Several Medo-Persian kings are named “Darius.” Three are mentioned in the OT books of the exilic and postexilic eras.

(1) Darius the Mede. He appears in the book of Daniel. Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was killed (we are not told how) after seeing the famous writing on the wall and exalting Daniel for interpreting the words (5:1–29). During his reign, Darius installed 120 satraps, who were accountable to three administrators, one of whom was Daniel. Daniel’s success made the satraps and other administrators jealous, and they incited Darius to issue an edict that anyone praying to anyone other than Darius over a thirty-day period would be thrown into the lions’ den. Upon hearing the decree, Daniel prayed openly and was arrested, which distressed Darius. After Daniel’s miraculous deliverance, Daniel’s accusers and their families were thrown into the lions’ den, with deadly results, but Daniel prospered (6:1–28).

There is some ambiguity, however, about the historical identity of “Darius the Mede.” Outside the OT there is no Median king named “Darius.” Also, it is the Persian king Cyrus who defeated the Babylonians. They did not fall as a result of a Median invasion, a fact attested to in ancient Greek and Babylonian sources. Still, prophecies such as Isa. 13:17–18 and Jer. 51:11 refer to Babylon falling to Medes, not to mention the reference to Belshazzar’s kingdom falling to the Medes and Persians in Dan. 6:28. This is a classic example where biblical and extrabiblical sources seem to clash.

One solution is to suggest that in fact a Median king named “Darius” did conquer Babylon, thus to follow the biblical report at face value and discount external evidence. Others suggest that the Medes are simply inserted into the biblical narrative to account for the biblical prophecies mentioned above (and others). Still others suggest that the name may refer to Gubaru, the governor whom the Persian king Cyrus put in charge of the Babylonian territories. He was from Gutium, which seems to have been known at the time as part of Media. This does not settle the matter of why he is called “Darius” in the OT, but Gubaru of Gutium seems to provide the best way forward in reconciling the biblical and extrabiblical evidence. It also addresses the notion that “Darius” and Cyrus ruled simultaneously (Dan. 6:28).

(2) Darius I (r. 521–486 BC), also known as Darius the Great. His rise to power is debated among historians, in part because the principal historical source is his own writing. He is the king under whom the temple was rebuilt (Ezra 4–6; Haggai; Zech. 1–8). He unified the Persian Empire and expanded it far to the west, nearly invading mainland Greece (he was defeated by the Athenians at the famous battle at Marathon in 490 BC). He was also a skilled administrator. He divided the empire into twenty provinces for purposes of governance and tax collection. He also instituted a system of weights and measures and introduced the daric, a gold coin.

(3) Darius the Persian. He is mentioned in the OT only in Neh. 12:22. His identity is debated. He is considered to be either Darius III Codamannus (r. 336–331 BC) or Darius II Nothus (r. 423–404 BC). If biblical chronology has any say in the matter, the latter is the only option to coincide with the ministry of Nehemiah. He is best known for having aided Sparta in winning the Peloponnesian War.

The evidence is clear that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah originally formed a single book. It is not until the Middle Ages that manuscripts show a division between the two. Furthermore, the material in Neh. 8 (and perhaps also chaps. 9–10) is a continuation of the material that follows the story of Ezra begun in Ezra 7–10. Thus, some of the discussion that follows is also relevant for the book of Nehemiah.

The book of Ezra is named after Ezra, a self-described priest and teacher (7:11) of the Lord. This man was commissioned by the Persian king Artaxerxes I (r. 464–424 BC) to reestablish the law of the Lord in the land of Judah.

Author and Date

The issue of the author and date of Ezra must include the evidence of Nehemiah, since they were originally a single composition. These books are unique among the theological histories of the OT in that they contain large portions that are written in the form of memoirs, first-person accounts of people who participated in the events that are narrated. Ezra, for instance, speaks in the first person in parts of Ezra 7–10. However, the memoir is set within the framework of a form more typical to the histories of the OT: third-person omniscient narration. So, although traditionally the authorship of Ezra is associated with Ezra, there is no claim that the book as a whole was written by him; thus, this book, like so many of the histories of Israel, is anonymous.

As for the date of composition, we need to differentiate the memoirs, which come from the time of Ezra (his ministry begins in 458 BC) and the time of Nehemiah (his work begins in 445 BC), and the time of the third-person narrative that incorporates these memoirs. The latter contains no date, but none of the events narrated took place after around 400 BC, and perhaps the final composition of the book took place around this time and no later than 300 BC.

