The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock by William Webster

The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock Reviews

• 
  Drew

  # Webster's Three-Step Dance
  
  A majority of the arguments in Webster's book, *The Matthew 16 Controversy*, depend on a three-step dance that tortures historical evidence. Webster performs his dance like this:
  
  - First, Webster selectively curates primary sources to build a narrative
  - Second, Webster injects a false dichotomy into early church theology
  - Third, Webster weds his curated primary sources with his false dichotomy to reach an anti-Catholic conclusion
  
  In each of the first two steps, Webster commits a crucial error. In the first step, Webster leaves out early church writings that clearly contradict the narrative he desires to build. In the second step, Webster errs by making little attempt to understand early church theology on its own terms. Rather, Webster's arguments implicitly assume false dichotomies that are foreign to a slightly-nuanced understanding of early church theology.
  
  The first step in Webster's three-step dance is ironic because his book is stuffed with accusations that everyone else, besides himself, takes the early church fathers out of context. According to Webster, Catholic apologists are unreliable because "the actual references from the fathers [they cite] are very selective, often omitting important citations of their overall works that demonstrate a view contrary to that which is being proposed" (*The Matthew 16 Controversy*, 21). Below I will show two unequivocal examples of Webster himself committing this exact error. Though I only provide two examples, Webster commits this error in nearly all of his arguments.
  
  Given his background, it is understandable that Webster possesses an ignorance of early church theology that gives rise to the second step of his three-step dance. Webster's credentials with respect to early church theology are much like my own: Webster has an undergraduate business degree from a third-rate school in Texas. That is, Webster has no relevant credentials. I am comfortable insulting his credentials because Webster and I went to the same university, albeit decades apart from one another. Neither of us majored in History, Biblical Studies, Ancient Languages, or Christian Theology, and so neither of us should be trusted to wade through primary sources to arrive at an accurate understanding of the theology of the early church. Unlike Webster, I recognize my lack of credentials and prefer to defer historical study to scholars. For instance, I defer to the prominent Protestant scholar Gerhard Kittle, who writes of Matthew 16: "It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle to be the foundation of His *ecclesia*. To this extent **Roman Catholic Exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected**." (*Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume VI*, 108). I also defer to the Protestant scholar Donald A. Hagner, who writes of Matthew 16: "The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from *Petros* to *petra* required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word *kepha* occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built ... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (*World Biblical Commentary, Volume 33*, 470). Why is it that a group of three protestants--Webster, Kittle, and Hagner--each study the same primary sources and come to wildly different conclusions. Beyond maintaining a mere difference of opinion, Hagner says that the position that Webster holds is outdated and disingenuous and Kittle says that the position is downright impermissible. If someone put a gun to my head and I was made to choose between the reliability of the early church scholarship of 1. A Protestant man with an undergraduate business degree from a third-rate university, and 2. Protestant scholars that are widely respected as experts in early church history, theology, and Biblical languages ... personally, I'll put my money on the latter.
  
  The objection might be raised: If Webster doesn't have the credentials required to accurately build an early church theology from primary sources, then why do I--having the exact same credentials--have the right to criticize Webster? Shouldn't I leave criticism to scholars? While I'm sure that criticism from scholars would be better than my own, I do believe that I am qualified to write this critique. The credentials required to study history are far different from the credentials required to point out when someone has made an error in studying history. People who don't know how to cook can still distinguish an overcooked steak made by a chef at Applebee's from a filet cooked by a chef at a Michelin 3-star restaurant. People who are not musicians can still distinguish Yoko Ono screeching from Tristan und Isolde sung by a master vocalist. Likewise, I don't need credentials in history to reliably identify when Webster does a poor job studying history. If Webster says "Origen didn't believe in Peter's primacy" and I can produce a quote in which Origen clearly professes a belief in Peter's primacy, it doesn't take a PhD in Religious Studies to put the two together and point out that Webster is mistaken. The credentials required of me are similar to those required of a diner at Applebee's who points out that the food is no good. That is, it is a far simpler task to identify faulty analysis than it is to arrive at the correct analysis. In this review, I am merely identifying faulty analyses. In his book, Webster attempts to arrive at correct historical analyses, but I implore him to leave such work to scholars.
  
  Below, I'll dissect two examples of Webster's three-step dance: his analysis of Origen and his analysis of Ambrose. As stated above, these are not the book's only two examples of Webster dancing his three-step dance; I do not exaggerate when I say that the majority of the arguments in the book commit these same errors.
  
