Pontius Pilate: A man of tribulations

Wrestling with Government Authority as a believer.

Pontius Pilate was a man of tribulations, trapped on the edge of two eras on a collision course. Pontius Pilate served as the Roman governor of Judea from approximately 26 A.D. to 36 A.D. His tenure is well documented, and he is most famous for presiding over the trial of Jesus Christ, as we know.

Pilate was appointed by the Roman Emperor Tiberius and governed Judea during a turbulent time, dealing with various uprisings and tensions within the Jewish population. His reign ended around 36 A.D., when he was recalled to Rome after being involved in a harsh response to a Samaritan revolt.

In 36 CE, unrest flared in Samaria when a charismatic figure rallied Samaritans to Mount Gerizim, claiming to unearth sacred vessels buried by Moses. Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judaea, alarmed by the growing assembly, deployed troops to block their ascent. This led to clashes, fatalities, and arrests, prompting Samaritan leaders to accuse Pilate of brutality. In response, Vitellius, the legate of Syria, appointed Marcellus to govern Judaea and recalled Pilate to Rome for investigation by Emperor Tiberius, who died before Pilate's arrival. Within the Roman system of government people were allowed to petition their grievances through the hierarchal chain of command all the way up to Caesar himself.

Tiberius was likely upset with Pontius Pilate’s harsh response to the Samaritan revolt, which contributed to Pilate’s recall to Rome. The event occurred around 36 A.D., when Pilate dealt with a group of Samaritans who were gathering at Mount Gerizim, believing that a religious treasure would be revealed. Pilate’s forces intervened violently, leading to the deaths of many Samaritans.

This overreaction angered both the local population and Roman authorities. According to the historian Josephus, Pilate was summoned to Rome to answer for his actions, which likely displeased Emperor Tiberius. As a result, Pilate’s position as governor of Judea ended, and he was replaced by a new governor. Tiberius, known for his strict rule, would not have tolerated Pilate’s handling of the situation, as it resulted in unrest and reflected poorly on Roman control.

Under Pontius Pilate, the persecution of Christians wasn't really a thing yet — at least not in any organized or widespread way.

Pontius Pilate's Time (c. 26–36 CE)

Christians as a group didn’t really exist yet. Christianity was still a Jewish sect centered around Jesus and his teachings. The term "Christian" (Greek: Christianos) (approx. 40AD) doesn't even appear until later (Acts 11:26), and Jesus' followers were generally seen as part of the broader Jewish world.

Pilate and Jesus: The main Roman involvement we know of is Pilate’s role in Jesus’ crucifixion. While he authorized the execution, the Gospels portray him as somewhat reluctant, possibly pressured by the local Jewish leadership (especially the high priests).

Roman motivation: Rome wasn’t interested in theology — it cared about law and order.

If someone was seen as a potential threat to public peace (like someone being called “King of the Jews”), that would get Rome’s attention. That’s likely why Jesus was crucified: political optics, not religious heresy.

Jewish Leadership - the persecutors

The early tension and conflict within Judaism is more prominent in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death. Acts and other early Christian texts describe opposition and persecution from some segments of the Jewish leadership, particularly the Sadducees and high priests — the same groups who felt Jesus was a threat.

Paul himself, before his conversion, participated in persecuting early Jesus-followers (Acts 8-9), showing this was internal Jewish conflict before it became a wider Roman issue.

Roman Persecution Comes Later

Widespread Roman persecution of Christians starts under Nero (after the fire in Rome, 64 CE) and picks up in different waves over the next few centuries. By that point, Christians were clearly distinct from Jews and seen as a threat to Roman unity, especially because they wouldn’t participate in emperor worship or Roman religious rites.

Summary:

Under Pilate there was no Roman persecution — more so from the Jewish leadership opposing Jesus and his followers. Although Pilate authorized Jesus' execution, likely for political reasons, he refused to be responsible for the blood of who he felt was an innocent man. The years that followed did not yeild a targeted persecution from the Roman authorities but rather from the 'institutional' church, the Jewish religious authorities trying to maintain order and orthodoxy within Judaism. Rome wasn’t systematically targeting Christians yet.

From Tiberius to Nero

After the death of Tiberius in 37 A.D., he was succeeded by his adopted son Caligula. Caligula ruled as the Roman Emperor from 37 A.D. to 41 A.D. His reign was marked by excess, cruelty, and eccentricity, and he was one of the most infamous emperors in Roman history.

