Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

[NotTooSmart]

I am going to take a slightly different approach and say that I think that an “unwarped” American fifth grader will have trouble with Mt 16:15-19. The reason being that We Americans use the term “Peter” and “Rock” in the verse in what is a rather confusing way to render the translation. (I don’t know if it is just as confusing in say - French or not) In my bible (NAB) there are extensive footnotes explaining this. Peter/Petros/Kepha rendering. For this reason I would not say that it is the best verse to choose for your experiment.
The confusion would be removed if the verse were properly translated with Rock being used in both places and the footnotes written to explain Tht "Rock is where we get Peter from.
Thus, Jesus names Simon “Rock” (Kepha) and, "upon this “Rock…” With such a transalation I believe that any reasonably intelligent 5th grader would deduce that Simon “Rock” is given the keys and authority to bind and loose.

This raises a question though - In your experiment does the 5th grader get to use an a footnoted bible or are you limiting him/her strictly to the text?

Peace
James

It occurred to me that this passage makes absolutely no sense to anybody unless they know that Peter means “rock”. So in one of my middle posts I amended this to assume the 5th grader knows this little tidbit.

However, the 5th grader does not know Greek and will get absolutely lost in one of these threads that I have seen where the Greek forms of this word are debated about.

So the fifth grader knows Peter means rock. Period.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh, if he knows that Peter means “Rock”, it really does make the text stand out, so to speak. Because at first, we know this man’s name is Simon. . .but Jesus changes the name to Peter. Most children of that age, being heavily concrete in their thinking and also prone to the type of verbal humor that involves puns, knock-knock jokes etc., will zero in on “Simon’s name change to Peter is setting (us, the readers) up for something.” Reading further, a pun to delight the heart of a 10-year old, “You’re Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.” Very clear. . .Peter is going to be the ‘rock’ that Christ builds a church on. Even more, he gets “semi-super powers” (binding and loosing).

Most of them if told (with no ‘warping’ having been done to them) that "Jesus is telling Simon He’s going to change Simon’s name to rock. . .in order to then say that He (Jesus) is building his church on the ‘rock’ of A. Simon’s faith or B. JESUS’s faith would be puzzled. Jesus is changing Simon’s name to Rock yet Simon isn’t really ‘the’ Rock? That wouldn’t make sense. Why change his name, then? Why talk about binding and loosing if everything is Jesus’ ‘faith’?

If told, "Jesus is changing Simon’s name to Rock. Then He says, AND upon this ‘rock’ I will build my church’, they’ll be nodding their heads, yes, they get it. Jesus changes the name to make the point that Simon is now going to be ‘peter the rock’ and it’s on “peter the rock’ that the Church will be built.” Cool, Jesus has a regular sense of humor, a nice way of singling out Simon by giving him a macho nickname that actually turns out to make him the leader of the Church. . .Much as children (or even adults) will give nicknames like “Boss” or “fearless leader” or “Captain Catchphrase” etc. to designate a role.

Compare to the other times God ‘changed’ a person’s name in Scripture. Abram became Abraham. . .Saul became Paul. Both involved the bestowal of power from God upon the named man. . .Abraham became the Father of Nations instead of an old, childless wanderer in the desert. Paul became the apostle to the Gentiles instead of the scourge of a bunch of wayward cultists.

Are we to believe that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter just for the heck of it? Not giving Peter any sort of role? Not charging him to change his life? That the whole ‘rock’ idea was nothing more than Jesus saying, “Simon, I’m gonna call you Rocky. Oh, and by the way, upon my testimony (which just happens to sound like ‘rock’ but is not in any way to be confused with my talking about YOU, Rocky my man) I’ll build my church which you’ll know, about 2000 years from now, by the way that they interpret the Scriptures which I myself am not writing as Jesus and which won’t be put into canon for 350 years after my death, nor read by the masses for another 1400-1500 years or so after THAT. . .oh, the binding and loosing? That’s just for you 11. . .for now. Then it will disappear. No biggie.”