Genre and Structure

The book of Ezra is a theological history, a book that intends to communicate what actually happened in space and time but is selective, with the purpose of showing how God was working among the people of God in the postexilic period. As a theological history in the OT, however, Ezra and Nehemiah are unique in that they contain the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah (as detailed by the first outline below). The structure of the book of Ezra makes sense only when paired with Nehemiah, since, again, they were an original unity. The structure may be explained on the basis of its sources as follows:

I. A Historical Review (Ezra 1–6)

II. Ezra’s Memoirs, Part 1 (Ezra 7–10)

III. Nehemiah’s Memoirs, Part 1 (Neh. 1–7)

IV. Ezra’s Memoirs, Part 2 (Neh. 8–10)

V. Nehemiah’s Memoirs, Part 2 (Neh. 11–13)

Or on the basis of the contents as follows:

I. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar Lead the People in Rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 1–6)

II. Ezra Leads the People by Reestablishing the Law (Ezra 7–10)

III. Nehemiah Leads the People in Rebuilding the Wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1–7:3)

IV. Renewal, Celebration, Remaining Problems (Neh. 7:4–13:31)

Theological Message

The book of Ezra begins where Chronicles ends, with the decree by King Cyrus of Persia that the Jews be allowed to return to the land. The first six chapters narrate the events of the first phase of that return, from 539 until 515 BC. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar are the leaders of the people at this time, and their initial goal is to rebuild the temple. Once they start, however, opposition sets in, and the work stops. However, motivated in large part, as we know, by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the people finish the work, and the second temple becomes functional.

Nonetheless, over fifty years later, when the story of Ezra begins (Ezra 7–10), the condition of the people of God is not promising. King Artaxerxes of Persia allows Ezra, a priest and teacher, to lead a return back to Judah with the express purpose of reestablishing the law in the land. When he arrives, he finds that there are sinful practices such as illegitimate intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, and he works to reestablish the purity of the people. The story of Ezra continues in the book of Nehemiah, where he is seen leading the people in a great renewal of the covenant as they reaffirm their commitment to obey God’s law (Neh. 8–10).

Contemporary Significance

The book of Ezra narrates two periods of return to the promised land from exile with two different primary purposes. The first group, led by Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar, has as its main purpose the rebuilding of the temple. The primacy of the temple building is an indication of the importance of worship. The second group returns under the leadership of Ezra, whose purpose is to reestablish the observance of the law among God’s people. God’s word plays a central role in Ezra’s reform, and reading about his ancient ministry reminds God’s people today of the importance of Scripture.

Ezra’s style of leadership also provides a model for contemporary leadership. Ezra is sensitive and empathetic. He takes the shortcomings and failures of God’s people on himself. When the people sin, he tears out his own hair and sheds tears of disappointment. That this is not the only possible style of leadership is seen in the next book as we observe Nehemiah at work.

The work of Zerubbabel and Ezra (as well as Nehemiah) also illustrates that at times separation from pagan influences is necessary. Granted, Jesus breaks down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles (Gal. 3:28), but his followers should be distinguished by their new life in him (Gal. 4:8–11; 5:16–26).

Nehemiah son of Hakaliah is one of the most colorful figures in OT history. He is passionate and aggressive; he works hard to achieve the goals that God has set for him. He does not tolerate the sins of others and fights his way through the obstacles that people set in his path. In many ways, he is a study in contrasts with Ezra, his near contemporary. When Ezra discovers sin among his fellow Judeans, he pulls his hair out. When Nehemiah encounters the same problem, he pulls out the hair of the sinners.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally a single composition, not broken into two parts until the Middle Ages. Thus, many issues, such as date and authorship, are discussed in the introduction to the article on the book of Ezra. Here, the conclusions will be stated for ease of reference, but the evidence is presented in the article on Ezra. The additional details to follow are particularly relevant to the study of Nehemiah.

Literary Considerations

Author and date. Ezra-Nehemiah is an anonymous composition that reached its present form sometime between 400 and 300 BC.