Christianity during Caligula’s Reign:

Around this time, Jesus had only recently been crucified (c. 30–33 CE), and his followers were still mostly seen as a small Jewish sect. There’s no historical evidence that Caligula targeted Christians specifically, or even really knew much about them. The term "Christian" was still barely in use, and the faith hadn’t spread significantly outside of Judea yet.

Caligula vs. Judaism

Now this is where it gets relevant: Caligula did have serious tensions with the Jewish community, especially over emperor worship. His biggest offense was trying to put a statue of himself in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem around 40 CE — an enormous blasphemy in Jewish eyes. This almost caused a revolt. Roman governor Petronius actually delayed the statue project to avoid bloodshed, and luckily Caligula was assassinated before it went through.

So while Christians weren’t directly persecuted under Caligula, his actions indirectly affected them through Jewish unrest — and of course, the early Christians were still deeply connected to Jewish communities.

Caligula’s reign, though brief, was tumultuous and often seen as tyrannical. He was assassinated in 41 A.D. after a conspiracy by members of the Roman Senate and his own guards.

Claudius

After Caligula’s assassination in 41 A.D., he was succeeded by his uncle Claudius. Claudius ruled as the Roman Emperor from 41 A.D. to 54 A.D.

Claudius was initially considered unlikely to become emperor due to his physical disabilities and perceived weakness, but after Caligula’s death, he was declared emperor by the Praetorian Guard. His reign was marked by significant administrative reforms, the expansion of the Roman Empire (notably the conquest of Britain in 43 A.D.), and a number of public works projects. Claudius was ultimately poisoned, likely by his wife Agrippina the Younger, leading to the ascension of his stepson Nero.

Claudius (ruled 41–54 CE) wasn’t known for actively persecuting Christians either — but there is one interesting event tied to his reign that brushes up against early Christianity.

The Key Event: The Expulsion from Rome (~49 CE)

• Roman historian Suetonius writes that Claudius “expelled the Jews from Rome because they were constantly rioting at the instigation of Chrestus.”

  • (Chrestus is widely believed to be a confused reference to Christus — i.e., Christ — which suggests tensions between Jews and early Christians in Rome.)

• This is likely the earliest mention of Christian-related conflict under Claudius.

• Acts 18:2 in the New Testament confirms this: it mentions that Aquila and Priscilla, a Jewish-Christian couple, had recently come from Italy because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome.

Nero

Nero was the Roman emperor when the Apostle Paul wrote the Book of Romans, which is generally dated to around 57 A.D. Nero became emperor in 54 A.D., following the death of his mother Agrippina the Younger, and his reign lasted until his suicide in 68 A.D.

Most biblical scholars today agree:

• Romans 13:1–7 isn’t a blank check for government power.

• Paul is laying out a general principle: legitimate authority serves a role in maintaining justice and order.

• But if that authority becomes corrupt, oppressive, or unjust? Christians aren’t expected to support evil.

What Romans 13:1 Seems to Say

• Paul is urging Christians in Rome to submit to governing authorities.

• The logic is: all authority comes from God → resisting authority = resisting God.

• It’s been historically used to justify obedience to governments, even oppressive ones — sometimes problematically (think authoritarian regimes or slave-holding societies).

But… is that what Paul actually meant? Let’s look closer.

Context Matters

• Paul is writing to Christians in Rome — the capital of the empire.

• These believers are part of a small, often misunderstood sect. They’re vulnerable.

• Paul may be telling them: “Don’t stir up political rebellion — it won’t help your witness, and it could bring down harsh persecution.”

• The main goal: promote peace and avoid bringing more heat on the early church.

Is Paul Saying “Obey No Matter What”?

Not necessarily. Consider:

Other Biblical Examples of Civil Disobedience:

• Peter and the apostles in Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men.”

• Hebrew midwives disobey Pharaoh to save babies (Exodus 1).

• Daniel prays in defiance of a royal decree.

• Jesus himself was executed as a perceived political threat.

So obedience to human authority is not absolute — when human laws contradict God’s law, scripture shows faithful people resisting.

Paul wrote the Book of Romans while he was in Corinth, preparing for his trip to Jerusalem, and was likely aware of the political climate under Nero’s rule. It was during Nero’s early reign, that Paul was writing to a small group of developing believers in a city ruled by a pagan authority figure.

Nero was seen as a relatively good ruler early on, with his government being heavily influenced by his advisors, including the philosopher Seneca. However, as Nero’s reign progressed, he became more erratic and notorious for his cruelty, particularly later in his rule.