 

[NotTooSmart]

Oh, if he knows that Peter means “Rock”, it really does make the text stand out, so to speak. Because at first, we know this man’s name is Simon. . .but Jesus changes the name to Peter. Most children of that age, being heavily concrete in their thinking and also prone to the type of verbal humor that involves puns, knock-knock jokes etc., will zero in on “Simon’s name change to Peter is setting (us, the readers) up for something.” Reading further, a pun to delight the heart of a 10-year old, “You’re Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church.” Very clear. . .Peter is going to be the ‘rock’ that Christ builds a church on. Even more, he gets “semi-super powers” (binding and loosing).

Most of them if told (with no ‘warping’ having been done to them) that "Jesus is telling Simon He’s going to change Simon’s name to rock. . .in order to then say that He (Jesus) is building his church on the ‘rock’ of A. Simon’s faith or B. JESUS’s faith would be puzzled. Jesus is changing Simon’s name to Rock yet Simon isn’t really ‘the’ Rock? That wouldn’t make sense. Why change his name, then? Why talk about binding and loosing if everything is Jesus’ ‘faith’?

If told, "Jesus is changing Simon’s name to Rock. Then He says, AND upon this ‘rock’ I will build my church’, they’ll be nodding their heads, yes, they get it. Jesus changes the name to make the point that Simon is now going to be ‘peter the rock’ and it’s on “peter the rock’ that the Church will be built.” Cool, Jesus has a regular sense of humor, a nice way of singling out Simon by giving him a macho nickname that actually turns out to make him the leader of the Church. . .Much as children (or even adults) will give nicknames like “Boss” or “fearless leader” or “Captain Catchphrase” etc. to designate a role.

Compare to the other times God ‘changed’ a person’s name in Scripture. Abram became Abraham. . .Saul became Paul. Both involved the bestowal of power from God upon the named man. . .Abraham became the Father of Nations instead of an old, childless wanderer in the desert. Paul became the apostle to the Gentiles instead of the scourge of a bunch of wayward cultists.

Are we to believe that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter just for the heck of it? Not giving Peter any sort of role? Not charging him to change his life? That the whole ‘rock’ idea was nothing more than Jesus saying, “Simon, I’m gonna call you Rocky. Oh, and by the way, upon my testimony (which just happens to sound like ‘rock’ but is not in any way to be confused with my talking about YOU, Rocky my man) I’ll build my church which you’ll know, about 2000 years from now, by the way that they interpret the Scriptures which I myself am not writing as Jesus and which won’t be put into canon for 350 years after my death, nor read by the masses for another 1400-1500 years or so after THAT. . .oh, the binding and loosing? That’s just for you 11. . .for now. Then it will disappear. No biggie.”

Yup I can see that too.

Now again I observe that the fifth grade interpretation of this passage is not the same as what I am being told here.

I like the fifth grade version better.

Anyway, bedtime.

 

[JRKH]

Does anyone disagree and think the fifth grader would naturally think “this rock” means Peter’s profession of faith?

No - I don’t think that the inital reading supports a jump from the person of Peter to Peters faith. I think that a fifth Grader, if asked, would make the connection that Peter recieved these blessings and authority BECAUSE of his profession.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

It occurred to me that this passage makes absolutely no sense to anybody unless they know that Peter means “rock”. So in one of my middle posts I amended this to assume the 5th grader knows this little tidbit.

However, the 5th grader does not know Greek and will get absolutely lost in one of these threads that I have seen where the Greek forms of this word are debated about.

So the fifth grader knows Peter means rock. Period.

I must have missed that part.
apologies.

If Rock is used in both places I don’t think a average fifth grader is going to have any trouble figuring this out as Peter getting authority.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Will they understand that this verse speaks of apostolic succession?
Will they understand that this verse means that there is only one Catholic church and that any other group that seeks to call itself a church is actually only an ecclesiastical fellowship?
Will they understand that though they may have been baptized into the body of Christ, that unless they are also in communion with the Holy See in Rome that they are not members of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

I would have to say that none of these things were put forth in either this thread or in the post that this thread is based upon.

I haven’t put it to the test yet with my 5th graders, but I don’t think they will say any of those things. And yet, I’m told that all of that is also in that one little passage – a passage that even a fourth or fifth grader can understand. Might it be that they will indeed prove to understand it, but won’t see these things I’ve mentioned because in reality they aren’t in that passage?

