Paul, Apostle of Christ

“Paul, Apostle of Christ” is a new film distributed by Affirm Films. It stars James Caviezel as Luke, who is better known for his role as Jesus Christ in “The Passion of the Christ.”

The story itself is a fictional, weaved around the last days of the Apostle Paul. The structure allows them to tell the story of Paul in a few flashbacks, while following the lives of a few fictional characters and the effect that Paul has on their lives.

As one would expect from a Biblical based film, there are many expectations and criteria which viewers may not have for other films. The most obvious of which is… is it Biblical? Let us begin then with the historical and Biblical issues before addressing the artistic vision of the film.

As an author of Biblical textbooks, I am harder to please than many, but I also understand the sensibilities of film and its restrictions. I appreciate their attempt to weave a story around flashbacks, rather than creating a cumbersome sweeping epic of Paul’s life which would have required a vastly larger budget than this film (allegedly $5,000,000). I am therefore forgiving of some of the minor historical errors. For example, scholars continue to debate whether or not Paul died in 65 A.D. or 67 A.D. (or even 68 A.D.). Of slightly higher importance, but no major significance, is the false assumption that Luke wrote the book of Acts while Paul was in prison awaiting execution, although it is likely Acts was finished in Paul’s first imprisonment around 63 A.D. Nevertheless, such issues are of no real importance to the story.

One issue which deserves mention is the idea of Christians arguing among themselves about whether or not to rebel against Rome, including a scene where some Christians raid the prison, killing guards, in an attempt to rescue Paul, only to find him rebuke their actions. It is natural that the writers should assume that the Christians of Rome were no different than those of today, but the student of Biblical history knows that Rome changed precisely because the early church had a unique view of the world that has perhaps been shared by no generation since. They welcomed martyrdom. Some even sought it out. True, most were doubtless afraid, but there was no hint of armed rebellion by the Christians in antiquity. Even the enemies of Christ acknowledged the passivity of the early Church.

Consequently, the rebellion scene was a little hard for me to swallow, but I cannot fault the authors on this completely, for their purpose was to show Paul’s unwavering belief that Christ is victorious in all things. He does not need our help.

In most other respects, the film was true to history. Christians are shown being used as human torches, persecuted, and martyred. Paul is not exactly as I would have envisioned him, but I saw only one real theological issue which was subtle, but not carried through. In the opening scene of the movie, Paul looks toward heaven and asks, “Is this all there is?” This attempt to portray Paul with doubts may stem from the Catholic roots of the writer/director, or it may simply be a poor attempt to show Paul’s struggles in the midst of persecution and to set the stage for the rest of the film.

Nevertheless, I am happy to say that from that moment on Paul is never shown in this light. On the contrary, he affirms time and time again that “Christ’s grace is sufficient.”

Another possible issue is the subtle notion of Paul being idolized by the early Church. Certainly he was looked up to as one of the Apostles, and there is no hint of worship or deification, but Luke is depicted as wanting to insure that Paul left a legacy in writing, as if Paul needed encouragement to write to his churches. Having noted these two points, I did not see any attempt to read salvation by works or sacraments into the story and thus can support the theology of the film with these small reservations.

So what of the actual film itself? Let me begin by saying that the cinematography and acting was superb. The only hint that this was not a big budget film was the obvious omission of elaborate sets and/or depictions of the circus maximus. The narrative itself was not only about Luke and Paul, but the Roman prefect Mauritius (Olivier Martinez) who is fascinated by Paul and his convictions. The story seems to imply that Mauritius may have converted to Christ, although it is not clear, since he was present at Paul’s execution and issued the formal orders. The film lacks an enthralling narrative that draws the viewer into the story. Some may find it depressing and even boring, but it does a good job of presenting its subject matter in an interesting way. I, therefore, give it a moderate thumbs up.

In regard to the subject matter, this film is PG-13 and deservedly so. In fact, it might have flirted with an R rating were it not for the Biblical context. I cannot fault the violence in the film, for it is more than accurate, but those wanting to bring small children should be aware that people are shown being burned alive and there are many scenes with large amounts of blood. Hands are dipped in blood, bodies lie in pools of blood, and there is even a scene where a Roman is shown pouring sacrificial blood over his head, as was the custom in those days. One scene even shows an artistic depiction of blood dropping on the flood in slow motion. So those with small children should be aware that there is no shortage of blood for a PG-13 film. In all other matters, I saw nothing objectionable—no sex, nudity, or foul language.

Overall, I recommend “Paul, Apostle of Christ.” It is not a completely enthralling film, but it is endearing and poignant. Made on a relatively small budget by Hollywood standards, the film rises above its roots to depict Paul in his dying days declaring, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7).

Note on Catholicism: Some evangelicals have expressed concern about the Catholic roots of the filmmakers (produced by a Catholic ministry) and Jim Caviezel. Caviezel stated how he prepared for the role of Luke: “I read the Acts of the Apostles and started lifting little clues here and there, and I went to Mass and prayed on them. And then we see how he wrote, how Paul sees [Luke], and I started cross-examining him—and there is a lot of cross-examining and asking him about it—and, slowly, it starts to all come together.”

Now there are some fundamental differences which divide Catholic and evangelical theology. However, the Apostle Paul should not be one of them. I did have concern when Paul asked, “Is this all there is?” but the rest of the film maintained the depiction of Paul as the man who firmly believed “His grace is sufficient.” I therefore do not see any problems with seeing the film, other than the few reservations noted above.

• Violence: Heavy, but mostly brief
• Profane language: “This lovely H*ll-hole” (1), “My G*d” (2)
• Vulgar/Crude language: None
• Nudity: • nude female Roman statue (briefly seen in shot) • man arrested with very little covering
• Sex: Mild — • mention of man who frequents prostitutes • presumed prostitues seen, with one approaching Luke • mention of orphan girls forced to become prostitutes • mention of a rape

See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.

• Positive
• Neutral
• Negative