Killing Jesus: A History

Chapter 1 highlights The Interplay of Religion and Politics as King Herod reacts to the news of a prophesied king, which is both a religious and political threat to his rule. Herod’s fear is driven by the religious prophecy of a coming Messiah, or savior, but he sees this prophecy as a direct challenge to his political power. Herod’s political authority, granted by the Romans, is at stake because of this religious prophecy. His order to kill male infants demonstrates how religious expectations can provoke extreme political actions. Chapter 2, while more overtly political, still engages with religion, particularly through Caesar’s posthumous deification. After his assassination, Caesar is deified by the same Senate that killed him, transforming his political authority into a form of religious reverence. This act of deification blurs the lines between political leadership and divine status, turning a political leader into a religious figure, which intertwines the spheres of governance and belief.

Both chapters emphasize a selfish model of political authority rooted in state violence and the manipulation of public perception. In Chapter 1, Herod wields his authority ruthlessly, driven by fear of losing power. His execution orders highlight his need to maintain control not only over Judea but also to appease his Roman superiors. His leadership style hinges on maintaining dominance by any means necessary, including through fear and violence. In this way, Herod serves as an early foil for Jesus, who will soon upend this fear-based mode of authority by demonstrating Leadership as a Form of Service. Herod’s dependence on Roman approval reveals that he is actually constrained by larger forces despite his brutal methods of rule. Chapter 2 introduces Julius Caesar as a leader whose sphere of power is far greater than Herod’s but who is nonetheless constrained by his many rivals. Caesar’s authority is absolute in both military and political matters. His conquests solidify his power, and he is shown to be confident in the loyalty of his army, to the point that they wage civil war against their own nation to preserve his power. Caesar’s disregard for the Senate’s summons and his self-confidence in being crowned king underscore his perception of invincibility. However, this very overconfidence leads to his assassination, illustrating the vulnerability of even the most powerful leaders when they overextend their authority.

Both Herod and Caesar are historical figures who fail to anticipate how their legacies will be remembered, illustrating The Power of Narrative to Define Character. Herod is remembered as a tyrant in historical and religious traditions, especially for the murder of the innocent children of Bethlehem. While he holds real political power, his reputation becomes more infamous due to the attempted murder of the infant Jesus. As a historical figure, Herod is depicted as a cruel and paranoid ruler, whose legacy is forever defined by his violent response to a perceived religious threat. His evolution into a symbol of evil is closely tied to the Christian narrative of Jesus’s survival and later rise as a religious leader.

Caesar’s legacy similarly evolves after his death. Though a dictator who sought absolute power, his transformation into a god posthumously reflects the changing perception of his rule. The fact that the very Senate that assassinated him later deified him reveals the complexity of Caesar’s role in Roman history. His reputation shifts from that of a power-hungry warlord to a revered, almost divine figure, illustrating how political narratives can reshape historical legacies. This process of mythologizing historical figures shows how leadership is often retrospectively viewed through the lens of later events and ideologies.