Joseph Girzone's A Portrait of Jesus Review

Joseph F. Girzone A Portrait of Jesus (Note: while I’ve read more of this book, for the sake of keeping this short, only 3 chapters have been chosen randomly for the review. For the sake of reading ease, I've chosen to use 'Jesus' throughout, though I generally prefer to use a variant of His Hebrew name.) Joseph Girzone is a retired Roman Catholic priest who has written several popular books. Reading the comments found on the back cover of A Portrait of Jesus, he is praised as someone who ‘draws on the wisdom of the centuries’, ‘writes with humanity and spirit’, ‘guides readers toward a more satisfying religious experience’ and who defines ‘just what intimacy with God actually looks like.’ Foreword: There is a real longing expressed here for ‘ecumenism’ or unity between different religious perspectives. There is an example described of this kind of hoped for unity between the authour’s Roman Catholic congregation and an Orthodox Jewish congregation. This is confusing because the belief system of the Roman Catholic church (who are seen by Orthodox Jews as idol worshippers) is completely against the belief system of the Orthodox Jewish religion. How can such complete opposites in belief have ‘unity’? He mentions that many pastors and priests were surprised to hear his talks about Jesus, that they had been taught theology and Scripture in Seminary, but not Jesus. He writes, “People have a hunger for Jesus and for a genuine understanding of what His Good News really is, whether they are Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or even those who cannot identify with any faith. Jesus’ Good News responds to the deepest needs of the human soul, no matter what the person’s belief or lack of belief, and is intimately tied up with our understanding of who Jesus really is and how He thinks and feels.’ He doesn’t explain how a Hindu or a Buddhist or one with no faith can know their hunger is for Jesus. It seems to describe the belief that ‘all paths lead to God’, but that some of the people who are currently Hindus, Buddhist or atheists just don’t know that yet. There is an interesting comment that ‘We are in the process of reevaluating all our previously accepted values, the very pillars of our civilization.’ This is true, but bear in mind that it is the same message that Rick Warren presents. ‘Emergent church’ pastors such as Brian MacLaren have been saying for years that ‘everything must change.’ This statement sets the tone for the book, that it will present information which will challenge our previous assumptions of who Jesus is and what He came for. Bear in mind that Jesus is first of all obedient to God (even to what was a cursed and shameful death) and also that He fully upheld Scripture (the Old Testament) as accurately describing Who He is and what He came for. Anything anyone else says should challenge our unscriptural assumptions and point us clearly to the Bible as the written Word of the One who is the Word made flesh. Chapter 1: The people of Jesus day were definitely burdened with laws that regulated every detail of their life. Not only under Roman oppression, they had the good Law of God (read Psalm 119) twisted and distorted by the hundreds of added traditions of the elders, which had often over-ruled God’s simple commands. He writes that there are 613 commandments in Scripture and 365 prohibitions, but this is wrong. There are 613 laws, divided into 248 positive ones (you shall love the Lord your God) and 365 prohibitions (do not commit adultery). Of the 613, some are for men only, some for women only, some only at particular times of life (marriage, birth, death), and many for priests only. This is one of many instances where you should be able to expect, as someone who teaches and studies the Bible, that he be aware of what is and isn’t correct. Throughout the book, he often gets small details (and sometimes not so small) of the Bible just plain wrong. He is also inaccurate in implying that these 613 laws were the main cause of the people’s burden. The ‘law’ that he says Paul described as the ‘unbearable burden that no human being could carry’ was what was commonly called ‘the law of Moses’ and included the enormous burden of these man-made additions to God’s Law. This is important to note, because the claim follows that Jesus came to set people free from ‘the law’ implying that it was God’s Law that was the burden. Jesus did not come to set people ‘free’ from God’s Law. Also, at no time did He ever disobey any part of God’s Law. There is evidence that at times He ignored the added laws of the elders, especially where they conflicted with the original intent of God’s own instruction. If Jesus had disobeyed even the smallest of God’s laws, He would have been disqualified from being the sinless sacrifice for our own sins. Sin is defined as disobedience to God’s Law (1 John 3:4-5). There are a number of other odd claims in the book, that do not have any Scriptural backing, such as ‘Jesus…definition of a holy person (is) an individual who allowed all their God-given uniqueness to grow within to full maturity and in the process becoming a beautiful human being’ and, referring to Jesus, ‘He (did not) wear special clothes like the scribes and the Pharisees’ and the claim that while Mary was on time, Jesus was three days late to the wedding in Cana. That particular example has all kinds of other assumptions in the story! Very odd and more concerning, they are imaginative additions to the real facts we are given, and are used to paint a picture that we are then supposed to believe as truth. That is not a good basis for discovering Who Jesus actually is, as is the premise of the book. Chapter 6: This chapter opens with a favourable quote from Thomas Merton, the new age Catholic-Buddhist mystic. In it, he laments that he does not necessarily know if he is following God’s will. This chapter deals with what to do after first deciding to follow God. How does one know what to do? Joseph Girzone likens it to starting out ‘on an untraveled road in the dark.’ He describes how when he was a child, it seemed simple. He felt ‘deep down that it was really Jesus’ when he took the wafer and wine of the Eucharist, and went to Mass each day in order to be ‘close to Jesus in the Eucharist’. When troubles came, he crumbled, and ‘that beautiful sense of Jesus presence left me, never to come back’. He began to search the scriptures and the writings of the mystics as well as ‘the directories of spirituality for a way to holiness that made sense’. He could not figure out how God expected us to be perfect, yet ‘He made us all so flawed.’ Contrast that with Genesis 1:28-31, where God calls His creation ‘very good.’ There is discussion on ‘spiritual growth’ where he likens it to natural physical growth. Peter is described as spiritually immature because he could not ‘control his impulsive outbursts’. ‘Jesus…knew it (spiritual maturity) would happen in time, when he had grown to the point where it would happen naturally as an outflow of his inner spirituality.’ In contrast, the Bible describes Peter as changing completely and instantaneously when he was baptized by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This was after he had been completely humbled by the realization of his three time rejection of Christ. There was no ‘spiritual growth’ but an enabling by the power of the Holy Spirit, in a repentant and humbled heart, to be completely changed. The fact is, we do not ‘grow spiritually’ as a result of OUR spirituality. We ‘grow’ as we yield to the truth of the Word, and live in humble obedience to it. God grows us, we don’t. We yield and obey, and receive what we are given. That is our part. Joseph Girzone carefully and accurately describes the need for humility before God, and the need to curb actions that are harmful to ourselves or others. Yet he goes on to claim that Jesus ‘did not spell out everything in detail’. That isn’t quite true, and demonstrates a legalistic mindset. The commandments God gave, that Christ expected us to follow, and taught simply and clearly (without all the extra baggage added on by the traditions of the elders) are not too hard to follow! Our problem is we want our own way; when we are enslaved by our sin nature, it naturally wants to rule in God’s place. We constantly, even without consciously realizing it, look for loopholes...if it isn't spelled out in detail, we find a way around it. We re-interpret and obey our version.