Genre and structure. Ezra-Nehemiah is a theological history, a book that intends to communicate what actually happened in space and time but is selective, with the purpose of showing how God was working among his people in the postexilic period. As a theological history in the OT, however, Ezra (and Nehemiah) are unique in that they contain the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah as detailed by the first outline below. The structure of the book of Ezra makes sense only when paired with the book of Nehemiah, again since they were originally a unit. The structure may be explained on the basis of its sources, as follows:

I. A Historical Review (Ezra 1–6)

II. Ezra’s Memoirs, Part 1 (Ezra 7–10)

III. Nehemiah’s Memoirs, Part 1 (Neh. 1–7)

IV. Ezra’s Memoirs, Part 2 (Neh. 8–10)

V. Nehemiah’s Memoirs, Part 2 (Neh. 11–13)

Or it may be explained on the basis of its content:

I. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar Lead the People in Rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 1–6)

II. Ezra Leads the People by Reestablishing the Law (Ezra 7–10)

III. Nehemiah Leads the People in Rebuilding the Wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1–7:3)

IV. Renewal, Celebration, Remaining Problems (Neh. 7:4–13:31)

Theological Message

The book begins with Nehemiah serving as the cupbearer of King Artaxerxes of Persia. Nehemiah hears a distressing report from his ancestral homeland in Judah and feels called to return to Jerusalem. Receiving permission from Artaxerxes to go back to Judah, he arrives intent on building the walls of the city, thus completing the physical reconstruction of the city. In spite of the efforts of neighboring groups and provinces to block their efforts, the Jews under Nehemiah’s leadership are remarkably successful at accomplishing their task. In this, the postexilic people of God surely must have recognized that the prophecies of salvation in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were coming to fulfillment.

The book of Nehemiah also records Ezra’s leadership in guiding the people to reaffirm their commitment to Yahweh and his law. They confess their sin. One might think of the physical wall that Nehemiah built not only as protection but also as a means of physical separation from the Gentiles. Also, then, Ezra’s reestablishment of the law of God would serve as a spiritual separation from the lawless Gentiles.

Even with all the success, the book of Nehemiah ends in chapter 13 on a note of disappointment. Nehemiah recounts the strenuous efforts that the faithful under his leadership have made to get right with God, but many people persisted in their sin.

Contemporary Significance

Ezra narrates two returns: first under Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar to rebuild the temple, and second under Ezra to reestablish the law. In the first part, the book of Nehemiah focuses on a third return under Nehemiah to build the walls and thus complete the physical reconstruction of the city. Nehemiah’s leadership provides an alternative model of leadership to that of Ezra. Nehemiah is more assertive and demanding. It is not that one mode of leadership is right or wrong; the contemporary Christian leader looking to Ezra and Nehemiah for a model of leadership should read the situation to know what will best accomplish God’s purposes. Also, the purpose of building the walls was a matter of military defense, but it was also a matter of separation. True, Christ breaks down the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:14–18), but the NT also recognizes that Christians (whether from a Jewish or a Gentile background) must lead holy and distinct lives.

Surprisingly, the book of Nehemiah does not end with a sense of completion, a feeling of mission accomplished. The last chapter finds Nehemiah in prayer for the continuing sin of the people, reminding contemporary readers that repentance is not a onetime act, but a lifestyle.

The term “exodus” comes from a Greek word meaning “departure.” Specifically, the exodus refers to Israel’s departure from Egyptian slavery and its move toward the promised land (Canaan). The story of the exodus begins with a description of the harsh conditions under which the children of Abraham lived in Egypt, the raising up of a deliverer, the plagues, the actual departure, and the crossing of the Red Sea. Some treatments of the exodus include the wanderings in the wilderness (this topic is treated separately as a transitional period between the exodus and the conquest and settlement of the promised land; see Wilderness Wandering).

Many questions of interpretation of the exodus are matters of discussion, some of which will be treated below. These include, among other issues, the size of Israel, the date of the events, and the nature of the plagues. Two questions dominate all the others: Did the exodus happen? Does it matter to the message of the Bible whether the exodus happened?

The Nature of the Exodus

The exodus event is described in the first fifteen chapters of the book of Exodus, which opens with a description of Israel’s enslavement in the land of Egypt. The descendants of Israel had been in Egypt since the time of Joseph (see Gen. 37–50). An unspecified but significant number of years had passed since Joseph, and when the action begins in the book of Exodus, the Israelites were no longer honored in the land but reviled. Unmentioned in the Bible, but known from extrabiblical literature, a group called the “Hyksos” (“rulers of foreign countries”), ethnically related to the Hebrews, had taken advantage of an Egypt in political chaos and had dominated it for about a century (c. 1664–1555 BC). The events of Exod. 1 occurred after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, and many associate the new distrust of Israel with a general fear of a large Semitic presence in the land once a native Egyptian monarchy had been restored.

