Paul, Apostle of Christ: Accuracy in Inaccuracy

I’m not one to write movie reviews.  Partially because I see so few of them, partially because I don’t think it’s my area of expertise.  However, this past weekend I viewed Paul, Apostle of Christ.  My motivation to see a movie on its opening weekend (something I never subject myself to) is because I am wrapping up a seven month study on Acts with our church’s youth group.  We’ve spent quite some time with Paul, and I was curious to know if this new movie would help the students’ understanding of scripture, of Jesus, of Paul, and of first century Rome.  The answers turn out to be maybe, maybe, maybe, and  yes.  (Minimal spoilers ahead)

I made plans to watch the movie and pitched the idea of a future youth group outing to the parents.  I explained I would examine the content and it’s PG-13 rating as well as the biblical accuracy of the film.  Later, I realized that purpose was also an important consideration.

The contents of the film deserve a PG-13 rating.  Look, it gives an appropriate depiction of Rome persecuting Christians without becoming gory or graphic--that's not easy to do.  You see Paul's wounds, but do not see him suffering the abuse.  There are multiple allusions and veiled images of human torches, made from Christian bodies, lighting up the streets on Roman nights.  The most gruesome depiction is Luke walking through the streets with charred bodies still burning.  You do not see fire consuming any living body, though the anguish on one man's face is shown close up as he is lit on fire.

As far as disturbing moments, it's less what you see and more what you know.  For instance, a group of Christians is gathered together in a cell.  You see their reaction when they find out their destiny is the Circus of Nero, and later you see them as they are forced into the stadium.  You do not see what exactly awaits them.  Yet these faces, especially that of a young girl, stick to the heart.  Unlike Passion of the Christ, blood and gore are not used to tell the story, but they are part of the story.  And it is much, much more limited.

But what of accuracy?  Let's address the elephant in the room: The majority of Paul very, very likely did not happen.  However, had it occurred, it very, very likely happened as the movie portrays.  Let me explain.

Acts ends with Paul under house arrest for two years, but we know he is eventually released because of his letters.  This occurs around AD 60-62.  Nero was emperor, but generally it seems the Romans really didn't care about Christians at this time.  As long as they paid their taxes and didn't cause trouble, they were mostly left alone.  As we read Acts, we see the initial persecution comes chiefly from Jews.

The setting for this movie is Paul's second Roman imprisonment. This time it's a very different Rome.  Half of Rome has just burned down and Nero (possibly responsible for the fire himself) has blamed Christians.  Now instead of Roman indifference, Christians are being jailed and martyred by Roman authorities.

The plot for Paul, is Luke has now sneaked into Rome and begins visiting Paul in prison.  Thanks to Luke's "friends" (remember, Luke is Greek, not Jewish) the Roman soldier in charge of the jail, Mauritius (an entirely fictional character) is forced to permit Luke's visits, though they are not hassle-free.  These visits serve a purpose: Write the account of Paul we now know as the Acts of the Apostles.

Timeline-wise, it is highly doubtful this is when Luke wrote Acts.  Generally speaking, the acceptable range of dates for Acts' origin is AD 62-70.  So yes, it's possible.  However, when you look at the ending of Acts, and consider Luke makes no mention of this Roman persecution, the fire, or Paul's second imprisonment, it's hard to believe Acts wasn't completed earlier, likely prior to AD 64 (the date of the Great Fire of Rome).  Logically, much of it was probably written during Paul's first Roman imprisonment and/or his Caesarean imprisonment, when Luke would have had opportunity to interview folks like Philip the Evangelist who lived in Caesarea.  

So no, Luke interviewing Paul during his second Roman imprisonment is unlikely, but the interactions between the two seem...plausible.  Luke has already written his account of Jesus--The Gospel of Luke.  He recognizes that so few believe who Jesus is despite never meeting him, and now the time has come to record Paul's life before it's too late.  The movie-goer sees an older man at the end of his life reflecting on his service to Christ, and more powerfully, his persecution of Christ's followers.  Luke and Paul interact as individuals who love each other deeply and have seen great and terrible things together during past travels.  While this encounter probably didn't happen, if it did, this is probably how it did.

Along with Luke writing this account, there are two other major story lines: A community of Christians, led by Priscilla and Aquila, determining whether to stay in Rome or flee; and, Mauritius and his sick daughter.  The first is somehow both fictional and accurate, while the second is entirely made up, but practical.

We simply do not know exactly what Priscilla and Aquila were up to in Rome.  We do not have a written account of them struggling to determine whether they should remain in Rome or flee.  Yet it's not at all farcical to imagine such a conflict.  It is also nice to see such important but forgotten first century Christians get the attention they deserve.

In general, this story line resonates more than the others.  This community tries survive persecution and serve the widows and orphans, while individual Christians from this community are killed.  They do not know if they will be found out and killed today, tomorrow, or the next.

As far as Mauritius goes, we have no idea the name of Paul's jailer.  Nor do we know if he had much, if any, interaction with Paul.  But again, while this likely did not happen, how Paul portrays this fictional character seems to be how it would go down.  The film shows Mauritius sacrificing to the Roman gods and wondering why his daughter does not get better.  Meanwhile, Paul points out to him that Luke is a great physician.  Would Mauritius dare invite a Christian into his home and risk further angering his gods?  To the movie's credit, they restrain the tempting idea of having Paul miraculously heal the daughter and instead opt for dangling the Greek physician before Mauritius.  Again, the word here is restraint.

Summarizing my thoughts on accuracy: No, it is not at all accurate; however, it is kind of accurate.

What then of the film's purpose?  Is there a benefit to the Christian?  Resoundingly, yes!

I return to my thoughts of the Christian community doing its best to survive and serve.  The American church has little to no idea of this life.  Yet this is the life of many Christians abroad today.  The film shows a small number of young Christians plan a violent uprising against the prison.  While the debate to stay or leave Rome has no one right answer, this plan does: Violence is unacceptable.  Under persecution and darkness, all church leaders committed to love and not violence.  Yet how do many Christians in America respond to even minimal persecution?  Anger and hate.  This is not the way of The Way.

It is also noteworthy encountering Paul's memories of his previous life.  We know he was present at the stoning of Stephen.  We know he got papers to continue his persecution of Christians.  There were countless others he oversaw the killing of, if he did not kill them with his own hands himself.  Throughout the movie we see snippets of Paul's former life and the burden it still holds on him.

Finally worth mentioning is the acting.  The star is, of course, Jim Caviezel.  He is the best known actor and does a great job with Luke, showing a man who believes but is questioning the way forward in these dark times.  There was only one moment in Paul where I thought the character was Jesus, and not Luke!

I did not know James Faulkner prior to this movie, but his credits include TV hits Game of Thrones and Downton Abbey.  Faulkner depicts a man that is somehow both loving and cantankerous.  The titular character of Paul is thoughtful, patient, and forgiving.  More so, he is bold and unflinching in his faith.  There is not much to compare Faulkner's role to, but he has likely set the standard.

As a whole, most all of the acting is quality.  Joanne Whalley and John Lynch as Priscilla and Aquila, respectively, were outstanding.  Olivier Martinez's Mauritius (with, again, no source material) was good, though his over-dramatic fictional wife was less impressive. 

If you recognize the limited accuracy in Paul, Apostle of Christ, it is worth the viewing.  You will leave with a greater appreciation of both Paul and Luke, but more importantly, a closer connection to first century Christianity.  Timelines and dates are important, but living a life set apart for Jesus is far more so.  This film may just spark such a desire, even if living in a time and place unrecognizable to Roman Christians under Nero's terror.