John 90 – Jesus is Tried By Pilate
05/31/2026
Scripture 1: (Jn. 18:33-19:8 ESV)
So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”
Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?”
Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?”
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?”
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world– to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”
They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.
Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him.
And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple robe. They came up to him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and struck him with their hands.
Pilate went out again and said to them, “See, I am bringing him out to you that you may know that I find no guilt in him.” So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Behold the man!”
When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!”
Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.”
The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”
When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid.
Sermon:
It is reasonable to presume that, prior to Pilate coming out to meet with the Jewish religious leaders in the early morning hours, his soldiers had already taken Jesus into their custody, having accepted Him as their prisoner. Their receipt of Jesus was probably the precipitating act that prompted Pilate’s appearance before the Jewish leaders. Now, after their short exchange, Pilate was left with the unenviable task of figuring out what to do about Jesus; of figuring out what to do with Jesus, “So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?””.
At this point in the narrative, Pilate surely understood that the Jewish religious elite had an “ax to grind” against Jesus. He knew that they wanted Jesus’ death, since they had plainly told him so, as “The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.”” (Jn. 18:31 ESV). However, what he would not have understood was exactly why they hated Jesus so much. Therefore, Pilate needed to examine Jesus for himself. He needed to try Jesus; to hear whatever the accusations against Him were and study whatever evidence there might be. Pilate needed to judge whether Jesus was innocent or guilty of any crime under Roman law or against Rome, itself.
Now, based upon his first question to Jesus, we may presume that Pilate had been informed about some details concerning Jesus.
The “dots” between the celebratory spectacle and Jesus’s “Triumphal Entry” up the Pilgrim’s road six days prior, had surely been connected to the man now standing before Pilate.
Pilate may have heard that Jesus was sometimes called the “Son of Man” or, in Hebrew: “Messiah” and Greek: “Christ”, popular titles that were sometimes used to describe Jewish revolutionaries.
He may have also heard that Jesus was similarly called the “Son of David”; a political title, claiming authority through ties to ancient Jewish “mythology” and their social history.
It is also improbable that Pilate either knew or cared about Jesus’ religious claims or His “moral philosophy”. Such “religious ravings” were not within the Roman administration’s sphere of concern nor of interest to most people with his social standing.
Karl Marx’s infamous quote “Religion is the opium of the people. It is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of our soulless conditions.” well describes the common Roman attitude towards the Jewish faith. Roman religion was more concerned with fulfilling systemic obligations and engaging in spiritual transactions rather than moral responsibility, ethical behavior, or even questions of faith; of pisteuo, “trust”.
Pilate probably asked Jesus, “Are you the King of the Jews?” because of his own knowledge and understanding and not because that was a charge levied against Jesus by the Jewish leaders. Such a charge would have prompted an immediate response by the Romans. The Roman military was very quick to quell insurrection or even rumors of revolutionary activity. If they had accused Jesus of being such a “revolutionary leader” then, the Jews would have been inviting greater (stricter) Roman engagement, investigation, and involvement; something that they would not have wanted.
Turning Jesus over to the Romans was a purely political action. They did not want to transgress Roman authority by executing Jesus themselves, by “taking the law into their own hands”.
Turning Jesus over to the Romans was politically savvy because they would not want to add credibility to Jesus’s implied claims, by voicing what they feared Jesus meant. They feared what the crowds (the uneducated masses) might do because of Jesus, if He actually sought to claim David’s throne
Turning Jesus over to the Romans as an accused “miscreant” (evil doer), was politically savvy because they hoped to avoid creating a new problem of religious unrest, while eliminating their “Jesus problem”.
Turning Jesus over to the Romans was politically savvy because, by doing so, they could avoid social culpability since Jesus’ final fate would be determined by the Romans and not by the Temple. They fear what the crowds might do to them, if their role in Jesus’ death became publicly known.