I don’t know anyone who would assert that all you listed above is explicit in this one passage. That does not mean that this passage, along with others, does not point to the things you list.
The more important point, for this Thread, (correct me if I am wrong NTS) is whether or not a 5th Grader would see this passage as pointing to Peter’s confession as opposed to Peter the man.
Finally I must ask if your 5th graders fit the parameter of having not been “Warped”, to use the OP’s term, by any christian tradition.

Peace
James

 

[dianaiad]

Each 5th grader may have a different interpretation of the verse. Remember that the individual is the least qualified to interpret Scripture.

Say what?

I always get a giggle when I hear that one: 'the individual is the least qualified to interpret Scripture," when what is meant by that is “you, as an individual, have no right to have a idfferent opinion about this than I, a different individual have…especially since I, as an individual, got my opinion straight from the proclamation of a bunch of other individuals who individually interpreted the scriptures, found like minded souls, and decided that since they agreed with each other, what they thought, as a group of individuals, trumped anything you think.”

 

[dianaiad]

From another thread I read an interesting quote:

For the sake of simplicity I want to confine this thread to Matthew 16:15-19. Too many topics lead to too much clutter. Plus this verse is a foundation verse of Catholicism.

So my question is.

How will a neutral fifth grader (remember the statement has the word “any” so this would be a fifth grader who has not had his mind warped by either Catholicism or any version of Protestantism…pardon the verb warped…that is what comes to my feeble mind) interpret Matthew 16:15-19? What skills are you assuming from this fifth grader?

Oh…I am not terribly interested in another debate on Matthew 16:15-19. I don’t have that type of attention span.

Well, I, as a fifth grader (it’s been a very long time since I was a fifth grader, and it’s even been a long time since my kids were fifth graders. So I’m taking a stab at this.)

It’s called…diagramming sentences. Remember that? I used to have to do it. They’ve gotten back to that fairly recently, even though for quite a few years many people abandoned it.

So…when I diagram this verse, and attempt to figure out what ‘rock’ refers back to, I couldn’t get past that “And I say unto you, that thou art Peter” is a paranthetical observation and a pun…and a reminder to Peter of exactly what is important: “rock” refers back, not to Peter, but to the revelation that confirmed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That is honestly the first thing I thought when I read it. It’s the conclusion that a very great number of people besides me have come to–including people who, in general, are far smarter than fifth graders.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Say what?

I always get a giggle when I hear that one: 'the individual is the least qualified to interpret Scripture," when what is meant by that is “you, as an individual, have no right to have a idfferent opinion about this than I, a different individual have…especially since I, as an individual, got my opinion straight from the proclamation of a bunch of other individuals who individually interpreted the scriptures, found like minded souls, and decided that since they agreed with each other, what they thought, as a group of individuals, trumped anything you think.”

Catholics have been convinced, by grace or study, that the Church is the legitimate receptor of the promises of Jesus.

We submit to the opinion of the Church because we believe it is true.

Unlike protestants and Joseph Smith, we don’t make it up as we go along.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Well, I, as a fifth grader (it’s been a very long time since I was a fifth grader, and it’s even been a long time since my kids were fifth graders. So I’m taking a stab at this.)

It’s called…diagramming sentences. Remember that? I used to have to do it. They’ve gotten back to that fairly recently, even though for quite a few years many people abandoned it.

So…when I diagram this verse, and attempt to figure out what ‘rock’ refers back to, I couldn’t get past that “And I say unto you, that thou art Peter” is a paranthetical observation and a pun…and a reminder to Peter of exactly what is important: “rock” refers back, not to Peter, but to the revelation that confirmed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That is honestly the first thing I thought when I read it. It’s the conclusion that a very great number of people besides me have come to–including people who, in general, are far smarter than fifth graders.

I remember diagramming sentences. It was in 7th and 8th grades for me, but close enough. I gave this a stab on the sentence in verse 18, and I honestly would not know from the diagram (at least a mental diagram) what “this rock” refers to.

There are two subsentences that Jesus is saying unto Peter, and at first glance it looks like these two subsentences are totally independend and unrelated. Furthermore from the structure of this sentence, it appears that “this rock” is totally ambiguous. Perhaps Jesus is pointing to a rock and referring to a future construction project. I honestly do not know from the structure of this sentence.