The biblical text, however, gives no motive but simply states that an unnamed (see below) pharaoh issued a decree to enslave the Israelites and to kill Israelite baby boys. In this context of enslavement and murder, God raised up a deliverer, Moses. His birth was extraordinary. After giving him birth, Moses’ mother placed him in a papyrus basket and put him on the Nile River. He was discovered by none other than the daughter of Pharaoh, who even hired Moses’ mother as a wet nurse. Thus, Israel’s deliverer was raised in the very household of the pharaoh who was trying to exterminate him.

Parallels to the Moses birth story exist. Especially close is the Sargon legend. Sargon was born to a high priestess who, for unstated reasons, could not keep him. Instead of abandoning him, she placed him in a basket and floated him down the Euphrates, where he was discovered by Aqqi, an irrigation worker. Aqqi raised Sargon, and from there he became the first king of the dynasty of Akkad. Rather than attributing the stories’ similarities to imitation, we should rather understand the action of Moses’ and Sargon’s mothers as the typical way that mothers helped preserve their babies in difficult situations. The moral of the biblical story is that God allows Israel’s future hero to survive so that he can use him to deliver his people.

Nothing is narrated about Moses’ childhood. The next major episode of the exodus involves Moses’ intervention in an altercation between a Hebrew and an Egyptian. Moses, who certainly knew his true parentage, killed an Egyptian who was beating an Israelite. This killing became known, and he had to flee Egypt.

Moses’ flight from Egypt brought him to Midian, an area around the Gulf of Aqabah. He married into the family of a Midianite tribal leader, Jethro. It was here, specifically at Mount Sinai, that God, speaking to Moses at a bush that was in flames but not consumed, called him to return to Egypt to confront Pharaoh. In response to Moses’ hesitation, God made his brother Aaron his companion and spokesperson.

When Moses returned to Egypt, he demanded that Pharaoh allow his people to go into the wilderness for three days in order to celebrate a festival. Ethical issues arise with this demand because it is unlikely that the Israelites would have returned to Egypt after the three days. This deception is not the only instance when lying seems to be divinely approved in the OT. We should likely understand that the pharaoh had forfeited his right to the truth because he intended to use it for evil purposes.

Pharaoh refused to allow the Israelites to leave. In response, God sent a series of disasters (plagues) against Egypt. According to Exod. 12:12, the plagues were judgments directed at the gods of Egypt (see also Num. 33:4). Turning the Nile into blood, God attacked the god of the Nile, Hapi. Darkening the sun, God showed his power over the most important Egyptian deity, the sun god Aten-Re. Climactically, the death of the Egyptians’ firstborn sons and livestock brought tragedy to the god who ruled Egypt, the pharaoh.

The plagues were a series of divinely initiated disasters of nature, miracles, or extraordinary providence, not naturally occurring events, that brought Egypt to its knees. Ultimately, Pharaoh agreed to let Israel leave Egypt. On the evening of the last plague, the Israelites celebrated the Passover (Exod. 12), which ever since has been an annual commemoration of their deliverance from Egypt.

Even after they set off toward the promised land, however, they were not safe. Pharaoh, angry and embarrassed, had a final change of mind and set off after the Israelites. He cornered them with their backs against an impassable body of water known traditionally as the Red Sea. The Hebrew phrase (yam sup) is literally translated “sea of reeds” and probably refers to one of the deepwater lakes that once existed to the north of the Gulf of Suez. In any case, Moses and the Israelites had no chance of escape—that is, no human chance. God opened up the sea so that they could pass through, and when the Egyptians tried to follow, he closed the sea so that it engulfed them. God’s act of rescue and judgment is then celebrated in song (Exod. 15:1–18). After they passed safely through the waters, the Israelites then continued their journey through the wilderness and toward the promised land.

Did It Happen?

The only direct witness of the exodus is the Bible itself. The account given in the book of Exodus is intended to be taken as an actual past event, and those who have confidence in the Bible as a historical source typically do not doubt the historicity of the exodus, although some questions persist, such as the size of the group that left Egypt or whether the exodus was the culmination or the beginning of a process of Israelites moving from Egypt to Israel.