The situation was “pure politics” and because the proverb is true that “All politics is local”, the Roman governor had to be actively engaged with all of the major political actors in Judea. He had to navigate a complicated web of relationships. He had to be aware of and account for long standing rivalries, grudges, and feuds between different parties. Many of their political issues were caused by differences in Jewish doctrine (Sadducees vs Pharisees vs Essenes), differences in accepted social/religious authority (the Temple vs Qumran), differences in view regarding who held legitimate civil authority (Rome, Herod Antipas, a Hasmonean relation, a Davidic claimant, or Zealous revolutionaries), differences in cultural sensibilities (Roman, Orthodox Jew, Hellenistic Jew, other Gentiles), and relationships with other nearby Provinces (like Syria) or Tetrarchies (like Galilee). Since Judean politics were so volatile, Pilate felt the need to govern with an “iron fist”. He was a politician but, the records of history show that Pilate was often his own worst enemy within the Judean political realm. However, in the case of Jesus, as evidenced by how he kept trying to return responsibility to them, it is obvious that he recognized what these religious leaders were trying to do.
“So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”” So, if it was Pilate’s political understanding that led him to ask Jesus this question, then he may have been questioning whether Jesus believed Himself to rightfully be the “King of the Jews”. He may have been asking Jesus about His political aspirations, not investigating a specific allegation against Him. But Jesus responded to Pilate’s question by asking him one of His own, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?”.
This question stands in ironic contrast to the time when Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” and “…who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:13-15 ESV). The crowds thought He was a prophet, while Peter confidently declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matt. 16:16 ESV). But, Pilate answered Jesus’ question by pointing out, “Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me.”. Pilate tried to explain that the Jewish leaders considered Jesus a dangerous criminal. One side considered Jesus to be a messenger of God and the LORD’s anointed king, while the other side considered Jesus a “crook” and wannabe king. The reality is, both sides considered Jesus to be whatever it was that they wanted Him to be, dependent upon what they thought He could do for them.
The Jewish crowds and Jesus’ disciples believed that Jesus might deliver them from Roman oppression and restore the Davidic Kingdom of Israel and Jewish independence (Acts 1:6).
While Pilate seemed to believe that: since the religious leaders were so hostile towards Jesus and since Jesus was so popular; Jesus might be a potential ally against the Jewish establishment.
I think, based on the recorded dialog, that Pilate approached Jesus here with an eye towards becoming His patron and benefactor. Pilate may have been considering how to use Jesus to further his own political ambition and turn the circumstances towards his own favor.
I think Pilate approached the situation from a pure political perspective. He considered how he might be able to place Jesus into a favorable position of civil and/or religious authority, subordinate to him (as his “patron”); under his influence and control.
I think Pilate thought that the Jewish leaders might have just given him a tremendous opportunity.
I think that is why “Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me.””. He was reminding Jesus that he was a Roman official; reminding Him that he held authority, power, and control; reminding Him that Pilate’s word, when spoken in the name of Caesar, was law and final. Pilate was reminding Jesus that he held the power of life and death over Jesus. I think Pilate was also trying to imply that he possessed the ability to help Jesus, politically. He was implying that they shared a common “enemy”, the chief priests.
Then, Pilate asked Jesus, “What have you done?”. Maybe he meant to show Jesus sympathy for His plight. Perhaps he intended to minimize the seriousness of whatever the Jewish council had convicted Jesus of. Perhaps he was hoping for an admission of guilt from Jesus; some crime that Pilate could pardon Him for or, a circumstance that Pilate could make “disappear”, as a favor to Jesus. I think he hoped for something that would make Jesus beholden to him; something that he could use to gain power and influence over Jesus. But, if Pilate thought or hoped that he could transform Jesus into his puppet and use Him against the Jewish establishment, then he was sorely mistaken. Even though Pilate made some political mistakes, a person did not receive an appointment from the Roman Senate to be a provincial prefect if they were incompetent. So, we may safely assume that Pilate was a good politician even as he “miscalculated” concerning Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus responded to Pilate, answering, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.“. While the language of Jesus’ response sounds repetitive and rather vague in our English, we need to remember that the evangelist’s intended audience: late 1st Century and early 2nd Century professed, baptized, and catechized Christians; would have understood this answer plainly, clearly, and definitively in both a physical (temporal/worldly) and spiritual sense.
