10
Ezra
The List of Men Who Separated from Foreign Wives
Ezra 10:18-44
Key words in this passage
In this passage
Cross-references
Study notes
The catalog opens with the high priestly household of Jeshua son of Jozadak and continues through other priestly clans, Levites, singers, and gatekeepers before turning to lay families from Israel. Only the first group receives explicit mention of giving the hand and offering a ram, while later entries simply accumulate names under repeated clan headings. The closing verse gathers every man listed under the single fact that all had taken foreign women and that some had fathered sons. This structure registers the concrete reach of the assembly’s decision across ranked groups and treats the presence of children as evidence that the breach had already become generational rather than as a reason to soften the requirement.
What is The List of Men Who Separated from Foreign Wives about?
Ezra 10:18 opens with the discovery that certain sons of the priests had taken foreign women as wives. The first names belong to the household of Jeshua son of Jozadak, the high priestly line, followed by Maaseiah, Eliezer, Jarib, and Gedaliah. These men gave their pledge to dismiss the women and brought a ram for their guilt. The record continues with further priestly groups from Immer, Harim, and Pashhur, then names several Levites, a singer, and three gatekeepers who had done the same. Only after the temple servants does the list turn to ordinary families of Israel, beginning with the sons of Parosh and running through more than a dozen additional clans. The closing verse states that every man named had married a foreign woman and that some had fathered children. This catalog therefore records the actual carrying out of the decision reached in the assembly, showing which leaders and households complied and placing the priestly families at the head of the account.
Where does this passage sit in Ezra?
Ezra 10:18 follows immediately on the assembly’s decision recorded in the preceding verses, where leaders and people had set a three-month period to examine the marriages and carry out separation. The catalog opens with the priestly households rather than the lay clans, beginning with the line of Jeshua son of Jozadak. This placement registers that the first to give their hand and offer the ram were those entrusted with the altar and the teaching of the law.
The list then moves through the remaining priestly divisions of Immer, Harim, and Pashhur, next to the Levites, a single singer, and three gatekeepers. Only after these temple groups does the record turn to the sons of Parosh and the other families of Israel. The same formula “from the sons of” governs every entry, producing a steady rhythm that treats the priests and the people under one consistent heading.
By the time the names reach the sons of Nebo in verse 43, the pattern has already encompassed every category named earlier in the book’s return register. Verse 44 then gathers the entire list under a single statement: all had taken foreign women, and some had fathered children. The book therefore closes with the completed action rather than with any further speech or journey, leaving the reader with the names themselves as the final evidence that the pledge made in Jerusalem was kept.
How is the passage structured?
The verses open by naming the priestly offenders first, beginning with the household of Jeshua son of Jozadak and his brothers, then moving through the clans of Immer, Harim, and Pashhur. Verse 19 records their specific action of giving the hand and offering a ram, after which the text shifts to simple enumeration for the remaining priests. The Levites receive their own heading in verse 23, followed immediately by the singers and gatekeepers in verse 24, each introduced by a distinct preposition that marks their separate categories.
After the temple personnel the list turns to the sons of Israel, opening with the sons of Parosh and continuing through successive family groups. The entries lengthen here, with some clans receiving eight or nine names while others appear in shorter clusters. Verse 32 interrupts the pattern with three names standing alone, and verses 34 through 42 present further subdivisions under repeated headings for the sons of Bani and Harim. The movement therefore proceeds from a compact priestly section that includes the only explicit report of compliance to an extended lay section that simply accumulates names.
The final verse gathers every entry under a single statement that all had taken foreign women and that some had fathered sons. This closing sentence supplies the only summary after the long catalog, creating a single point of convergence after the earlier division into ranked groups. The architecture thus moves from ranked accountability to comprehensive enumeration and ends by folding the entire list into one concluding observation.
What is the historical background?
The priests stand at the head of the list because their marriages touched the holiness required for altar service. Jeshua son of Jozadak belonged to the line that had returned with the temple vessels, and the four additional men named with him shared that same household. When they gave their hand to send out their women, they also presented a ram of the flock, the animal prescribed when someone had incurred guilt through a breach of sacred obligation.