Only when we submit to dying to our sin nature (daily, see Luke 9:23) and are spiritually dead to sin and raised with Christ (Romans 6) are we given a new heart and are born again, this time to follow in obedience, no longer enslaved to sin. Time and again, Jesus taught that it was what came from the heart that mattered. And a heart that was enslaved to sin could never please God. Only a new heart and a new spirit could do that, and only He could give that. We have no need for legalistic 'details' to be 'spelled out' in the Law, our Father promises to guide us in how to please Him. The remainder of the chapter describes how we are to ‘fulfil our role in a mystical body…Each day we add our little colored fibers to the threads that are being woven into the tapestry of God’s plan, not just for our little parish, not even just for the Church at large, but for the perfecting of the human family.’ The descriptions paint a picture of humans bringing true peace to the world through their right spiritual growth. Yet Scripture paints a different picture. True peace will only come to the world when the Prince of Peace rules it.

Chapter 14: Peter is described as wanting ‘to construct a shrine to commemorate the event’ of the transfiguration (Matthew 17) yet Matthew 17, Mark 9 or Luke 9 do not say that at all. “Three tents” are not a shrine! The parable of the workers in the vineyard from Matthew 20 is explained as Jesus hinting ‘at things that will happen in His Kingdom after He leaves.’ Yet it is actually describing what will happen in His Kingdom after he returns! He claims that ‘In these examples…(Jesus) is also brutally realistic in warning His followers that the Kingdom of heaven on earth is a family of spiritually weak, crippled people who need redemption, so don’t expect it to be the perfect society.’ He goes on to describe the example in Matthew 13:47-50, saying ‘He compares the Kingdom of heaven to a fisherman who went out fishing. When he finished, he hauled the net ashore and began sorting the fish. Some were good, others stank to high heaven. So, also, the kingdom on earth, the Church.’ Yet this isn’t at all what this parable is speaking of. It is speaking of those who are God’s and those who are not. Matthew 13:49-50 actually reads that ‘the angels will separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. This is a very different picture than the book describes, and it is an important difference. In Matthew 7, Jesus warns that not all who call Him Lord are actually His. The warning is given that ‘His Kingdom on earth…will always be filled with sinners exhibiting all kinds of offensive behavior. Do not expect the kingdom to be filled with all nice people. It never will be, neither at the top or at the bottom or at any other level.’ This contrasts enormously with the example of the true believing community in Acts 2:37-47, and with the descriptions of the ones who will not be included in the kingdom that are given in 1 Corinthians 5:10-12, 6:9 and Ephesians 5:5. There is a quote which implies it is from Jesus (but has no reference) which says ‘If you want to have peace within yourself, and with your neighbors, learn to forgive.’ He claims that Jesus intends us to ‘try to understand the pain and tortured spirit that gave rise to such person’s offensive behavior. Then, when you see their pain, or their oddness, you pity them, and do not take on the anguish they are trying to pass on to you. It makes such good sense. It is not easy, and Jesus realized it is not easy, but it is the only way to preserve peace and serenity.’ This might sound good at first read, but it isn’t so. Yes, we are to forgive, as He has forgiven us. This is critical. But our forgiveness does not bring peace to the earth; neither did He come for that reason. Jesus Himself clearly said “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) Conclusion: Much of his writing is quite beautiful and poetic, it sometimes takes effort to go beyond the illusion and carefully examine what is actually being said. Yet it is so important to do that, because though there is some truth here (as defined by the Word) much of what he says is not scripturally sound. There is glaring inconsistency and a great deal of inaccuracy, sometimes in details, but often in very important matters. This continues from beginning to end. Even in the last chapter, words are attributed to Jesus that are completely out of context, misapplied, or fabricated. In a book that claims to be a ‘Portrait of Jesus’ those details are critically important. A picture is given of Jesus that is inaccurate and manipulated.

Do you want to know Who He is? Then open the Bible, beginning at Genesis, and pray for the Holy Spirit to open your mind as the minds of the disciples were opened by Jesus (Luke 24:32) so they could understand the Scriptures written about Him. The Good News begins in creation. The Scriptures Jesus so often referred to are only what we today call the Old Testament. That section of the Bible is where you will find the Good News of Who He is. That is a much better thing to do than to spend the time reading A Portrait of Jesus.