Despite Nero’s eventual reputation for persecution of Christians, the early years of his reign were not marked by widespread Christian persecution, which began more seriously under his later rule, particularly after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 A.D.

So how shall we respond.

Does God “establish” all authorities — even evil ones like Pol Pot?

Romans 13:1 says:

“There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

That’s where people start.

But here’s the key: what does “instituted by God” actually mean?

Two main interpretations:

1) God actively appoints all leaders (even bad ones).

• This is the strong sovereignty view.

• Even evil rulers (e.g. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin) are in place because God directly allowed or ordained it.

• Why? Perhaps to fulfill some purpose, execute judgment, allow free will, or bring long-term justice — even if we can’t see it yet.

Challenge: This view makes God seem complicit in evil. Why would a good God install a mass murderer?

2) God allows human systems of authority, but humans can corrupt them.

• God creates the concept of government to restrain evil and promote justice.

• But not every ruler represents God’s will. Some are outright enemies of it.

• Romans 13 could then be read as: “Authority as God intended it is good — but rulers can abuse it.”

This fits better with the rest of Scripture, where:

• God judges wicked rulers (e.g. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Herod).

• Prophets regularly confront kings for injustice.

• Jesus tells Pilate: “You would have no authority over me unless it had been given you from above” — but still holds him responsible (John 19:11).

What about rulers like Pol Pot?

• Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of nearly 2 million people during the Cambodian genocide (1975–1979).

• If we say God installed him, that raises serious moral and theological questions.

• More likely: God allowed it in the scope of free will, human evil, and broken systems — not that God wanted or endorsed it.

Biblical Pattern:

• God sometimes uses evil rulers despite themselves (e.g., Cyrus of Persia, Nebuchadnezzar).

• But He also judges and removes rulers for injustice.

• So the Bible shows both divine allowance and human responsibility.

• God may allow evil rulers, but that doesn’t mean He approves of them.

• Not every leader is “God’s chosen.” God permits free will, and people often misuse power.

• Romans 13 is about the principle of authority, not a divine stamp of approval for every government.

• Christians are called to discern, resist evil, and hold power accountable — even if that power wears a crown or holds office.

God’s Sovereignty vs. Human Freedom

Most serious theologians hold both of these truths in tension:

• God is sovereign — ultimately in control.

• Humans have free will — and can use power for good or evil.

Theological insight: God allows systems like governments for the sake of order and justice, but human sin can corrupt those systems. So a dictator like Pol Pot arises not because God wanted him there, but because humans allowed evil to flourish in that system.

Key voices: N.T. Wright, Miroslav Volf, and John Stott all lean this way — that Romans 13 is a general principle, not a blanket endorsement.

The Church’s Role Is Not Blind Obedience

Modern theology often emphasizes that the Church’s loyalty is to God first, not to the state.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Germany, 1930s–40s)

• Resisted Hitler, even joined a plot to assassinate him.

• Wrote that “only a suffering God can help” — and that obedience to God may require disobedience to evil authority.

• His theology redefined Romans 13: don’t confuse divinely-ordained authority with idolized political power.

Martin Luther King Jr.

• Quoted Romans 13, but also Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men.”

• Argued that unjust laws (and rulers) are not truly legitimate, even if legal.

• He saw the Christian’s job as calling governments to a higher moral standard — not rubber-stamping whatever they do.

The “Already/Not Yet” Kingdom

Theologians like Stanley Hauerwas and N.T. Wright view Romans 13 in light of the bigger picture of the Kingdom of God:

• Governments are temporary and flawed.

• The real authority is Christ, and Christians live as citizens of a different kingdom.

• Romans 13 isn’t a political theology — it’s a survival guide for living wisely under empire while staying loyal to Jesus.

So: submit when you can, resist when you must.

Prophetic Critique of Power

Modern theology often uses the Old Testament prophetic tradition to critique governments:

• Isaiah, Amos, Jeremiah, and others constantly call out kings for injustice, corruption, and violence.

• This prophetic voice still matters — modern theologians argue the Church should speak truth to power, not cozy up to it.

Example: Cornel West, a contemporary theologian/philosopher, says the church must be “unbought, unbossed, and unafraid.”

Modern theology doesn’t buy the idea that God “puts every leader in power” as if it's all part of a good divine plan.

Instead:

• God ordains the institution of authority, not every individual ruler.

• Christians should be peaceful but discerning, and resist evil when necessary.

• The Church is called to be a prophetic voice, not a passive subject.

M. Joseph Hutzler

Eschatologist