The three clans that follow—Immer, Harim, and Pashhur—were among the twenty-four priestly divisions that had rotated through temple duties before the exile. Their reappearance here shows that the same family lines were being held accountable as the community reestablished ordered worship in Jerusalem. The Levites, the single singer, and the three gatekeepers appear next because each group performed distinct tasks inside the sanctuary precincts; any compromise in their households affected the daily maintenance of the house of God.
Among the lay families the record moves through clans already registered in the earlier return list. Names such as Parosh, Elam, Zattu, and Pahath-moab recur because lineage determined both land rights and communal standing after the return. The note that some of the men had fathered sons records the concrete result of these unions and the further disruption that dismissal would bring to households already formed.
The entire catalog therefore reflects a post-exilic practice in which public accountability, sacrificial restitution, and genealogical precision worked together to restore the boundary between the returned community and the surrounding peoples.
What does this passage teach about God?
The opening verses place the high priestly household of Jeshua son of Jozadak at the head of those who had caused foreign women to dwell among them. Their inclusion signals that covenant breach reaches the center of Israel’s worship life rather than remaining a peripheral matter. When these men give their hand to send out the women and bring a ram of the flock for their guilt, the action joins personal resolve to the prescribed means of addressing offense against God. The ram does not erase the marriage; it acknowledges that the union itself has placed the community in the wrong.
Subsequent priestly clans from Immer, Harim, and Pashhur receive the same treatment. The repetition of names across these families shows that holiness is not secured by lineage alone. Levites, the singer Eliashib, and the three gatekeepers follow in the same pattern. Their roles in teaching, music, and guarding the sanctuary make the point concrete: those entrusted with the rhythms of worship must themselves embody the separation the law requires.
When the list turns to the clans of Israel, the same standard applies without distinction. Every man named had taken foreign women, and some had fathered sons. The catalog therefore treats the presence of children not as an exception that softens the requirement but as further evidence that the breach had become generational. The community’s decision to record each name publicly treats repentance as a corporate act that must be verified in specific households.
The passage presents no divine speech, yet the actions it records assume that God remains committed to a people set apart for his name. The willingness of priests and lay families alike to offer the ram and release the women indicates that mercy is received through concrete reversal rather than through continued coexistence with what the covenant forbids. The final verse’s plain statement that all these had taken foreign women closes the account by underscoring that the restoration of the community depends on facing the full extent of the violation.
What are the interpretive difficulties?
The catalog begins with priests from the line of Jeshua son of Jozadak, yet the verses supply no separate explanation for why this household appears first or whether their status altered the terms of the pledge. Verse 19 records that these men gave their hand and offered a ram of the flock for their guilt, but the wording leaves open whether the offering marked completed separation or only an initial commitment. Later priestly families receive no such mention of a ram, raising the question of whether every group followed the same ritual steps or whether the record simply notes the initial case in fuller detail.
The list names more than one hundred men yet supplies no further comment on enforcement after the pledges. Readers therefore encounter no account of how the foreign women or any children were provided for, nor whether resistance arose once the assembly dispersed. The closing statement in 10:44 notes that some of the men had fathered sons, but the text does not indicate whether those sons remained with their fathers or accompanied the women who were sent out.
A further uncertainty surfaces in the final clause of 10:44, where the phrasing shifts abruptly and the supplied wording repeats the fact of foreign wives without clarifying the outcome for the children. Ancient manuscripts preserve the same sequence here, so the verse stands in the received tradition even though its grammar remains compressed. The silence does not prevent the list from documenting which families were implicated; it simply withholds information the narrative never promised to supply.
The passage therefore registers the names and the initial pledges without claiming to resolve every practical or legal consequence that followed the assembly’s decision.
Movement by movement
Priestly leaders pledge separationEzra 10:18-19
Among the priests who had caused foreign women to dwell, the sons of Jeshua son of Jozadak stand first, joined by Maaseiah, Eliezer, Jarib, and Gedaliah. These men gave their hand in order to send out their women, and they were guilty, offering a ram of the flock for their guilt. The placement of this household at the head of the catalog marks the high priestly line as the initial point where the assembly’s decision takes concrete form. Their pledge is recorded with two actions together: the personal commitment expressed by the hand and the ram brought as the required acknowledgment of guilt. No further priestly households receive mention of either the hand or the ram in the verses that follow. The wording therefore leaves open whether the offering accompanied every separation or belonged only to this first group whose marriages touched the altar most directly. The ram itself signals that the offense lay not merely in personal conduct but in a breach that affected the holiness required for service at the temple.