  # Origen
  
  ## Step One: Webster Selectively Curates Evidence
  
  In his section on Origen, Webster begins by acknowledging the Origen quote that is most often used by Catholics in defense of their interpretation of Matthew 16:
  
  >Look at the great foundation of that Church at the very solid rock upon which Christ has founded the Church. Wherefore the Lord says: 'Ye of little faith, why have you doubted?'
  
  "But," Webster argues, "[Origen] does not mean this in the Roman Catholic sense ... Quotes such as the one given above are isolated from his other statements about Peter and his actual interpretation of Matthew 16:18 thereby inferring that he taught something which he did not teach" (*The Matthew 16 Controversy*, 29). Webster then claims that he will put the above quote in its "proper" context by quoting from Origen's other, more lengthy, commentary on Matthew 16. Webster quotes the following from Origen:
  
  >And if we too have said like Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, 'Thou art Peter,' etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ ... But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each of the apostles? ... Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? ... 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' If any one says this to Him he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname 'rock' who are the imitators of Christ, ... But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters ... And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, 'Thou art Peter' etc., down to the words, 'prevail against it.' Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; ... Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock.
  
  ## Step Two: Webster Invents a False Dichotomy
  
  Next Webster introduces a false dichotomy. According to Webster, we must choose between the following two options. Either:
  
  1. Origen believed that other Christians participate in the gifts given to Peter in Matthew 16
  2. Origen believed in Peter's primacy
  
  That is, Webster holds that if you believe the first to be true, then you must accept that the second is untrue. The introduction of this false dichotomy is subtle because Webster introduces it implicitly in his conclusion.
  
  ## Step Three: Webster Weds His Selectively Curated Evidence With His False Dichotomy
  
  Reconciling Origen's commentary on Matthew 16 with the dichotomy above, Webster concludes that Origen must not have believed in Peter's primacy. After all, Origen clearly stated that all believers participate in the gifts that Jesus gave to Peter in Matthew 16. Webster concludes: "Origen does not [believe that Peter is the foundation of the church] in a Roman Catholic sense ... In [Origen's] mind, Peter is simply representative of all true believers and what was promised to Peter is given to all believers who truly follow Christ. They all become what Peter is" (*The Matthew 16 Controversy*, 29).
  
  ## Rebuttal of Webster's Caricature of Origen
  
  Let's rewind back and walk one more time, step-by-step, through Webster's dance, this time with a critical eye.
  
  We'll start by outlining Webster's goal. Webster wants to prove that Origen did not believe that Peter possessed special authority or power. The problem Webster faces, however, is that Origen's commentary on Matthew 16 doesn't explicitly make this point; Webster has to infer it into the passage. Origen's commentary on Matthew 16 merely makes the point that "all Christians share in the gifts that were given to Peter in Matthew 16." However, it is important to note that Origen never says that all Christians participate in the gifts of Matthew 16 *in the same way* that Peter participates in them (in fact, Origen makes the opposite claim in other writings). The aim of Origen's Matthew 16 commentary is to make a statement about all non-Peter believers, not to make a statement about Peter. Correspondingly, Origen doesn't say anything that draws a comparison between the manner in which Peter participates in the Matthew 16 promise and the manner in which all other believers do. Despite Origen's failure to make such comparative statements, Webster has no trouble jumping to the conclusion that "in [Origen's] mind Peter is simply representative of all true believers and what was promised to Peter is given to all believers ... they all become what Peter is" (*The Matthew 16 Controversy*, 29). But this is a gross mischaracterization of what Origen actually said. Origen never uses the phrase "simply representative," or anything like it, to describe Peter. Rather--this sentiment is inserted into the passage by Webster.
  
  Webster might retort: Sure, Origen doesn't *explicitly* state that all believers are equal to Peter, but it is implied when Origen says that all believers are "Peters" by virtue of their participation in the promises of Matthew 16. And I might agree that this is a reasonable inference *if* we possessed no other writings from Origen. But we do. And the conclusions that Webster draws are expressly forbidden by Origen's other writings.
  
  **Step One: Webster Omits Origen's Writings That Teach Peter's Primacy**
  
  The passage from Origen's own hand that unravels Webster's caricature of Origen is this:
  
  >... if we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things that seem to be common to Peter ... a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in only one; for they do not reach so high a stage of power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens (*Commentary on Matthew 13:31*)
  
  There it is: Origen believes that many bind and loose, but that Peter does it in a special way. Origen believes that Peter has a "preeminence" compared to the "second class" of Christians. Origen believes that other Christians "do not reach so high a stage of power as Peter." While these statements are completely compatible with Origen's commentary on Matthew 16, they are incompatible with Webster's interpretation of it.
  
