What Jesus Was Really Killed For

Growing up in the church, like most conservative “Christians,” I was taught that Jesus was killed for claiming to be the Son of God — that his death was primarily about religious blasphemy.

This common teaching of conservatives, however, misses crucial historical context about crucifixion in the Roman Empire and what we know about Jesus’s execution.

When we examine the historical evidence, a different picture emerges: Jesus was executed by the state as a threat to the existing order. In short, Jesus will killed for political — not religious — reasons.

The method of execution

There are three key pieces of evidence that help us understand why Jesus was killed by the state.

First, the method of Jesus’s execution itself. The Romans used crucifixion specifically as a political punishment, reserved for rebels, insurrectionists, and threats to Roman order.

It was designed to be a public, humiliating death that would serve as a warning to others who might challenge Roman authority. As scholar Reza Aslan notes, “crucifixion was a punishment that Rome reserved almost exclusively for the crime of sedition.” (1) The method of Jesus’s execution itself points to his death being politically motivated.

You may have been told (or read) that Jesus was crucified alongside two thieves or robbers, like a common criminal. That, however, is a mistranslation that proves the point of a political execution.

The Greek word used in the gospels is “lēstēs” (λῃστής), often mistranslated as “robber” or “thief,” had a specific political meaning in first-century Palestine. It was used to describe rebels and insurrectionists who opposed Roman rule. (2)

The Jewish historian Josephus uses this same word to describe Jewish revolutionaries who fought against Rome. When Mark and Matthew tell us Jesus was crucified between two “lēstai,” they’re telling us he was executed alongside other political rebels, not common criminals. This detail, often lost in translation, further emphasizes that Jesus’s execution was political in nature.

As Aslan notes, “crucifixion was more than a capital punishment for Rome; it was a public reminder of what happens when one challenges the empire.”

Blasphemy and other “sons” of God

Second, we know that the punishment for blasphemy in Jewish law was stoning, not crucifixion. We see this clearly in the book of Acts when Stephen is stoned to death for blasphemy (Acts 7:54–60).

If Jesus had been convicted primarily of religious crimes against Judaism, he probably would have faced stoning by Jewish authorities, not crucifixion by Rome. The fact that he was crucified rather than stoned is strong evidence that his execution was about political threat, not religious blasphemy.

Third, historical records show that Pontius Pilate was generally dismissive of religious claims and messianic figures unless they posed a genuine threat to Roman order.

The Jewish historian Josephus records other individuals who claimed divine status or messianic roles whom Pilate largely ignored. What distinguished Jesus was that his movement and message posed a more direct challenge to Roman authority and the existing social order.

What made Jesus a threat

So what was it about Jesus that made him such a threat? Several aspects of Jesus’s ministry would have been deeply threatening to both Roman and temple authorities:

His message about the “Kingdom” or “Reign of God” was inherently political, suggesting an alternative kingdom to Caesar’s. In the Roman world, this language was not spiritual metaphor — it was a direct challenge to Roman rule.

His cleansing of the temple — which scholars of Jesus believe is a true story — attacked both the religious and economic power structure, as the temple system was deeply integrated with Roman authority. (3)

His growing following among the poor and marginalized threatened to upset the careful balance of power that local authorities maintained with Rome.

His critique of wealth, power, and religious authorities challenged both Roman authority and the wealthy Jewish elite who collaborated with them.

Understanding Jesus’s execution as politically motivated rather than primarily religious helps us better grasp both the historical Jesus (aka the real Jesus) and the radical nature of his message.

Jesus wasn’t killed for making theological claims about his divinity. He was killed because his message of radical love, economic justice, and human dignity was a threat to those in power.

What it means for us

This historical reality has profound implications for how we understand Jesus’s message and mission today. It suggests that authentic Christianity or actually following Jesus is not primarily about correct beliefs or religious doctrines, but about following Jesus’s example of challenging unjust systems and structures of power.

Jesus’s execution by the state reminds us that his message was and remains deeply threatening to those who benefit from exploitation and oppression.

If we say that Jesus died for us, perhaps what we should really mean is that he died because he showed us a different way to live — a way of radical love and justice that so threatened the powers of his day that they felt they had to kill him.

The cross then becomes not a symbol of a judgmental God who demands violent punishment for sins, but a stark reminder of state violence against those who dare to imagine and work toward a more just world. (4)

What would it mean for Christians and Jesus followers today to take seriously this understanding of Jesus’s death? It would mean recognizing that following Jesus isn’t primarily about what we believe, but about how we live. It would mean understanding that if our faith doesn’t make those in power uncomfortable, we might not be fully grasping Jesus’s message.

Most importantly, it would mean committing ourselves to the same vision that got Jesus killed — a vision of a world transformed by love, where the poor are blessed, the oppressed are liberated, and all people are treated with dignity.

Jesus wasn’t killed for claiming to be God. He was killed for showing us how to be more fully human. The question for us today is whether we’re willing to follow his example.

Sign up for my weekly e-mail

Hi! If you liked this story, considering signing up for my weekly newsletter here: https://bit.ly/jesusmovementemail

FOOTNOTES:

1. Reza Aslan, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Random House, 2013), 155. The method of Jesus’s execution itself points to his death being politically motivated.
2. For more on the political meaning of lēstēs in first-century Palestine, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperOne, 1992). Crossan demonstrates how this term was commonly used to describe anti-Roman rebels.
3. The historical authenticity of the temple incident is supported by multiple independent sources (Mark, John, and likely Q) and the criterion of embarrassment — early Christians would have been unlikely to invent a story about Jesus engaging in violence. See Marcus Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (New York: HarperOne, 2006), 228–229. Borg notes this action would have been seen as a direct challenge to both religious and imperial authority, as the temple had become “the center of native collaboration with imperial rule.”
4. The idea that Jesus’s death was required by God as payment for human sin (penal substitutionary atonement) wasn’t developed until the Protestant Reformation. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, other interpretations prevailed, including the ransom theory and Abelard’s moral influence theory. For more check out my article, five views on atonement theology.