Unfortunately, there is only indirect evidence of Israelite presence in Egypt in the second half of the second millennium BC (see “When Did It Happen?” below). The exodus and Israel are never mentioned in Egyptian records. Of course, it is unlikely that Egypt would have preserved permanent records of such an embarrassing and painful moment in its history. The exodus is not the type of event that Egypt would have memorialized by a pyramid or on tomb walls. What we do have on tomb walls, however, does show in a general sense that Semitic peoples were engaged in slave labor in the second millennium in Egypt. For instance, as early as the reign of Thutmose III, around 1460 BC, we have scenes of foreigners making bricks for the temple of Amun in Thebes. This is one example of indirect evidence that can be marshaled to make the account of the exodus sound reasonable. In this context, we should also note that the first extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Israel as a people in Egypt comes from the very end of the thirteenth century BC, in a victory monument of Pharaoh Merneptah (also known as the Israel Stela) that mentions Israel as a vanquished enemy.

When Did It Happen?

The biblical evidence is ambiguous as to when the exodus took place. Note that the names of the pharaohs are not given. The most straightforward text is 1 Kings 6:1, stating that Solomon began building the temple in his fourth year, which was 480 years after the exodus. Taking this number literally places the exodus in the middle of the fifteenth century BC. Through correlations with Assyrian chronology, which mentions dateable astronomical events, Solomon’s fourth year is reckoned to be approximately 966 BC. If the exodus took place in the fifteenth century BC, then a ruler such as Thutmose III would be a candidate for the pharaoh of the exodus.

Problems arise, however, when this date is compared to the traditional interpretation of archaeological evidence. A full discussion of the issue is impossible here, but as an example, we will note briefly the two “store cities” that Egypt forced Israel to build, Pithom and Ram-eses (Exod. 1:11). In the first place, the name of the second city reflects that of a pharaoh who ruled in the thirteenth century, Ramesses II. It is possible that the book of Exodus has updated the name of a city that had existed as early as the fifteenth century. Indeed, some archaeological remains from the fifteenth century at the archaeological site are widely recognized as the remains of Rameses (Tell Qantir [Daba’]). But it was during the reign of Ramesses II that the city really expanded.

Archaeology better (but not perfectly) supports a date for the exodus in the thirteenth century BC, with Ramesses as the pharaoh of the exodus. This conclusion holds not only for Pithom and Rameses but also for the cities said to be involved in the conquest that took place forty years later (Jericho, Ai, Hazor).

A late date (thirteenth century) for the exodus can be biblically justified by taking the number 480 as symbolic. The number 40 could stand for a generation (like the wilderness generation), and thus 480 years would stand for twelve generations. However, a generation is actually closer to twenty-five years, meaning that twelve generations would “literally” be about three hundred years. Accordingly, the exodus would be dated to the first part of the thirteenth century.

In conclusion, both the archaeological evidence and the chronological statements of the Bible are ambiguous. Archaeological results are often open to more than one interpretation. While insisting on the historicity of the exodus, we still cannot be dogmatic about when the exodus took place, whether in the fifteenth century or in the thirteenth.

Does It Matter Whether It Happened?

Many today understand the story of the exodus to be just that, a story. Often stories are meaningful in and of themselves, apart from whether the events they relate actually happened. However, in the case of the exodus, if the events associated with it did not happen, then the moral of the story has no relevance. The main teaching of the exodus is that Yahweh is a God who can rescue his people when they are beyond human aid. Indeed, that is how the exodus was understood even in later OT settings (see Ps. 77). At the exodus God was establishing a track record, showing that he was capable of and, under certain conditions, willing to rescue his people.

Biblical Theology

The exodus is the salvation event that defined Israel as a nation. Occurring at the beginning of Israel’s national history, it served as an important reminder of God’s concern and care for his people. After the exodus, the Israelites journeyed through the wilderness toward the promised land. Due to their rebellion and lack of trust, God punished them by making them stay in the wilderness for forty years, enough time for the first generation of adults to die out. With the exception of the faithful spies, Joshua and Caleb, those who stood on the eastern bank of the Jordan River forty years later did not experience the crossing of the Red Sea. To demonstrate that the God of power was still with them, God caused the waters of the Jordan River to stop, evoking memories of the exodus (Josh. 3).

The psalms also often recall the exodus in such a way that this past event may bring confidence for the present and hope for the future. Psalm 77 illustrates this, as does Ps. 114, which personifies the sea as the forces of chaos, afraid of God, who will control it.

