Ezra Chapter 2
List of the Returning Exiles
A. Those returning from exile
1. Ezra 2:1–2, Those immediately associated with Zerubbabel
“Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; Which came with Zerubbabel: Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum, and Baanah. The number of the men of the people of Israel.”
This section opens with a formal and deliberate introduction to the list of those who returned from the Babylonian captivity. They are identified as “the children of the province,” indicating that Judah was no longer an independent kingdom but a province within the Persian Empire. The exile had fundamentally altered Israel’s political status, yet God was restoring His people geographically and covenantally. The phrase “every one unto his city” underscores continuity with Israel’s tribal and familial structure, showing that God’s redemptive work preserved identity, inheritance, and order even after seventy years of judgment.
The description of the returnees as “children of the province” reflects Persian administrative language. Zerubbabel himself bore the Persian title of governor, later called Tirshatha in Ezra 2:63. This confirms that the restoration was permitted and structured under Persian authority, not as a new exodus or revolutionary movement. Zerubbabel was no new Moses leading a nation out by divine judgment, but rather a governor overseeing a remnant restored by divine providence. Nevertheless, the hand of the LORD is unmistakable in moving pagan kings to fulfill prophetic promises.
The word translated “province” is derived from a term that later became associated with regions under heavy tribute. This highlights the humility of the restored community. Though back in the land, they returned poor, vulnerable, and politically subordinate. Jeremiah’s lament over captivity still echoed in their circumstances, yet the fact of return itself was evidence of covenant faithfulness.
Those listed as coming with Zerubbabel number eleven in this text, though comparison with Nehemiah 7:7 shows that a twelfth name, Nahamani, was present in the parallel record. The omission here is best explained as a copyist error rather than a historical discrepancy. The symbolic importance of twelve leaders is significant. Just as the twelve tribes formed Israel and the twelve apostles formed the foundation of the church, these leaders represented the fullness of the restored nation. The community they led was not a fragment or accident of history, but the legitimate continuation of the people of Israel.
The names Nehemiah and Mordecai should not be confused with the more famous figures bearing those names in later biblical books. These were common Jewish names, and Scripture itself provides no indication that they are the same individuals. This reminder guards against careless assumptions and reinforces careful reading of historical context.
Zerubbabel himself stands at the center of this restoration. He was the appointed governor of Judah and a direct descendant of the royal house of David. This fact carries immense theological weight. Though the monarchy was not restored, the Davidic line was preserved, keeping intact God’s covenant promises concerning the throne. The return therefore had a latent national character. It was not merely a religious pilgrimage, but the quiet preservation of messianic hope.
Scripture strongly suggests that Zerubbabel is the same individual referred to earlier as Sheshbazzar in Ezra 1:8. Ezra 5:16 states that Sheshbazzar laid the foundation of the temple, while Ezra 3:8 attributes that work to Zerubbabel. The most reasonable conclusion is that Sheshbazzar was his Babylonian or Persian name, while Zerubbabel was his Hebrew name. This dual naming reflects the cultural reality of exile, similar to Daniel and his companions.
Jeshua is identified as the high priest and the chief religious leader alongside Zerubbabel. He is prominently mentioned by the postexilic prophets Haggai and Zechariah. His name, equivalent to Joshua and rendered as Jesus in Greek, means “The LORD saves.” As high priest, Jeshua functioned as the spiritual counterpart to Zerubbabel’s civil authority, together modeling the cooperation of priesthood and governance under God’s covenant order.
2. Ezra 2:3–35, A list of the families returning to Judah and Jerusalem
“The children of Parosh, two thousand an hundred seventy and two; The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two; The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five; The children of Pahathmoab, of the children of Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve; The children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four; The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five; The children of Zaccai, seven hundred threescore; The children of Bani, six hundred forty and two; The children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three; The children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two; The children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six; The children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six; The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four; The children of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety and eight; The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and three; The children of Jorah, an hundred and twelve; The children of Hashum, two hundred twenty and three; The children of Gibbar, ninety and five; The children of Bethlehem, an hundred twenty and three; The men of Netophah, fifty and six; The men of Anathoth, an hundred twenty and eight; The children of Azmaveth, forty and two; The children of Kirjatharim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred forty and three; The children of Ramah and Geba, six hundred twenty and one; The men of Michmas, an hundred twenty and two; The men of Bethel and Ai, two hundred twenty and three; The children of Nebo, fifty and two; The children of Magbish, an hundred fifty and six; The children of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four; The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty; The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty and five; The children of Jericho, three hundred forty and five; The children of Senaah, three thousand six hundred and thirty.”