Jesus began by expressing a definitive statement of fact: My kingdom is not of this world.
The Greek term translated as “kingdom” is basileia {the same term from which the Roman Church derives the expression “basilica”, used to describe the particular church building that is the seat of a bishop’s authority} and it was a technical term used to describe the Roman Empire {Basileia ton Romaion}; thereby suggesting a comparative equality (theoretical and conversational) between Christ’s kingdom and Rome.
The Greek term translated as “world” is kosmos, recalling that the evangelist uses this term in reference to the fallen, human world order and not the totality of creation, as other writers use it.
The verbal construction is in the genitive case, thereby defining the relationship between Jesus’s kingdom and the world in regards to their similarity or possession. {This case more clearly defines what our English “of” means in this instance.}
Physically: “Jesus’s kingdom (does not belong to)/(is not like/similar to those of) the world.”
Spiritually: “Jesus’s kingdom (does not belong to)/(is not subordinate to) the dominion/domination of the Devil’s authority.”.
Jesus continued with a conditional: If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews.
Physically: If Jesus’s kingdom was like every other worldly kingdom (if it were like Rome), then Jesus’s servants (his followers and disciples) would have been fighting: violently defending Jesus, rising up in armed revolution against the Jewish (Temple administration) order and against the Roman system.
Physically: If Jesus’s theology and His faith-praxis was like that of every other worldly religion, then the Jews would not have opposed Him. He would have been welcomed by them, instead. They might have elevated and installed Him at the top of the Temple administration, as a “new Moses”.
Spiritually: If Jesus’s kingdom was like the spiritual dominion of Satan, then the angels would have fought to destroy or eradicate Satan and his demons, instead of merely casting them out of heaven; banishing them (Matthew 26:53; Revelation 12:7-9). The angels would not have shown Satan the grace and mercy of God, by granting the Devil time and opportunity to repent of his sin and evil. The angels would also not have merely stood by and watched the unfolding execution of the eternal, divine plan that was covenanted before the foundation of the world among the three divine Persons: God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and they would not have been trusting in God’s perfect wisdom as well as His ineffable purposes, plan, and sovereign will.
Lastly, Jesus concluded by repeating Himself, “But my kingdom is not from the world.”. Yet in this case, our ESV translation is more interpretive and less precise than the King James and the underlying Greek. The KJV concludes this as, “…but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (Jn. 18:36 KJV).
Physically: Jesus’s kingdom has not been bequeathed to Him by any higher earthly authority. Jesus’s kingdom is not a subordinate vassal, or client-kingdom, of a greater suzerain’s empire. Jesus’s kingdom is independent of all other earthly authority. Jesus’s kingdom is ultimately sovereign and He is uniquely and ultimately sovereign over it.
Spiritually: Jesus’s kingdom was not been given to Him by the “ruler of this world” (Matthew 4:8-10) but, was given to Him by God the Father, Himself (Daniel 7:13-14; Matthew 28:18). Jesus possesses “All authority in heaven and on earth…” (Matt. 28:18 ESV). Jesus possesses true authority, even over the “ruler of this world”.
Both, Physical and Spiritual: The true origin and source of Jesus’s kingdom and His authority does not come from the world or from any created creature within it.
Thus the evangelist framed and presented Jesus’s response as a contrast against both Caesar and Satan; against the authority of Rome and the authority of hell. His message to the early church was:
to remind them of how fundamentally different Jesus’s kingdom is from every other kingdom;
to remind them how different the character of Jesus’s kingdom is from every other kingdom;
to remind them and emphasize how different Jesus is from every other king.
