Judah, Kingdom of

VIEW:16 DATA:01-04-2020

The tribe Judah comprised the whole territory S. of a line drawn from Joppa to N. of the Dead Sea; the largest extent among the tribes, due to their valor in driving out the aborigines from their mountain strongholds. Their hilly region braced their energies for conflict with their neighbouring adversaries; so they retained their vigour, at the same time that their large pastures and wide territory, and commerce with Egypt and by the Red Sea and Joppa with other lands, gave them abundant wealth. Their independence of the northern tribes, and the jealousy of Ephraim, early prepared the way for the severance of the northern and southern kingdoms under Rehoboam. (See ISRAEL.) Judah included southern Benjamin and Jerusalem the joint city of both, Simeon, and many cities of Daniel In Abijah's and Asa's reign Judah gained parts of Ephraim (2Ch_13:19; 2Ch_15:8; 2Ch_17:2); and after Israel's deportation to Assyria the king of Judah exercised a quasi authority in the N. (2Ch_30:1-18, Hez_34:6-9, Josiah). Edom was for some time subject.
Israel interposed between Judah and Syria and Assyria; and Egypt in its military marches toward Assyria took the coast line of Philistia, not through Judah. The fighting men of Judah under David were 500,000 (2Sa_24:9); under Rehoboam only 180,000 (1Ki_12:21); under Abijah 400,000 (2Ch_13:3); under Asa 580,000 (2Ch_14:8); under Jehoshaphat 1,160,000 (2Ch_17:14-19); under Uzziah 307,500 (2Ch_26:13). Judah's armies progressively augmented, Israel's decreased; under Ahab against Syria Israel's forces were "like two little flocks of kids"; under Jehoahaz "50 horsemen" (1Ki_20:27; 2Ki_13:7). But the grand conservative element of Judah was its divinely appointed temple, priesthood, written law, and recognition of the one true God Jehovah as its true theocratic king. Hence many left northern Israel for Judah where the law was observed.
This adherence to the law (compare Act_23:5) produced a succession of kings containing many wise and good monarchs, and a people in the main reverencing the word of God as their rule, at least in theory. Hence, Judah survived her more populous northern sister by 135 years, and lasted 975-586 B.C. The diminution of numbers intensified the theocratic element by eliminating all that was pagan and attracting all the godly in northern Israel. The apparent loss proved a real gain, and would have proved permanently so but for Judah's unfaithfulness. God's great purpose did not fall in spite of Israel's and Judah's unfaithfulness, namely, to preserve in the world a standing monument of the unity, supremacy, and providence of Jehovah; this effect was perpetually and uniformly produced in all periods and by all events of the Jewish history, and to prepare for and introduce the gospel of Christ (Graves, Pentateuch, ii. 3, section 2). Rehoboam, Abijah, and Asa for 60 years warred with Israel, in the hope of recovering the northern kingdom. (See ABIJAH; ASA.)
Baasha on the other hand fortified Ramah to cheek the migration of religious Israelites to Judah. Asa hired Benhadad I, of Damascus, to counteract him, for which Hanani reproved him.(See BAASHA.) Abijah, or Abijam, though his speech breathes the theocratic spirit (2Ch_13:4), in conduct showed a "heart not perfect with the Lord God," for "he walked in all the sins of his father" (1Ki_15:3). A new policy began with Jehoshaphat, and lasted for 80 years down to Amaziah, that of alliance with Israel against Syria. (See JEHOSHAPHAT.) It was as opposed to Judah's true interests as open war had been. In spite of his pious efforts for the instruction of his people through the princes, Levites, and priests, in God's law (2 Chronicles 17), and for the administration of justice in the fear of Jehovah (2 Chronicles 19), his affinity with Ahab and Ahaziah nearly cost him his life at Ramoth Gilead (2 Chronicles 18), and again in the wilderness of Edom (2Ki_3:8-11), and caused the loss of his ships in Ezion Geber (2Ch_20:36-37).