This detailed register records the heads of families and the number of adult males in each group. The actual population would have been significantly larger, since women and children are not included in these figures. The emphasis on families rather than individuals reflects God’s covenantal pattern. Restoration was not merely personal but communal, rooted in households, lineages, and inherited identity.
Rather than listing the returnees as an anonymous mass, Scripture preserves their names and origins. This humanizes the restoration and reflects God’s concern for the individual within the community. As Psalm 68:6 declares, “God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land.” The return from exile was an act of divine mercy that rebuilt social and spiritual structure.
Some numerical differences appear when comparing this list with Nehemiah 7. For example, the descendants of Arah are listed here as seven hundred seventy and five, while Nehemiah records six hundred fifty and two. These differences are best explained by normal historical factors such as deaths along the journey, illness, changed decisions, or later recounting, rather than by error in Scripture. Taken together, the multiple preserved lists correct and complement one another.
The names themselves reflect a mixture of Hebrew religious meaning and cultural influence from the exile. This demonstrates how Israel maintained its faith while adapting linguistically and culturally under foreign rule. Many Jews adopted Babylonian or Persian names, just as Daniel and Esther did, yet remained faithful to the LORD.
Several names carry notable meanings. Parosh means flea, possibly indicating humility or insignificance. Shephatiah means the LORD has judged, a fitting reminder of exile and restoration. Arah means wild ox, suggesting strength. Zaccai means pure, or may be a shortened form of Zechariah. Bani derives from Benaiah and means the LORD has built, a powerful theme in the rebuilding era. Bebai means pupil of the eye, implying value and care. Azgad means Gad is strong. Adonikam means my Lord has arisen. Adin means voluptuous. Ater means left handed. Bezai is related to Bezaleel and means in the shadow of God. Jorah means autumn rain. Hashum means broad nose. Gibbar means strong man.
Taken together, this list testifies that God restores His people by name, preserves covenant identity through generations, and faithfully brings back a remnant according to His promises, even after judgment, dispersion, and political subjugation.
3. Ezra 2:36–57, A list of the priests, Levites, and temple workers returning from exile
“The priests: the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine hundred seventy and three; The children of Immer, a thousand fifty and two; The children of Pashur, a thousand two hundred forty and seven; The children of Harim, a thousand and seventeen.
The Levites: the children of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the children of Hodaviah, seventy and four.
The singers: the children of Asaph, an hundred twenty and eight.
The children of the porters: the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children of Hatita, the children of Shobai, an hundred thirty and nine in all.
The Nethinims: the children of Ziha, the children of Hasupha, the children of Tabbaoth, The children of Keros, the children of Siaha, The children of Padon, The children of Lebanah, the children of Hagabah, The children of Akkub, The children of Hagab, The children of Shalmai, The children of Hanan, The children of Giddel, The children of Gahar, The children of Reaiah, The children of Rezin, The children of Nekoda, The children of Gazzam, The children of Uzza, The children of Paseah, The children of Besai, The children of Asnah, The children of Mehunim, The children of Nephusim, The children of Bakbuk, The children of Hakupha, The children of Harhur, The children of Bazluth, The children of Mehida, The children of Harsha, The children of Barkos, The children of Sisera, The children of Tamah, The children of Neziah, The children of Hatipha.
The children of Solomon’s servants: the children of Sotai, the children of Sophereth, the children of Peruda, The children of Jaalah, The children of Darkon, The children of Giddel, The children of Shephatiah, The children of Hattil, The children of Pochereth of Zebaim, the children of Ami.”