Hearing this response, Pilate incredulously asked Jesus again, “So you are a king?“. Perhaps Pilate was simply trying to understand what Jesus meant and was asking it as a clarifying question. Or, perhaps Pilate was merely confirming whether he had heard Jesus correctly; confirming that he had just heard Jesus claim to be a king on the same level as Caesar. Yet rather than accept Pilate’s retort as a rhetorical question, Jesus reversed the question into a statement and replied, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world– to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.“, prompting Pilate to ask Him, “What is truth?“
Jesus told Pilate, “You say that I am a king.”, pointing out that Jesus had not made that claim, Himself, even though all of His other claims naturally implied this. The title was only attributed to Him by others:
First, Nathanael, upon initially meeting Jesus, proclaimed, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (Jn. 1:49 ESV);
Then, the Jerusalem crowd (six days beforehand) had proclaimed, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” (Jn. 12:13 ESV), promoting Jesus’s kingship by popular acclamation;
And now, Pilate told Jesus, {So, you are a king.}, thereby affirming the fact of its truthfulness (John 18:37).
Thus, Jesus explained, “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world– to bear witness to the truth.”.
That this was the purpose of, and reason for, the Incarnation of God the Son: the Logos who is Theos and Andros;
not to assert or impose divine authority over creation;
not to bring a new divine “Law” nor to soften the existing moral law into the “Ten Suggestions”.
But, “…to bear witness to the truth.”
Meanwhile, Pilate responded to Jesus with the classic “Philosophy 101” question, asking “What is truth?”. “What is truth?” is both an incredibly simple and an amazingly complex question, depending on a person’s assumptions. Perhaps the better question would have been, “What is true?”.
Is truth real and absolute or, is it relative?
Does truth depend upon our point of view or, our present perspective?
Might truth change over the passage of time?
Does the truth depend on what we feel?
Can our life experiences, our background, or personal history change the truth?
Like Pilate, we also should ask, “What is truth?”; “What is the truth that Jesus came to bear witness to?”
That truth is God (John 14:6).
That God is truth, absolutely and unchangably {immutable}.
That God is true; that God is.
That God is holy.
That God is sovereign.
That God has given an absolute law which all of humanity has transgressed; which every human is guilty of breaking, thereby earning God’s just judgment of condemnation and His righteous wrath.
But also, that God is love and that God loves the world, despite its wicked rebellion and sinfulness.
That God loves the world so much that He chose for Himself a particular people to rescue, and gave them to His Son to rescue and possess, united to Him as His Bride (John 6:37; 15:16, 19; Revelation 19:7, 21:2).
That God loves the world so much, that God the Son willingly laid down His life in defense of them; to rescue and deliver His Bride from the deserved consequence of our sin.
That Jesus Christ was born to bear witness to the truth that He is God, the LORD: the universal sovereign and only true king over all creation.
Jesus concluded, explaining to Pilate, that “Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
Jesus told Pilate that everyone who belongs to the truth {Genitive case} will listen to Him.
He told Pilate that everyone who belongs to God will listen to Him; that everyone who belongs to God will obey His Word: His commandments, instruction, and explanation; as the Word of God.
Therefore, all those who do not, or will not, do not belong to the truth, but to the Devil, who is “…a liar and the father of lies.” (Jn. 8:44 ESV).
Ultimatelu, after examining Jesus; after talking with Him for some indeterminate period of time but, surely not a “short” or “quick” period, Pilate “…went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.”. After talking with Jesus for as long, or as short, as he did, Pilate reached the only possible, logical conclusion available to him and he declared the only judgment he was qualified to render.
Pilate understood that, whatever (or whoever) Jesus was (or believed Himself to be), Jesus was not guilty of any crime against Rome.
Pilate recognized that Jesus had not broken any Roman laws.
Pilate knew that his court was not the appropriate jurisdiction for the consideration of any allegation that the Jewish religious leaders might choose to bring against Jesus.
Therefore, Pilate judged and proclaimed Jesus, innocent.