Further priestly families namedEzra 10:20-22
The record next identifies two men from the sons of Immer, then five from the sons of Harim and six from the sons of Pashhur. These three clans belong to the twenty-four priestly divisions that once rotated through temple service, yet here their members stand among those who had caused foreign women to dwell. Unlike the household of Jeshua son of Jozadak, which received an explicit note that its men gave their hand and offered a ram of the flock, these verses supply only the names. The shift to bare enumeration keeps the focus on the fact of the marriages rather than on any recorded steps of resolution. By placing these divisions immediately after the high priestly line, the catalog shows that the breach extended through multiple established priestly houses. The repeated preposition “from the sons of” marks each clan as a distinct group while still keeping them inside the larger priestly section before the list turns to Levites and lay families. No further detail appears about whether these men later followed the same pledge and offering, leaving the extent of their compliance with the assembly’s decision open within the text itself.
Levites and temple servants listedEzra 10:23-24
The Levites receive their own heading after the last priestly clan, six men set down without any mention of a hand given or a ram offered. Jozabad, Shimei, Kelaiah (that is, Kelita), Pethahiah, Judah, and Eliezer stand in the record as those who had caused foreign women to dwell among them. The singers come next with one name only, Eliashib, and the gatekeepers follow with three, Shallum, Telem, and Uri. Each group is introduced by its own preposition that keeps the temple roles separate even while the list moves forward without pause. These men belonged to the circles responsible for music, guarding the gates, and assisting at the altar, yet the verses supply no further word on whether they completed the same steps of separation recorded for the household of Jeshua son of Jozadak. Their names therefore sit between the priests who acted first and the larger number of lay families that follow, showing that the marriages reached every rank of those appointed to serve in the house of God.
First lay families from IsraelEzra 10:25-32
The shift to lay families begins with the sons of Parosh, seven men listed without any accompanying pledge or offering. The heading “from Israel” marks their distance from the temple households already named. Six further clans follow in the same pattern: Elam supplies six names, Zattu six, Bebai four, Bani seven, Pahath-moab eight. A second group attached to Harim then appears, five men in verse 31 followed by three more in verse 32. Each entry simply records the men who had taken foreign wives. The absence of ritual detail that accompanied the priestly names leaves the lay separations without recorded resolution in these verses. The repeated clan headings keep the focus on family lines rather than on individual status or rank. By the end of the Harim section the catalog has moved well beyond the altar servants into the wider population that returned from exile.
Remaining lay families from IsraelEzra 10:33-43
The sons of Hashum stand first among these remaining lay clans, seven men named in a single unbroken line: Mattenai, Mattattah, Zabad, Eliphelet, Jeremai, Manasseh, and Shimei. The next entries shift to additional Bani households, some reduced to three or four names, others carrying repeated personal names such as the double Jaasu and the paired Bani and Binnui. The list ends with the sons of Nebo, eight men recorded together: Jeiel, Mattithiah, Zabad, Zebina, Iddo, Iddai, Joel, and Benaiah. Each cluster follows the same terse pattern already used for the earlier lay families, simply stating the clan and then the individual names without any further clause about a pledge or a ram. These entries therefore complete the catalog of ordinary Israelite households that had taken foreign women. Verse 44 gathers every name in the chapter under one final statement that some of the women had borne children, leaving the outcome of the separations for these particular families unstated in the record itself.
Summary of all who actedEzra 10:44
The closing sentence gathers every name listed into one statement that all these had taken foreign women. The phrasing then narrows to some of them had women, and they fathered sons, marking the presence of children as a distinct outcome of the marriages. This detail arrives only after the long catalog has moved from priestly households through Levites, singers, gatekeepers, and lay clans, so the summary does not merely repeat the offense but registers its generational reach. The children stand as living evidence that the unions produced families now required to be divided. Because the verse supplies no further ritual language here, it leaves the earlier pledge and ram offering attached only to the first group named, while the final line treats the entire list under the single fact of foreign wives and sons. The result is a terse record that the community’s decision touched actual households rather than abstract categories alone.
Notes accompany the Anselm Project Bible, an AI translation from the original languages. Tap any verse above for the committee's word-level decisions.
Tap a verse