This section shifts the focus from general family groups to those directly connected with temple worship and service. The priority given to priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, and temple servants underscores that the return from exile was fundamentally spiritual in purpose. The restoration of worship, sacrifice, and covenant order was central to Israel’s identity, and without these offices, national life could not properly resume.
Only four priestly families are listed, Jedaiah, Immer, Pashhur, and Harim. This is striking when compared with the twenty four divisions of the priesthood originally established by King David in 1 Chronicles 24:3, which states, “And David distributed them, both Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, according to their offices in their service.” The fact that only four divisions returned indicates that the vast majority of priests chose to remain in Babylon. Life in exile had become comfortable for many, and the hardships of rebuilding in a ruined land discouraged large scale participation. This reveals a sobering spiritual reality, not all who belonged to the covenant people were willing to sacrifice comfort for obedience.
The Levites are listed next, and their number is remarkably small. Only seventy four Levites returned, far fewer than the number of priests. This is a reversal of the original pattern, where Levites greatly outnumbered priests. This imbalance suggests a serious spiritual decline among the Levites prior to the exile and lingering reluctance afterward. Many scholars have noted that Levites were often associated with local high places before the exile, rather than centralized worship at Jerusalem. The exile purged Israel of open idolatry, but it also left many Levites disinterested in returning to a system that would strictly regulate worship according to the Law.
The singers, descendants of Asaph, are specifically named. This emphasizes the importance of music in Israel’s worship life. Asaph was appointed by David as a chief musician, and his descendants maintained that sacred role. Worship in the restored temple was not merely functional but doxological, centered on praise, order, and reverence.
The gatekeepers, or porters, were responsible for guarding the entrances to the temple. Their role was both practical and spiritual, ensuring order, security, and ritual purity. Their inclusion highlights that even seemingly minor roles were essential in God’s design for worship.
A lengthy list follows of the Nethinim. These were temple servants assigned to assist the Levites with menial tasks. Most scholars identify them as descendants of the Gibeonites from Joshua 9, who deceived Israel but were spared and assigned to service at the tabernacle. Their continued presence centuries later is evidence of God’s grace and the permanence of covenant inclusion. Though their origin involved deception, they were incorporated into Israel’s worship life and allowed to return from exile with the rest of God’s people.
Some of the names among the Nethinim appear foreign, suggesting that additional groups were absorbed into this class through David’s military conquests or later assimilation. This shows that Israel, while covenantally distinct, was not ethnically closed. Faithful service to the LORD, even by those of foreign origin, was honored.
The name Hanan appears among the Nethinim. The name derives from a Hebrew root meaning gracious, and forms the basis of many biblical names. This highlights how divine grace was embedded even in the naming traditions of Israel. From this same root come names such as Hananiah and Johanan, the latter forming the basis for the New Testament name John. The female form, Hannah, gave rise to names such as Anna and Ann, showing the enduring legacy of Hebrew theology in later cultures.
One particularly colorful name is Bakbuk, meaning bottle. The term refers to an earthenware vessel with a narrow neck and swollen body. The nickname may have arisen from physical appearance or from constant chatter resembling bubbling water. Scripture does not sanitize human personality, and even humorous or earthy details are preserved, reminding the reader that these were real people, not abstract figures.
4. Ezra 2:58, Two special groups who came back from exile
“All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon’s servants, were three hundred ninety and two.”
This verse summarizes two groups who occupied a unique place in Israel’s social and religious structure. The Nethinim, as already noted, served the Levites in temple duties. Their faithfulness across centuries of humiliation, servitude, and exile stands as a testimony to perseverance. Though they occupied the lowest rung of temple service, they were still counted among the people of God and allowed to return to the land.
The children of Solomon’s servants are generally understood to be descendants of foreign laborers employed during Solomon’s reign. Over time, these individuals became proselytes, embracing Israel’s God and covenant. Their inclusion in the return demonstrates that God is no respecter of persons. Covenant faith, not ethnic origin, determined participation in restoration.
This entire section reinforces a critical theological truth. God restores worship before prosperity, obedience before comfort, and covenant order before national strength. The return from exile was not about reclaiming political power but about reestablishing faithful service to the LORD, from the high priest down to the lowest temple servant.