He was reproved by the Lord's prophet Jehu, after his escape at Ramoth Gilead (2Ch_19:2-3); then when he renewed the alliance with Ahab's son Ahaziah, by Eliezer; at last he saw the fatal effects of alliance with the ungodly (1Co_15:33), and would not let Ahaziah's servants go in his ships (1Ki_22:48). The alliance bore deadly fruit under his murderous son Jehoram, his grandson Ahaziah, and the bloody queen mother Athaliah, Ahab's daughter and Jehoram's wife (2 Chronicles 21-22).(See JEHORAM; AHAZIAH; ATHALIAH.) Jehoiada deposed her, and restored Joash to the throne, who governed well until Jehoiada's death; then gave ear to the princes, and restored idolatry, slew Zechariah his faithful reprover, and failing to withstand a Syrian invasion was killed by his own servants. (See JEHOIADA; JOASH.) Amaziah, elated with the conquest of Edom and having lost God's favor through apostasy to Edom's idols, challenged Joash of Israel, the conqueror of Syria (2 Chronicles 25; 2Ki_13:14-25).
Uzziah and Jotham reigned prosperously. But Ahaz, when smitten by the Syrian and Israelite confederacy of Rezin and Pekah (2 Chronicles 28; 2 Kings 16; Isaiah 7-9), which was the punishment from Jehovah of his idolatry, adopted the fatal policy of becoming the vassal of Assyria, which "distressed but strengthened him not."(See AHAZ.) For a century and a half this vassalage lasted, with occasional periods of independence, as under the godly Hezekiah and Josiah. (See HEZEKIAH; JOSIAH.) The repulse of Sennacherib and the religious revival under these two kings averted the evil day. But, after Hezekiah, Manasseh's enormous wickedness so provoked Jehovah that the piety of his grandson Josiah, Amon's son, could procure only a respite.
After the reigns of the worthless Jehoahaz, set aside by Pharaoh Necho who promoted Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin or Coniah, Zedekiah (promoted by Nebuchadnezzar) through treachery in violation of his oath brought destruction on himself and Jerusalem (588 B.C. or 587, Clinton; 2Ch_36:13; Eze_17:15-18; Jer_52:3). As the influence of the priesthood was at its height under David and Solomon, so the power of the prophets rose between this time and the building of the second temple. In northern Israel they were the only witnesses for God in the face of the state idolatry; in Judah they were spiritual teachers bringing out the gospel hidden in the law, and pointing on to the Messianic kingdom. Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., prepared Judah for the 70 years' captivity; Ezekiel and Daniel witnessed for God to them, and to the pagan world power in it. That severe discipline purged out their craving for idols.
Ezra and Nehemiah at the return were God's instruments in producing in them a zeal for the law which distinguished them subsequently, and in Christ's time degenerated into formalism and self righteousness. Restoration of the Jews and Israel. Moses foretells it (Deu_30:1-6). The original grant of the land to Abraham and the blessing of ALL nations in his seed await their exhaustive fulfillment, only partially realized under Solomon (Gen_15:18; Gen_22:18). The covenant has six historical stages:
(1) the family;
(2) expanded into a nation
(3) royalty;
(4) the exile and return;
(5) Messiah's advent and the church in troublous times:
(6) His second advent and the church's and Israel's glory.
The "second time" Exodus is also foretold by Isa_11:10-16; Isa_11:2; Isa_27:12; Isa_35:10; Isa_54:7-11. Also Jerusalem shall be the religious center of the nations, amidst universal peace, the Lord's manifested presence there (Isaiah 60-62; Isaiah 65; Isaiah 66) eclipsing the former ark of the covenant (Jer_3:16-18; Jer_23:6-8; Ezekiel 37-48). Hosea (Hos_3:4-5) vividly depicts Israel's state for ages, clinging to the law yet without "altar, priest, or sacrifice," which the law ordains, yet not relapsing into idolatry to which they were so prone in his day, "without teraphim" and "without a king"; then finally "seeking the Lord and David their king."
So emphatically "all Israel shall be saved," when "the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in," i.e. when the elect remnant of Jews and Gentiles now being converted shall have been completed (Rom_11:25-26); so our Lord (Luk_21:24; Rev_6:10; Rev_11:2-15). The object of God's election of the Jews was not merely for themselves, as if their perversity frustrated God's purpose; but to be, even in their temporary rejection, a standing monument to the world of the unity, supremacy, and providence of Jehovah ("ye are My witnesses," saith Jehovah: Isa_44:8; Isa_43:10; Isa_43:12), and ultimately to be blessed temporally and spiritually themselves, and to be a blessing to all nations.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

