Julius Caesar - Emperor or Not?

Brian watched some of our material about the book of Daniel and wants to know why we should begin the “count” or “list” of the Roman emperors with Domitian rather than Julius Caesar. Let's see if we can make some sense of this . . .

First, historically, Julius was a Roman general and statesman, politician. He was part of what was called “the first triumvirate,” with Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Licinius Crassus. But, while he bore the name “Caesar,” the name initially didn't have the significance that it would later have. But, something happened . . .

Second, Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C. The specifics on how he was murdered are, for this question, irrelevant. Brutus and Cassius were allegedly behind it. But, during Julius' first yearlong dictatorship, Mark Antony, an ally to Julius, had been his second-in-command, then later his co-consul (during Julius' fifth and final consulship). But, upon Julius Caesar's death (around 43 B.C.), his wealth and title had been “willed” to his young (18 years of age) adopted son, and Mark Antony was not eager to see that happen yet made a “league” (the second triumvirate) with him since he was a strong enough leader.

But, something else happened . . . in 41 B.C., Mark Antony had an affair with the Egyptian Cleopatra, Julius Caesar's former lover. This affair continued for some time and drew Antony and Cleopatra back to Egypt, and around 31 B.C., with the approval of the senate, Julius' adopted son moved against the Egyptian fleet, under Antony and Cleopatra.

Who was this adopted son of Julius Caesar? It was Octavian.

Upon conquering Egypt (including the Antony and Cleopatra suicides), Octavian returned to Rome and bore the newly-given title “Augustus.” His full name, then, became Octavian Augustus Caesar. And, both names, “Augustus” and “Caesar,” became more than mere names – they became titles. The later emperors in the Julio-Claudian dynasty would still go on wearing the “names,” now “titles,” “Augustus” and “Caesar,” but now, they meant more.

So, back to our original question . . . As it pertains to Daniel and Revelation, why don't we start our “list” of emperors with Julius Caesar?

First, we shouldn't begin our list of Roman emperors with Julius Caesar because he wasn't an emperor; he was only a senator, statesman, politician, general.

Second, we shouldn't begin our list of Roman emperors with Julius Caesar because he died (44 B.C.) before Rome was ever “imperialized.” The “imperialization” of Rome only happened in 31/30 B.C. when Octavian had accomplished his victories over Egypt (including, most climactically, the Battle of Actium). Julius' death was too premature for his being “Emperor.”

Third, we shouldn't begin our list of Roman emperors with Julius Caesar because the name “Caesar” carries less significance with him than it does those who follow after. For Julius, “Caesar” doesn't mean “emperor,” but, following the imperialization of Rome, his adopted son, Octavian Augustus Caesar gives the “name” a new significance, a title, indicating that the “imperial leader,” the Emperor, would be “Caesar” (as he, Octavian, was, following in this new, imperial dynasty of Rome).

All of these reasons are “secular” reasons to speak against our calling Julius a Roman “emperor” and for calling Augustus the first Roman emperor. We haven't assessed the theological reasons for such in this article, but, I think that if we do a study of Daniel and Revelation, we'll find that this secular fact (that Augustus was the first Roman emperor and that Julius wasn't) will fit nicely with an appropriate interpretation of the biblical texts that intersect with this discussion.

Still have questions? Pursue me at drewleonard@live.com

See the History Channel's article that includes SOME of what I've offered here: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome/mark-antony