Interestingly, the later prophets often speak of the exodus as if it were a future event. Isaiah (4:5; 11:15–16; 40:1–11; 43:18–19; 48:21; 49:11–12; 50:2; 51:9–10; 52:10; 63:11–14), Jeremiah (16:14–15; 23:7–8), Hosea (2:14–16), and many others announce God’s coming judgment on his sinful people. Looking beyond judgment, though, they also envision a future rescue of the faithful remnant, and often they do this in the language of the exodus.

When did this second exodus take place? Ezra 1–6 recounts the early returns under leaders such as Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. Those who heard the prophetic message would have understood the exile as a reversion to bondage and a wandering in the wilderness. Thus, we should not be surprised that the faithful would think of the return to the land as a fulfillment of the promises of the second exodus. It is striking that just as the Egyptians gave gifts to the departing children of Israel (Exod. 3:21–22; 11:2; 12:35–36), so too did the people of Israel’s present foreign neighbors: “All their neighbors assisted them with articles of silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with valuable gifts, in addition to all the freewill offerings” (Ezra 1:6). As the exodus generation offered gifts for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 35:21–29), so too the returnees contributed gifts for the construction of the temple (Ezra 2:68–69).

However, the return from exile was just the beginning. The NT understands that Jesus Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the exodus; his work on earth follows the pattern of the exodus.

His ministry began with his baptism at the Jordan River, reflecting the Israelites’ crossing through the Red Sea (which was their baptism [1 Cor. 10:1–6]), after which he went into the wilderness for forty days and nights (Matt. 4:1–11). Here he experienced the same temptations as Israel did during its forty-year wandering. In contrast to the Israelites, Jesus showed that he was the obedient Son of God by not succumbing to the temptation, each time quoting the book of Deuteronomy, Moses’ last sermon to the Israelites in the wilderness.

After naming twelve disciples (reflecting the twelve tribes of Israel), Jesus preached a sermon from a mountain whose subject was the law (Matt. 5–7). Such a topic in such a setting would have reminded a Jewish Christian audience of God giving Moses the law on Mount Sinai.

These are just some examples of the connection between the exodus and Jesus’ life. The connection culminates, though, on the cross, since Jesus is executed on the eve of the Passover, the annual celebration of the deliverance from Egypt.

While the connections with Jesus’ life are arguably the most significant, the book of Hebrews also uses the exodus theme, though in a slightly different way. Hebrews likens contemporary Christians to the wilderness generation. They have been freed from their bondage (sin) and are on the way to the promised land (heaven), but for now they are in the wilderness. The author makes the connection to warn Christians not to rebel against God, as many in the wilderness generation did, and thus suffer punishment (Heb. 3:7–4:13).

Old Testament

The English word “governor” is used to translate a number of Hebrew words. The term indicates one who has been designated with authority over a certain region, especially under the rule of a king or emperor. The position of governor is found throughout the Pentateuch, the Writings, and the Prophets. Notable in the OT are the governors appointed by the foreign kings both at home and in occupied territories.

There are several notable governors in the OT. After being sold into slavery in Egypt, Joseph was exalted to governor of Egypt, second only to the king. Thus, his brothers bowed before him (Gen. 42:6). Solomon, during his reign, established twelve governors, each one responsible for supplying provisions to the king one month out of the year (1 Kings 4:7), and Solomon received tribute from them (1 Kings 10:15; 2 Chron. 9:14).

One notable governor was Gedaliah, ruler of the Jewish remnant left in Judah during the deportation, who reported to the king of Babylon (Jer. 40:11). Later, he was assassinated by Ishmael (Jer. 41:2). This provoked great fear, causing some to flee to Egypt (Jer. 41:17–18).

Another notable individual who governed the Jewish people upon their return to Jerusalem after the captivity was Sheshbazzar, governor under Cyrus (Ezra 5:14). He had been entrusted with the vessels for the house of God in Jerusalem that had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar (1:7–8). This same Sheshbazzar had begun building the foundation of the temple by the legal decree of Cyrus the king (5:14–6:6). Subsequently, Zerubbabel (under Darius I) became governor and completed the foundation and the rest of the temple (Ezra 3–6; see also Hag. 1:1–15). He and the other workers are said to have had their spirits stirred to do the work (Hag. 1:14).