5. Ezra 2:59–63, Those among the priests with uncertain genealogies who returned from exile
“And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father’s house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel: The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two.
And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai, which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name.
These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.
And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.”
This passage introduces a sobering category among the returnees, those who claimed Israelite and even priestly descent but could not prove it by genealogical record. Their places of origin are listed, yet their lineage could not be authenticated. In postexilic Israel, genealogy was not a mere formality, it was a matter of covenant obedience. God had established strict qualifications for priestly service, and sincerity alone was not sufficient where divine law had set boundaries.
The text emphasizes that these individuals actively sought to have their names registered among those reckoned by genealogy. This indicates that they desired inclusion and likely believed their claims to be legitimate. Nevertheless, when their records were examined, they were not found. The response of the community demonstrates an admirable submission to the authority of the Law of Moses. Because priestly service required documented descent from Aaron, those who could not prove their lineage were excluded and regarded as ceremonially defiled, not as a moral insult, but as a legal and covenantal judgment.
This moment foreshadows a far greater spiritual reality. Just as names were searched for in the genealogical registers of Israel, so Scripture teaches that names will be searched for in the Lamb’s book of life. Those not found written there will be excluded from the eternal priesthood of believers. Earthly lineage could not save these men, nor can religious association save anyone apart from divine registration.
Among the disputed priestly families is the line of Barzillai. Barzillai the Gileadite was a man of great wealth and loyalty to King David, as recorded in 2 Samuel 19:32, which states, “Now Barzillai was a very aged man, even fourscore years old: and he had provided the king of sustenance while he lay at Mahanaim; for he was a very great man.” At some point, an ancestor of these claimants married into Barzillai’s family and adopted that distinguished name. While this may have brought social prestige or inheritance, it appears to have compromised priestly identity. In seeking earthly advantage, the priestly birthright may have been obscured or forfeited, illustrating the danger of exchanging covenant faithfulness for temporal benefit.
The Tirshatha, the Persian governor, ruled that these men were not to eat of the most holy things. This restriction did not expel them from the community entirely, but it barred them from priestly privileges until divine clarification could be obtained. The mention of the Urim and Thummim points to the ancient means by which God once gave direct guidance through the high priest. Their absence in the postexilic period underscores the diminished condition of Israel after judgment. Though the temple would be rebuilt, certain sacred instruments of divine communication were never restored.
At the same time, this decision reflects patience and hope. The exclusion was not necessarily permanent. Each case required further inquiry and waiting upon God. The community did not relax God’s standards, but neither did it act with unnecessary cruelty. Covenant holiness and mercy were held together.
6. Ezra 2:64–67, The summary of the returning exiles
“The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women.
Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five; Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty.”
This summary provides a comprehensive picture of the first wave of returnees. The stated total of forty two thousand three hundred sixty refers to the primary assembly, likely counting adult males and recognized heads of families. When servants, singers, women, and children are included, the total population was substantially larger. Conservative estimates place the overall number between one hundred thousand and one hundred fifty thousand. Even so, this represented only a small fraction of those who had been exiled and their descendants. The majority remained in Babylon.
Many Jews had established prosperous lives in exile. Historical records, such as the Murashu tablets, reveal Jewish involvement in banking, land management, and administration. These documents list dozens of Jewish names functioning as officials, tax collectors, agents, and witnesses. There were few social barriers between Jews and Babylonians, and economic success made the decision to return difficult. As later Jewish historians observed, many were unwilling to abandon their possessions for the hardships of restoration.
It is important to recognize that spiritual life did not cease in exile. The prophet Ezekiel records gatherings of elders in his home, effectively early forms of communal worship and instruction. Deprived of the temple, the exiles emphasized Sabbath observance, purity laws, prayer, and fasting. Many scholars believe the synagogue system developed during this period. Yet even with spiritual vitality present in Babylon, the call to return required sacrifice, risk, and obedience, and only a remnant responded.
The land to which they returned was far smaller and poorer than preexilic Judah. The Persian province of Judah measured only a few dozen miles in each direction, with much of its area consisting of desert. The glory of Solomon’s kingdom was gone. What remained was a humbled remnant, a ruined city, and a massive rebuilding task.