But when the information is supplied “Peter means rock” and “Jesus is changing Peter’s name” (which a fifth grader should grasp) well that changes everything.

Instead of two independent, unrelated subsentences we now have

SubSentence 1: “You are Peter” (rock…name changed):

SubSentence 2: "Upon this rock I will build my church…

Good grief, it seems to me the natural thing here is to relate 'this rock" in subsentence 2 to Peter (rock name changed) in subsentence 1. Otherwise, I have a sentence that really does not make sense unless Jesus was pointing to a rock in reference to a future construction project.

But I didn’t do all that well in 8th grade English. I did better in math.

Or course 5th graders don’t even diagram sentences. At least they didn’t when I was in 5th grade. They would just hear Peter (rock name changed)…this rock (must be Peter) and go from there. At least that is what I think they would do.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I would have to say that none of these things were put forth in either this thread or in the post that this thread is based upon.

I don’t know anyone who would assert that all you listed above is explicit in this one passage. That does not mean that this passage, along with others, does not point to the things you list.
The more important point, for this Thread, (correct me if I am wrong NTS) is whether or not a 5th Grader would see this passage as pointing to Peter’s confession as opposed to Peter the man.
Finally I must ask if your 5th graders fit the parameter of having not been “Warped”, to use the OP’s term, by any christian tradition.

Peace
James

The thread actually refers back to this quote in another thread;

Add to this the inability to comprehend Bible passages that any fourth or fifth grader could explain what is actually written, such as John 6:40-66, Mt. 16:15-19, John 20:21-23 and Mt. 19:16, and it is actually mind -boggling! Our God is an Awesome God. Granting grace and understanding to whom it pleases Him!

In its original context, this quote referred to…well Protestants.

The problem is that this Protestant has absolutely no problem with what y’all are saying the fifth graders would come up with. Seems intuitive to me too.

However my mind now has a disconnect in that this verse has been used on these forumst to support the positions that Grace Seeker mentions. I would add to that list Will they understand that this verse means the pope of the Roman Catholic church is incapable of error when teaching on faith and morals (that is where I have also seen this verse used).

Will they understand that this verse speaks of apostolic succession?
Will they understand that this verse means that there is only one Catholic church and that any other group that seeks to call itself a church is actually only an ecclesiastical fellowship?
Will they understand that though they may have been baptized into the body of Christ, that unless they are also in communion with the Holy See in Rome that they are not members of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

It seems to me that when the passage is used to support these concepts, that this is as much of a departure from the fifth grade understanding of this passage as “this rock means Peter’s confession of faith” (or something similar). So then back to the original quote, it appears to me that we have “pot meet kettle”.

As for me, I like the fifth grade interpretations of this passage as described here much better than any of the other interpretations that I have heard on these forums by either amateur Catholic or amateur Protestant apologists.

 

[JRKH]

The thread actually refers back to this quote in another thread;

Understood

In its original context, this quote referred to…well Protestants.

The problem is that this Protestant has absolutely no problem with what y’all are saying the fifth graders would come up with. Seems intuitive to me too.

However my mind now has a disconnect in that this verse has been used on these forumst to support the positions that Grace Seeker mentions. I would add to that list Will they understand that this verse means the pope of the Roman Catholic church is incapable of error when teaching on faith and morals (that is where I have also seen this verse used).

It seems to me that when the passage is used to support these concepts, that this is as much of a departure from the fifth grade understanding of this passage as “this rock means Peter’s confession of faith” (or something similar). So then back to the original quote, it appears to me that we have “pot meet kettle”.

As for me, I like the fifth grade interpretations of this passage as described here much better than any of the other interpretations that I have heard on these forums by either amateur Catholic or amateur Protestant apologists.

