent with the teaching of modern Roman Catholicism and its supposedly infallible declarations.

Although Rome’s infallible declarations on the nature of the papacy come much later in church history, they assert that Peter’s office and role in the church was instituted even before Pentecost, and established by the very words of Christ. I believe it is fair and necessary, then, to ask whether that teaching, which is being claimed as coming from Jesus Himself, persisted and continued to be taught beyond the apostolic era. The witness of Augustine suggests the answer is clearly no, which means there is good reason to doubt the claims of the Roman Catholic Church on this matter. There are also good reasons to question the often held assumption that Augustine in some sense belongs to the Church of Rome. For if he departs from  the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this point, one so fundamental to Roman Catholic identity, it is hard to see how he can meaningfully said to belong to that communion. Peter and his successors in Rome being the head of the Christian church on earth is no side issue for Roman Catholicism; it is a defining issue and one of the most important theological ideas that distinguish Roman Catholicism from every other Christian body. Can one be said to be a historic Protestant, for example, if the person in question rejects justification by faith alone? Can one be said to be a confessional Lutheran if the person in question rejects Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as efficient means of grace? Can one who rejects the existence of an absolute decree of God be considered, in any meaningful sense, a Calvinist? In a similar fashion, I do not believe Augustine can be considered a Roman Catholic theologian, due to his lack of adherence to this core teaching of Rome.

[i] The Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 881.

[ii] Ibid., Section 883.

[iii] Augustine, “On Christian Combat” in the Fathers of the Church Series A New Translation, Vol. 2, trans. R. P. Russell (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc, 1947) 349-350.

[iv] See also Sermon 137 section 3 in Augustine, The Works of Saint Augustine: Sermons Vol. 4, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., ed. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A. (Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1992) 373. “You see, he says to Peter, whom he singles out to represent the Church, Peter, do you love me?...”

[v]  Augustine, The Works of Saint Augustine: Sermons Vol. 5, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., ed. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A. (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1992) 21.

[vi] Augustine, The Works of Saint Augustine: Sermons Vol. 4, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., ed. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A. (Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1992) 383.

[vii] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. III (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company) 307-308.

[viii] Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series Vol. 4, trans. Rev. Richard Stothert & Albert H. Newman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956) 511-512.

Jordon Staudenheimer is a pre-seminary student at Concordia Saint Paul University studying to become a pastor in the LCMS.