The listed livestock reflects modest resources. They did not return empty handed, but neither did they return in abundance. Compared to Solomon’s wealth, their possessions were meager. Yet this itself was evidence of God’s mercy. They had gone into captivity stripped of everything, and now they returned with enough to begin again. In judgment, God remembered mercy, and in exile, He prepared restoration.
B. The returned exiles make their home in the Promised Land
1. Ezra 2:68–69, The offerings made for the rebuilding of the temple
“And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the LORD which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place: They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pound of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments.”
These verses record the first concrete act of devotion after the return to the land, voluntary giving toward the rebuilding of the house of the LORD. Significantly, the initiative begins with the heads of the fathers’ houses. Leadership in Israel was expected to be visible, sacrificial, and exemplary. Before walls were rebuilt or cities reestablished, the leaders directed their resources toward restoring the center of worship. This reveals a rightly ordered set of priorities. The temple was not viewed as optional or secondary but as essential to national and spiritual restoration.
The offering is described as freewill giving. No tax or coercion is mentioned. Having experienced the judgment of exile and the mercy of return, these men gave willingly. Their generosity flowed from gratitude rather than obligation. This mirrors the pattern established in earlier Scripture, where freewill offerings accompanied moments of covenant renewal and divine blessing.
The phrase “according to their ability” highlights the sincerity and proportionality of their giving. These were not wealthy monarchs like David or Solomon, but a humbled remnant returning to ruined cities and neglected land. Yet they gave as much as they could. The amount listed is substantial, indicating real sacrifice. This demonstrates that true generosity is not measured by absolute amounts but by faithful stewardship and willing hearts.
The principle of giving according to one’s ability later appears in apostolic teaching. The same spirit is reflected in 1 Corinthians 16:2, which states, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.” Scripture also records those who gave even beyond their ability, as seen in 2 Corinthians 8:3, “For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves.” The generosity of the returning exiles thus anticipates New Testament teaching on sacrificial giving rooted in grace.
The mention of priestly garments alongside gold and silver underscores the practical needs of restored worship. The temple could not function without properly clothed priests serving according to the Law. Worship required preparation, reverence, and obedience, not merely structure.
2. Ezra 2:70, The restoration of a substantial Israelite presence in the Promised Land
“So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.”
This verse marks a quiet but momentous turning point. After decades of displacement, the people of Israel once again dwelt in their cities. The repetition emphasizes stability, permanence, and restored order. Though the numbers were small and the conditions humble, this was a genuine reestablishment of covenant life in the land promised by God.
Jerusalem was once again inhabited by priests and Levites, restoring its role as the spiritual center of the nation. Daily sacrifices would soon resume, worshippers would gather, and oversight of temple service would begin. The presence of singers, gatekeepers, and temple servants shows that worship was not an abstract idea but a lived, structured reality requiring many faithful hands.
This initial repopulation was only a beginning. Jerusalem had suffered immense devastation during the Babylonian invasions, and its population remained thin. Later, during Nehemiah’s governorship, additional measures would be taken to strengthen the city, including assigning families by lot to relocate there. Even so, this first settlement marked the end of desolation and the start of renewal.
The phrase “all Israel in their cities” carries theological weight. After two generations in exile, Israel was once again visibly present in the land given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This fulfilled God’s repeated promises to bring His people back after judgment. The land, which had lain largely uninhabited during the exile, now received its people again. Scripture describes this period as a time when the land rested, keeping its Sabbaths, until the return of its rightful inhabitants.
The restoration was partial and modest, yet real. God did not immediately return Israel to former glory. Instead, He began with a faithful remnant, reestablishing worship, obedience, and covenant identity. From this small beginning, the postexilic community would rebuild, struggle, repent, and grow, always under the hand of God’s providence.
The return from exile in Ezra’s day also anticipates later historical returns. Modern Jewish history has seen similar patterns, waves of return after long dispersion, often under hardship, sacrifice, and uncertainty. The pattern remains consistent, God keeps His promises, though often in stages, through discipline, and by means of a faithful remnant.