Nehemiah, who led the people in restoring the wall of Jerusalem for the safety and restoration of the city, was governor over his people (under Artaxerxes I) and had a true heart of compassion toward the poor. His sympathy for them was so deep that he did not take the regular allotment of food and other goods that the other governors took by right (Neh. 5:14–15). The governors who had gone before ruled and taxed heavily. Nehemiah deemed this an illegitimate way to live among God’s people. At the reading of the law along with Ezra the priest and the other Levites, Nehemiah directed the attention of the people to the proper response to the word of God (Neh. 8:9–10).

New Testament

In the NT, the most common word for governor is hēgemōn. As in the OT, governors were appointed by higher authorities who delegated to them the authority to rule.

The office of governor was very important in Israel during the NT period. Herod the Great had ruled Israel during the years 37–4 BC. At his death in 4 BC, three of his sons took over the kingdom with the approval of Caesar Augustus. Archelaus ruled Judea and Samaria, Herod Antipas (Herod the Tetrarch) was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitus (see Luke 3:1; Josephus, J.W. 2.93–97). The Jewish people revolted against Archelaus in the ninth year, and he was stripped of his rulership and banished in AD 6 (Josephus, J.W. 2.111). His kingdom was turned into a Roman province, with Coponius ruling as governor. From this time until the reign of Herod Agrippa I, Judea was ruled by a line of governors (called “prefects” or “procurators”). In AD 41 Herod Agrippa I began to rule and eventually governed roughly the same territory as did Herod the Great, his grandfather. His rule, however, lasted only three years. In the period AD 44–66 governors again ruled in Judea, among them Felix and Festus, with whom the apostle Paul had audience.

Of note among these governors was Pontius Pilate, appointed in AD 26 by Tiberius. Pilate’s fortunes seemed to wax and wane with those of General Sejanus, with whom he shared many political and social views. When he first arrived in Palestine, Pilate provoked protests by secretly bringing army standards bearing the images of Roman emperors—idols in Jewish eyes—into Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.55–59). On another occasion demonstrations broke out when Pilate used money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.60–62). Pilate sent soldiers to surround and attack the protestors, many of whom were killed. Luke 13:1 refers to a similar episode near the temple mount in which Pilate massacred some Galileans, “whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” Typical of the Romans, Pilate met protest with ruthless and overwhelming force. At Jesus’ trial, though Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent (John 18:38), he condemned Jesus to crucifixion to avoid antagonizing the religious leaders. This kind of action was characteristic of Pilate. He was an unscrupulous and self-seeking leader who loathed the Jewish leadership but feared antagonizing them. Josephus notes that during the tumult of the Samaritans (to assemble at Mount Gerizim), Pilate put them to flight, killing some of them. The Samaritans complained about Pilate’s murderous ways to Vitellius, who was friendly to them, and he recalled Pilate to Rome to answer before Tiberius, but Pilate took so long getting there that Tiberius was dead when he finally arrived (Josephus, Ant. 18.85–89). Pilate was eventually removed from office, and we hear nothing else from him.

Two other Judean governors who appear in the NT are Felix and Festus, who played a role in the apostle Paul’s trial (Acts 24–26). Felix’s wife, Drusilla, was a Jewess, and she was with him at Paul’s second hearing. On this second occasion Paul reasoned powerfully with Felix, so much so that Felix became frightened about the future and sent Paul away. His fear notwithstanding, Felix sought to exploit the situation for monetary gain (no doubt, bribes were common), but Paul made no response. Two years later Felix was replaced by the next governor, Porcius Festus. Festus heard the defense of Paul (Acts 26) and sent him to Rome after his appeal, though both Festus and Herod agreed that Paul could have been set free had he not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:30–32).

On one occasion in the NT, the word “governor” is translated from the word ethnarchēs. Aretas of the Nabateans was the ethnarch in Damascus and laid siege to capture the apostle Paul, but Paul escaped through a window in the wall, probably at night (2 Cor. 11:32–33).

As opposed to a governor, a “proconsul” (anthypatos) was a ruler of a senatorial province and so was appointed by the Roman senate rather than the emperor. These provinces were usually more loyal and peaceful and thus had little need of a strong military presence. Such was the case with the proconsul on Cyprus who lived in Paphos, Sergius Paulus. This man is noted by Luke as intelligent and ready to hear the message of Paul and Barnabas. The sorcerer Elymas (Bar-Jesus) sought to turn the proconsul from the faith and so was struck blind at Paul’s command. This Roman proconsul, a man of political stature on Cyprus, then became a believer (Acts 13:4–12). Another proconsul, Gallio, ruled in Achaia during Paul’s sojourn there on his second missionary journey. From information gained from ancient written sources, chiefly the Gallio Inscription, the beginning of his tenure as proconsul in Achaia occurred between AD 50 and 52. When Paul was brought to trial before Gallio, Gallio tossed the case out as a religious squabble (Acts 18:12–16). In another reference to the proconsulate, Paul’s detractors in Ephesus were told by the town secretary to take their complaints against Paul to the proconsuls of that area, lest they be accused of provoking a riot and an illegal assembly (19:38–41).

