The Enrolling Of The Priests Who Could Not Prove Their Ancestry (Nehemiah 7:63-65).
Far more important was the situation of the priests who could not demonstrate their ancestry, for this excluded them from priestly office, and from reception of priestly benefits such as the tithe, and the parts of offerings and sacrifices particular to the priests. They would also presumably be liable to pay taxes. The exclusion was necessary because for a non-Aaronide to participate in the priesthood would have been seen as a major sacrilege (compare Numbers 16). The risk could not be taken.
‘And of the priests:'
Those now mentioned are distinguished from the non-Priests mentioned above. These claimed to be sons of the priests, but could not demonstrate the fact.
‘The sons of Hobaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name.'
The name Hakkoz was a good priestly name being borne by the seventh order of David's priests (1 Chronicles 24:10). It was also the name of one of Judah's descendants. But clearly this family could not prove its ancestry. However it may well have done so later, for in Ezra 8:33 we read of ‘Meremoth, the son of Uriah the priest' who may have been the same as ‘Meremoth, the son of Uriah, the son of Hakkoz' (Nehemiah 3:4; Nehemiah 3:21). On the other hand that may have been a different Hakkoz, or a different Meremoth.
Barzillai was a wealthy Israelite, a Gileadite, who assisted David during the rebellion of his son Absalom (2 Samuel 12:31). But he was not an Aaronide. The argument of the sons of Barzillai was that they were Aaronides, but that the Barzillai in question had taken the name of his wife's family, presumably for inheritance purposes. It is clear that at this time the name change was preventing proof of his ancestry. A second consideration might also have been that having inherited wealth he had disqualified himself as a priest in view of the fact that the priest's only inheritance was to be YHWH (Numbers 18:20). The name Habaiah is not testified to in the Old Testament, but, of course, incorporates the name of YHWH.
‘These sought their register among those who were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found, therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood.'
It would appear that records of ancestry of the priests had been taken to Babylon by the captives, or may even have been memorised and written down once they arrived there and that when these were consulted no trace could be found of the above families. We can compare with this how the ancestry of the kings of Scotland going back many generations were so memorised, and were repeated at the coronation of kings. A similar example was found among the Arabs. Someone who was visiting an Arab encampment described how an Arab got up and related the history of his forebears going back forty generations, and commented that there were others in the assembly who obviously could have done the same, telling who married and who begat whom, and where they lived, and frequently what they had done, and where they wandered. He said it sounded exactly like a chapter of genealogy out of the Bible. In consequence of their failure to prove their ancestry they were considered ‘polluted' (not proven as Aaronides and therefore unfit to serve) and therefore excluded from the current priesthood. They would, of course, be accepted as Israelites on the same basis as those above. As they were presumably circumcised they would have the same rights as proselytes to take part in the worship of YHWH, and to be adopted as Israelites (Exodus 12:48). It is striking that no number is given in respect of these. Their status as priests was pending.
‘And the governor (Tirshatha) said to them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, until there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.'
The Tirshatha was clearly in control of matters, and it was his decision, not to exclude them for ever, but to exclude them from eating of the priest's portions until their position could be determined by the use of the Urim and Thummim, utilised by ‘a (High) Priest'. The Urim and Thummim were the sacred lots carried in the High Priest's breastpouch (Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; see also Deuteronomy 33:8-10; Numbers 27:21). These would appear to have given the answers of ‘yes' or ‘no answer' (no example is known of a specific ‘no' being given as an answer). See for example 1 Samuel 14:41; 1 Samuel 23:9-12; 1 Samuel 28:6; and compare their probable use in Joshua 7:16-18; 2 Samuel 2:1. We know of no example of their use after the early monarchy, but that may simply have been because the kings preferred other methods.
The Urim and Thummim (the names beginning with the first and last letters of the alphabet) may have been pieces of wood or stone marked in such a way as to be able to read an answer from them when they were either withdrawn from the pouch, or tossed on sacred ground. Their mention here would, however, appear to indicate that a situation when they would be used might be expected within a reasonable period (certainly the sacred lot is used later - Nehemiah 10:34; Nehemiah 11:1). If this list is a second list, made in the time of Zerubbabel, who had replaced Sheshbazzar, as compared with an initial list in Ezra 2 it would appear that the Tirshatha in question was Zerubbabel (or possibly Sheshbazzar if the decision was made very early on). We can compare the fact that the Tirshatha appears to have been able to decide the use of the Urim and Thummim with the fact that Joshua could do the same through the High Priest (Numbers 27:18-21).
‘The Tirshatha.' This would appear to be a Persian title meaning ‘governor'. Indeed Sheshbazzar was probably officially appointed as Tirshatha, with ‘governor' (Ezra 5:14) being an interpretation of it. The term is also used of Sheshbazzar (Nehemiah 7:65; Nehemiah 7:70) and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8:9; Nehemiah 10:1).