Although Pilate tried Jesus, he was only equipped to judge Him in His humanity. Pilate was not a Jew. He did not know (or care to know) the Hebrew Scriptures or understand Jewish law. Pilate was a Gentile, a Roman. His religion was polytheistic. While he surely believed in the power of divinity, he was not qualified or authorized to judge it. Thus, in the case of Jesus, Pilate judged the best that he could, with the knowledge he possessed. Pilate judged and determined that:
Jesus was a man, who lived in a Roman province.
Jesus was a Judean Jew and subject to both the authority of the Jewish leaders and Roman law.
Jesus, despite the apparent absurdity of His answers and His impossible to prove (intangible) claim of some kind of “kingship”, had not actually broken any Roman laws. He had made no actual attempt to seize any throne.
No evidence was provided against Him.
No specific allegation of wrong-doing had been made against Him.
He did not promoted sedition or civil revolution; but rather, at worst, His speech could be considered insane, instead.
The concern against Him was religious, not civil.
Therefore, this Roman Prefect and governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, judged Jesus Christ: Jesus of Nazareth, the Logos who is Theos and Andros; to be NOT GUILTY. He judged Jesus to be INNOCENT! The highest legal, human authority in the world judged and proclaimed Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, to be guiltless; a righteous man, free of legal transgression and therefore, completely blameless.
Pontius Pilate, by virtue of the authority vested in him by the Roman Senate: having authority to judge and to act on behalf of Caesar; declared Jesus justified, before Caesar’s throne.
So, what does Jesus’ trial by Pilate mean for us? What doctrine does it help us to better understand? The trial and Pilate’s determination of Jesus’ innocence: his proclamation of Jesus as being legally justified {forensic justification}; helps us to understand our own spiritual justification before the throne of God.
Jesus was declared just according to His own righteousness, before men; we are declared just before God the Father, according to the imputed righteousness of Jesus (His perfection and sinlessness).
Just as Pilate saw Jesus, standing before him, as an innocent man unjustly accused, through our perfect union into Christ Jesus, God the Father sees us as innocent men, women, and children unjustly accused by the Devil, our accuser. He sees Jesus, our Savior and spiritual husband in whom we rest, standing in our place.
Therefore, since Jesus has satisfied and paid our debt of sin (Isaiah 53:7-12; Romans 4:13-25; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 3:11-14; Titus 3:4-7), and since God the Father sees us as He sees Jesus (to whom we are united), we are proclaimed to be justified and innocent, just like Pilate declared Jesus innocent.
Furthermore, just as the evangelist intended his presentation of this narrative to be an encouragement for the early church, it should also encourage us. We should be encouraged by it because, whenever we look at the world around us and we feel like the entire social order is upside down or backwards; when everything just feels “wrong” and that “right” is absent; when a government seems to be “against the people” rather than “for the people”; whenever society seeks to oppress, marginalize, or hates those whose trust is in Jesus Christ; then, we should remember that our God and King is not of this world. Jesus does not belong to this world. He is not subordinate to any powers acting within this world. Jesus is not like this world. Instead, this world belongs to Jesus. This world is subordinate to Jesus and His perfect rule, even as it is still in a state of rebellion. Jesus has nothing in common with the kings or kingdoms of this world, while they each share everything in common because all shall one day, bow the knee in worship; in offer of fealty; and be held accountable for their stewardship in His absence.
Although Jesus is not now visibly present with us, it is a good and comforting reminder for us to hope in His coming because then it is easier for us to graciously and willingly submit ourselves to the rule of our governing authorities, trusting that Christ shall certainly hold them accountable for all the good that they do and all of the evil; all of their acts of justice and their acts of injustice.
We are reminded of and comforted by the knowledge that Jesus loves this world so much, that He saves some; that He gives grace and mercy to some, while giving justice to others. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (Jn. 3:16-17 ESV). So, trust God and His eternal plan. Trust in the grace and mercy of God. Trust in His perfect love. Believe in Jesus Christ and know that through His righteousness, His sacrifice, and your union into Him by your faith, that your sins are forgiven and that you have been justified in the eyes of God our Father and adopted as His beloved son or daughter.