I. CANAAN BEFORE THE MONARCHY
1. The Coming of the Semites
2. The Canaanites
3. The Israelite Confederacy
4. Migration into Canaan
5. The Bond of Union
6. Early Rulers
7. The Judges
8. Hereditary Kings
II. THE FIRST THREE KINGS
1. The Benjamite King
2. Rachel and Leah Tribes
3. The Disruption
III. THE DUAL MONARCHY
1. War between Two Kingdoms
2. First Reform of Religion
3. Two Kingdoms at Peace
4. Two Kingdoms Contrasted
5. Revolution in the Northern Kingdom
6. Effect on the Southern Kingdom
7. Davidic House at Lowest Ebb
8. Begins to Recover
9. Reviving Fortunes
10. Monarchy Still Elective
11. Government by Regents
12. Period of Great Prosperity
13. Rise of Priestly Caste
14. Advent of Assyria
15. Judah a Protectorate
16. Cosmopolitan Tendencies
IV. PERIOD OF DECLINE
1. Judah Independent
2. Reform of Religion
3. Egypt and Judah
4. Traffic in Horses
5. Reaction under Manasseh
6. Triumph of Reform Party
7. Babylonia and Judah
8. End of Assyrian Empire
9. After Scythian Invasion
10. Judah Again Dependent
11. Prophets Lose Influence
12. The Deportations
13. Summary

I. Canaan Before the Monarchy.
1. The Coming of the Semites:
Some 4,000 years BC the land on either side of the valley of the Jordan was peopled by a race who, to whatever stock they belonged, were not Semites. It was not until about the year 2500 BC that the tide of Sere immigration began to flow from North Arabia into the countries watered by the Jordan and the Euphrates. One of the first waves in this human tide consisted of the Phoenicians who settled in the Northwest, on the seashore; they were closely followed by other Canaan tribes who occupied the country which long bore their name.

2. The Canaanites:
The Canaanites are known to us chiefly from the famous letters found at Tell Amarna in Egypt which describe the political state of the country during the years 1415-1360 BC - the years of the reigns of Amenophis III and IV. Canaan was at this time slipping out of the hands of Egypt. The native princes were in revolt: tribute was withheld; and but few Egyptian garrisons remained. Meantime a fresh tide of invasion was hurling its waves against the eastern frontiers of the land. The newcomers were, like their predecessors, Semitic Bedouin from the Syrian desert. Among them the Tell el-Amarna Letters name the Chabiri, who are, no doubt, the people known to us as the Hebrews.

3. The Israelite Confederacy:
The Hebrews are so named by those of other nationality after one of their remoter ancestors (Gen_10:24), or because they had come from beyond (‛ēbher) the Jordan or the Euphrates. Of themselves they spoke collectively as Israel. Israel was a name assumed by the eponymous hero of the nation whose real name was Jacob. Similarly the Arabian prophet belonged to the tribe called from its ancestor Koraish, whose name was Fihr. The people of Israel were a complex of some 12 or 13 tribes. These 12 tribes were divided into two main sections, one section tracing its descent from Leah, one of Jacob's wives, and the other section tracing its descent from Rachel, his other wife. The names of the tribes which claimed to be descended from Leah were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and, indirectly, Gad and Asher; those which claimed to be descended from Rachel were Joseph, which was divided into two clans; Ephraim and Manasseh, Benjamin, and, indirectly, Dan and Naphtali. The rivalry between these two great divisions runs all through the national history of the Hebrews, and was only brought to an end by the annihilation of one of the opposing factions (Isa_11:13). But not only was the Israelite nation a combination of many clans; it was united also to other tribes which could not claim descent, from Israel or Jacob. Such tribes were the Kenites and the Calebites. Toward such the pure Israelite tribes formed a sort of aristocracy, very much as, to change the parallel, the tribe of Koraish did among the Arabs. It was rarely that a commander was appointed from the allied tribes, at least in the earlier years of the national life.

