Hoo, boy, I didn’t really want to get involved in this, but. . . .
From a reading of the entire passage, it seems pretty obvious that Jesus was not talking to his disciples when he made the disparaging remarks that Mr. Hitt quotes:
[quote]Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. . . . [/quote]–Matthew 21:23
[quote=“In the piece in question, Jack Hitt”]One parable Jesus taught was this one, from Matthew: “What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go.” Jesus’ disciples all strenuously raised their hands. They knew the answer! The first son was the most virtuous! Whereupon Jesus (whose sense of humor is underrated) replied: “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you.”[/quote] (boldface italics are mine)
In the passage in Matthew, Jesus continues:
[quote]For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. [/quote]–21:32
[quote=“Jack Hitt, continuing,”]What does that parable mean? Frankly, I am not sure. I have my own thoughts, but they all feel tentative, and I can only hope I’m right. Jesus doesn’t accuse his disciples of being wrong; he just mocks the easiness of their quick answer.[/quote] (boldface italics are mine)
Jesus occasionally berates his disciples, but in this passage, Jesus is not addressing his disciples; rather, he is addressing the chief priests and the elders. These same chief priests and elders earlier in the passage had attempted to set a verbal trap for Jesus by asking, in verse 23, “By what authority are you doing these things?” Jesus turned the trap around on them, as you can see by reading the passage.
In modern parlance, Jesus is accusing the priests and elders of paying lip service to God. That’s a pretty normal accusation for a prophet to make:
Some of the things Jesus has been reported as saying are mysterious and can even be characterized as ambiguous, but in this particular passage, I fail to see the ambiguity or mystery to which Mr. Hitt refers.
But if Mr. Hitt’s point is that it’s not a good idea for politicians to stress religion too much, and especially if they have any notion they may be conducting bombing raids and making troop deployments at any time in the foreseeable future, then he gets no dispute from me.
I don’t quite get the “What Would Jesus Do?” thing, anyway. Assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus is who he is reported to be in the Gospels, then, in everything from the natural realm through the moral realm to the supernatural realm, I can’t do many of the things he did. Also, and again assuming the veracity of the Gospels for the sake of argument, I don’t have the same rights that he has. Whoever you may think Jesus was, I’m certain that I’m not the Messiah.
My point, if you’ve read this far:
Yeah, agreed, it ain’t cool for anyone, conservative or liberal, to distort anyone else’s message.
xp+10K