AMEN
Political Timeline of Israel:
Around 1450 BC – The people of Israel were constituted as a nation at Mount Sinai, by divine covenant.
Around 1050 BC – Saul, the Benjaminite, became Israel’s first king (1 Samuel 11). He was eventually succeeded by David, whose dynasty was established by divine covenant (2 Samuel 7).
Around 930 BC – The kingdom of Israel was divided during the reign of Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, when ten tribes seceded to form the northern Kingdom of Israel (Ephraim) (1 Kings 12).
Around 720 BC – The northern Kingdom was conquered, laid waste, and its people were scattered in exile by the Assyrian Empire (2 Kings 18).
Around 593-586 BC – The southern kingdom of Judea was conquered, as Jerusalem was repeatedly besieged and captured by the Babylonians. The city and the LORD’s Temple were ultimately sacked and destroyed while the “best and brightest” of Judea were taken into captivity.
Around 538 BC – The Babylonian empire falls and is absorbed by the Medo-Persian empire of Cyrus (Daniel 5).
Around 535 BC – Some of the Babylonian captives returned to Judea, following the “decree” of the Persian king, Cyrus (Ezra 1). The district of Judea operated under the appointment of Persian governors (including Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, a legitimate descendant of king David, preserving hope in the Davidic promise).
Around 515 BC – The Jerusalem Temple was rebuilt (Ezra 6); seventy years after its destruction, in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jeremiah 25:11-2; 29:10-14).
Around 330 BC – Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire, technically bringing Judea under Grecian control and influence[1]. However, after Alexander’s death, his empire was divided and Judea was regarded as a possession by both the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt and the Seleucid Empire in Babylonia (1 Maccabees 1).
Around 165 BC – Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers led a Judean revolt against their Seleucid overlords, prompted in part by the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes IV desecrating the Jerusalem Temple (1 Maccabees 1-2; Daniel 8:13; Matthew 24:15). Also during this period, Judas entered his people into a military alliance (covenant) with Rome (1 Maccabees 8:17-32).
Around 63 BC – The Roman general Pompey conquered Judea at the invitation of the Hasmoneans, to help settle their civil war of succession, between hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. This was the beginning of Roman administration and authority in Judea (Josephus, Jewish War 1:19).
Around 37 BC – Herod, the son of Antipater (the former Roman procurator of Judea), slays the Hasmonean prince, Antigonus Maccabee, and assumes authority over Judea (Josephus, Jewish War 1:19). Upon the urging of Marc Antony, Herod was declared king (and ethnarch) by the Roman Senate (Josephus, Antiquities 14:385), and throughout his reign he became known for both his brutality and his numerous building projects, including a renovation and expansion of the Jerusalem Temple complex. History records that Herod was paranoid enough about retaining his power, that he ordered the execution of several of his own children, as well as other possible claimants to his throne (Hasmonean rivals), which suggests that ordering the execution of the Bethlehemite children, as Matthew wrote in his Gospel, was completely according to his character.
Around 4 BC – However, although Herod had survived the complex relationships of Roman politics, managing to alternatively preserve favor with both Marc Anthony and Octavian (Caesar Augustus), after his death, his will was not affirmed by Caesar (for various reason) and his territory was instead divided into four autonomous territories (tetrarchies), with authority being assigned among his sons (Josephus, Antiquities 17:243-250, 317-321).
Around 6 AD – Herod’s son, Archelaus, was deposed by Roman authority and his territory became the Roman Province of Judea, which was then governed by a succession of appointed prefects.
Around 26 AD – Pontius Pilate was appointed as Judean prefect, directly governing the province on behalf of Rome.
[1] https://www.history.com/articles/alexander-the-great-defeat-persian-empire