Jesus himself had previously prophesied that the disciples would testify before kings and governors (Matt. 10:18), something that was fulfilled by Paul as he spoke before Herod, Felix, Festus, and Nero. Additionally, Luke noted Quirinius as the governor of Syria when the first census was taken, around the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:2).

The apostles note that the community of faith is to submit to rulers such as governors as they execute their God-ordained task, since the praise of good and punishment of evil is also the interest of the divine creator and ordainer of such persons (1 Pet. 2:14; cf. Rom. 13:1–5). The community of faith is also to pray for all in authority (including governors, though not mentioned specifically), so that the church will be able to lead a quiet existence in godliness (1 Tim. 2:1–2).

Since the earliest stages of Israel’s national history, the Israelites were a mixed people (cf. Exod. 12:37–38). Although intermarriage with non-Israelites was not strictly forbidden, it came with the condition that the non-Israelite spouse embrace Israel’s God (cf. Ruth 1:16; Ezra 6:21). This stipulation was not always obeyed (Num. 11:4), and occasionally drastic measures were employed to correct Israel’s mixed ethnic status (cf. Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:3; Ps. 106:35). See also Mixed Multitude.

Formed from “Pascha” (a Latin-ized version of Pesach, the Hebrew term for “Passover”), this adjective pertains to the Feast of Passover. Most commonly, the adjective is used in connection with the lamb offered as a sacrifice on the eve of the feast. The unblemished year-old male lamb is roasted (Exod. 12:5, 8–9; but see Deut. 16:7, where boiling is mentioned as an alternative) and eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The Feast of Passover, combined with that of Unleavened Bread, is set in place by divine initiative to commemorate God’s “passing over” Israelite households while smiting Egyptian firstborns, the final plague to secure the freedom of the Israelites from Egypt (Exod. 12:23–28).

Beyond the institution of the rite in Exod. 12:1–27 and its immediate environs, the OT refers to the feast in Num. 9:1–14 (allowance for a secondary observance of the festival for those unclean or away on a journey during the first); Josh. 5:10–12 (celebration at Gilgal); 2 Chron. 30:1–27 (Israel and Judah celebrate the festival at Hezekiah’s behest); 2 Kings 23:21–23 // 2 Chron. 35:1, 18–19 (reinstitution of the festival as part of religious reform under Josiah); Ezra 6:19–22 (Passover observance following dedication of the newly constructed temple by returnees from exile in Babylonia).

A Jewish leader immediately after the exile who in 539/538 BC or soon after led Jewish exiles back from Babylon to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:1–6:22; Haggai; Zech. 4:1–14).

Cyrus the Great defeated Babylon in 539 BC and then issued a decree allowing Babylon’s vassals to return to their homelands and rebuild their temples (2 Chron. 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–4). Zerubbabel led the first contingent to Jerusalem and then headed up the effort to rebuild the temple to Yahweh in Jerusalem. Zerubbabel saw to the immediate construction of the altar, which allowed sacrificial ritual to resume. However, after running into opposition from the Samaritans, the rebuilding of the temple proper was delayed. God sent Haggai and Zechariah to revitalize the effort, and in 515 BC the second temple finally was completed.

Zerubbabel was the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag. 1:1). He was a descendant of Shealtiel. Sometimes the text implies he is Shealtiel’s son, though 1 Chron. 3:19 says that he is the son of Shealtiel’s brother Pedaiah, another of Jehoiachin’s sons. Whatever the precise connection, there is no doubt that Zerubbabel was a Davidic descendant. The prophets Zechariah and Haggai both speak of Zerubbabel in messianic terms (Haggai; Zech. 4:1–14). Eventually, he simply disappears from the historical record. Some speculate that the Persians removed him because of the high expectation that surrounded him as a son of David. However, he was the governor of Judah, not the ultimate Messiah. A greater one, one of his descendants (Matt. 1:12–13; Luke 3:27), would be the true Messiah—Jesus Christ.