Yes I can see and readily agree that one cannot fully support all of these issues from this verse alone. However that does not mean that this verse is not a vital component of understanding these other concepts. For instance, Keys. A fifth Grader, or even many adults, today would likely miss the full significance of the Keys in this verse. The fact that Keys were a sign of office, given by a king to his chief steward in those days. That said, keys are connected with the idea of Binding and loosing (or opening and shutting-up). These are things that become clear only by further study. When these other things ARE learned then the passage makes perfect sense as Jesus naming Peter head of the Church.
I agree that, without these understandings, the best we can do is say that Jesus was talking to and about Peter, and that He gave Peter Keys to heaven, and Authority to "Bind and Loose’ (whatever that means).

Peace
James

 

[PJM]

=Grace Seeker;5764369]Will they understand that this verse speaks of apostolic succession?
Will they understand that this verse means that there is only one Catholic church and that any other group that seeks to call itself a church is actually only an ecclesiastical fellowship?

Will they understand that though they may have been baptized into the body of Christ, that unless they are also in communion with the Holy See in Rome that they are not members of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

I haven’t put it to the test yet with my 5th graders, but I don’t think they will say any of those things. And yet, I’m told that all of that is also in that one little passage – a passage that even a fourth or fifth grader can understand. Might it be that they will indeed prove to understand it, but won’t see these things I’ve mentioned because in reality they aren’t in that passage?

Excellent response:thumbsup:

But my orginal statement [as my old memory recalls it] was limited to "the truth: not going so far, [in fact I think I even said as much?] about the “fullness of the truth.”

Catholic fustrations stem from responses that even ignore, deny, alter, the basic truth, much less the fuller and deeper meaning, which I understand God can and does withold from those He choses. My statement is that forth and fifth graders will be able to tell us what the words SAY, not necessarly what “they mean.” Not quite the same thing

Love and prayers friend!

 

[dianaiad]

Catholics have been convinced, by grace or study, that the Church is the legitimate receptor of the promises of Jesus.

We submit to the opinion of the Church because we believe it is true.

Unlike protestants and Joseph Smith, we don’t make it up as we go along.

Ah, but you are changing the claim here. Can you see how?

 

[Esdra]

Dear all,

acutally your question, nottoosmart, is fairly easy to answer:

Yes, I am sure that the average 5th grader can Interpret the mentioned bible-verse.

BUT, a catholic 5th Grader will interpret it, (as long as he knows something about his faith, this also means, that he must know that peter means rock in greek) the catholic way.

A Protestant 5th grader, however, will interpret it the protestant way. It’s as easy as that.

Nearly every bible-verse is a matter of Interpretation. And this is, in my opinion, one of the problems, why the catholics and protestants dont understand each other!

Best wishes,
esdra

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t care about fifth graders, I teach sixth graders!

 

[JonNC]

I don’t care about fifth graders, I teach sixth graders!

Bet you care id fifth grade teachers don’t do their job.

Jon

 

[PJM]

=Esdra;6604161]Dear all,

acutally your question, nottoosmart, is fairly easy to answer:

Yes, I am sure that the average 5th grader can Interpret the mentioned bible-verse.

BUT, a catholic 5th Grader will interpret it, (as long as he knows something about his faith, this also means, that he must know that peter means rock in greek) the catholic way.

A Protestant 5th grader, however, will interpret it the protestant way. It’s as easy as that.

Nearly every bible-verse is a matter of Interpretation. And this is, in my opinion, one of the problems, why the catholics and protestants dont understand each other!

Best wishes,
esdra

And yet logic affirms there can be only a single truth. As God would have it tha truth always and everytime on Biblical issues, nd on faith and morals resides righ where Jesus Himself placed it and guarentees it. John Chapter 14 and 17.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

For those of us who are Catholic: as Catholics in full communion with Holy Mother Church, we believe that she is the one authority able to infallibly interpret Scripture. Therefore, this discussion, while somewhat interesting, is moot.

Also, isn’t there something that says that Catholic Bibles are required to have footnotes?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

At my school ALL the fifth grade teachers do their job—it’s the kids that don’t!

That’s why I just crack up at this “school choice now! Vouchers!” mentality…around here, shoot, you could put these kids at a $1,000 per month ivy league school next door to Harvard and if they refuse to do their work, parents don’t read with or support them, divorced and fighting angry parents abound, the kids are plugged in to video games, go to bed at 11pm every night and generally don’t care, good luck with that! lol

Bet you care id fifth grade teachers don’t do their job.

Jon