  **Step Two: Webster's Misunderstandings of Early Church Theology Give Rise to a False Dichotomy**
  
  As mentioned above, Webster's analysis of Origen is built on the false dichotomy that only one of the following can be true:
  
  1. Origen believed that other Christians participate in the gifts given to Peter in Matthew 16
  2. Origen believed in Peter's primacy
  
  We've now read passages from Origen in which he affirms both. In fact, Catholic theology affirms both (*Catechism of the Catholic Church*, Paragraph 553). It would be strange for the Catholic Church to teach otherwise given that Jesus gives the power of "binding and loosing" to people other than Peter in Matthew 18. Similarly, Origen does not say that Peter is not the rock upon which the church is built, Origen merely says that Peter is not the only rock upon which the church is built. But no Catholic in their right mind would claim otherwise because Eph. 2:19-22 says the same thing. If Webster's understanding of Catholic theology was even slightly nuanced, then he would know that proving Point 1 is not tantamount to disproving Point 2.
  
  To further demonstrate the absurdity of Webster's conclusion on Origen, I will imitate Webster's erroneous analysis of Origen in an analysis of scripture. Webster's analysis of Origen's belief on the primacy can be summarized as:
  
  - "Peter was given gifts in Matthew 16. All Christians also participate in those gifts. Therefore, Jesus gave all Christians the very same authority that he gave to Peter."
  
  I could make the similar argument that:
  
  - "1 Co. 3:11 says that Jesus is the foundation upon which the church is built. Eph. 2:20 says that the apostles are the foundation upon which
  the church is built. Therefore the apostles possess the very same position in the church that Jesus possesses."
  
  The absurdity of this argument is easily spotted. A slightly nuanced understanding of the above two verses allows for the possibility that Jesus and the apostles are both foundations, but not in the exact same way as one another. That is, it does not contradict either passage to say that Jesus is the Church's foundation in a manner that is superior to that of the apostles.
  
  Another dimension in which Webster demonstrates his ignorance of the early church is his accusation that certain Catholics are dishonest in their treatment of Origen. Webster criticizes these Catholics for failing to reference Origen's lengthy commentary on Matthew 16 (the one that Webster quotes in his book). Webster says that failure to reference this commentary is "a glaring omission given the importance of the passage and the fact that it is easily accessible ... One can only conclude that the authors purposefully omitted the passage because it is antithetical to the position they are seeking to establish." Since Webster is a fan of dichotomies, I'll present one about him, though this one is not a false dichotomy. Only one of the following can be true:
  
  1. Webster lacks basic knowledge about the early church
  2. Webster is knowingly committing slander
  
  Personally, I suspect that the former is true. For the benefit of readers that are not well-versed in the early church fathers: the reason that Catholics don't appeal to Origen's commentary on Matthew 16 is that Origen wrote this commentary after being excommunicated. In *Matthew 16 Controversy*, Webster writes a brief bio on Origen, yet Webster somehow fails to mention two well-known and important events: That Origen was excommunicated from the church, and that Origen was anathemized for teaching heresy. Given these events, it shouldn't come as a surprise to Webster that Catholics don't appeal to Origen's post-excommunication writings when trying to understand the orthodox theology of the early church. Webster is either wholly ignorant of these well-known facts of church history, or else Webster is aware of them and chooses to engage in slander anyway, hoping that his readers will be unaware of these details. As demonstrated above, however, even after being excommunicated, Origen never recants his belief in the primacy.
  
  **Step Three: Webster Draws a Faulty Conclusion Based on Partial Evidence and a Logical Fallacy**
  
  Webster's claim that "in [Origen's] mind, Peter is simply representative" (*The Matthew 16 Controversy*, 29) is predicated on 1. the omission of a passage in which Origen thrice affirms Peter's primacy, and 2. the construction of a false dichotomy in which Origen's belief that others share in Peter's gifts is tantamount to a denial of Peter's primacy. If we take into account Origen's writings and early church theology in their entirety, Webster's caricature of Origen unravels.
  
  # Ambrose
  
  ## Step One: Webster Selectively Curates Evidence
  
  In his section on Ambrose, Webster begins by acknowledging the Ambrose quote that he claims is most often used by Catholics in defense of their interpretation of Matthew 16:
  
  >It is to Peter himself that He says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.' Where Peter is, there is the Church.
  
  However, Webster counters: "If we divorce this one sentence from its context and from the rest of his comments on Peter in other writings, we could certainly lean towards [the interpretation that Peter and his successors are both rocks and the foundation of the universal church]. However, Ambrose made other comments on Peter and ..