4. Migration into Canaan:
We find exactly the same state of things obtaining in the history of the Arabian conquests. All through that history there runs the rivalry between the South Arabian tribes descended from Kahtan (the Hebrew Joktan, Gen_10:25, etc.) and the northern or Ishmaelite tribes of Modar. It is often stated that the Old Testament contains two separate and irreconcilable accounts of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. According to the Book of Joshua, it is said the invasion was a movement of the whole people of Israel under the leadership of Joshua; according to the Book of Judges, it consisted of a series of expeditions made by individual tribes each on its own account (Jdg_1:2, Jdg_1:10, etc.). But again, in the history of the Arabs we find precisely the same apparent discrepancy. For Persia, Syria and Egypt were conquered by the Arabs as a whole; but at the same time no tribe lost its individuality; each tribe made expeditions on its own account, and turned its arms against rival tribes even in the enemy's country. On the confines of China in the East and in Spain on the West, the arms of the Yemen's tribes were employed in the destruction of those of Modar as fiercely as ever they had been within Arabia itself.

5. The Bond of Union:
The bond which united the Israelite tribes, as well as those of Kayin (the eponym of the Kenites) and Caleb, was that of the common worship of Yahweh. As Mohammed united all the tribes of Arabia into one whole by the doctrine of monotheism, so did Moses the Israelite tribes by giving them a common object of worship. And the sherifs or descendants of 'Ali today occupy a position very like what the Levites and the descendants of Aaron must have maintained in Israel. In order to keep the Israelite nation pure, intermarriage with the inhabitants of the invaded country was forbidden, though the prohibition was not observed (Jdg_3:5 f). So too, the Arab women were not permitted to marry non-Arabs during the first years of conquest.

6. Early Rulers:
It is customary to date the beginning of monarchy in Israel from Saul the son of Kish, but in point of fact many early leaders were kings in fact if not in name. Moses and Joshua may be compared with Mohammed and his caliph (properly khalı̂fa) or ?successor,? Abu Bekr. Their word was law; they reigned supreme over a united nation. Moreover, the word ?king? (melekh) often means, both in Hebrew and Arabic, nothing more than governor of a town, or local resident. There was more than one ?king? of Midinn (Jdg_8:12). Balak seems to have been only a king of Moab (Num_22:4).

7. The Judges:
Before the monarchy proper, the people of Israel formed, in theory, a theocracy, as did also the Arabs under the caliphs. In reality they were ruled by temporary kings called judges (shophēṭ, the Carthaginian sufes). Their office was not hereditary, though there were exceptions (compare Jdg 9). On the other hand, the government of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was practically an elective monarchy, so rarely were there more than two of the same dynasty. The judge again was usually appointed in order to meet some special crises, and theoretically ideal state of things was one in which there was no visible head of the state - a republic without a president. These intervals, however, always ended in disaster, and the appointment of another judge. The first king also was elected to cope with a specially serious crisis. The main distinction between judge and king was that the former, less than the latter, obscured the fact of the true King, upon the recognition of whom alone the continued existence of the nation depended. The rulers then became the ?elders? or sheikhs of the tribes, and as these did not act in unison, the nation lost its solidarity and became an easy prey to any invader.

8. Hereditary Kings:
During the period of the Judges a new factor entered into the disturbed politics of Canaan. This was an invader who came not from the eastern and southern deserts, but from the western sea. Driven out of Crete by invaders from the mainland, the last remnants of the race of Minos found refuge on the shores of the country which ever after took from them the name it still bears - Philistı̂n or Palestine. At the same time the Ammonites and Midianites were pressing into the country from the East (1Sa_11:1-15). Caught between these two opposing forces, the tribes of Israel were threatened with destruction. It was felt that the temporary sovereignty of the judge was no longer equal to the situation. The supreme authority must be permanent. It was thus the monarchy was founded. Three motives are given by tradition as leading up to this step. The pretext alleged by the elders or sheikhs is the worthlessness and incapacity of Samuel's sons, who he intended should succeed him (1 Sam 8). The immediate cause was the double pressure from the Philistines (1Sa_9:16) and the Ammonite king (1Sa_12:12). The real reason was that the system of government by elective kings or judges had proved a failure and had completely broken down. The times called for a hereditary monarchy.

II. The First Three Kings.
1. The Benjamite King:
The most warlike of the clans of Israel shortly before this had been that of Benjamin - one of the Rachel tribes. The national sanctuary, with the ark and the grandson of Aaron as priest, was at Bethel in their territory. Moreover, they had defeated the combined forces of the other tribes in two pitched battles. They had at last been defeated and almost exterminated, but they had recovered much of their strength and prestige (Jdg 20; 1Sa_4:12). From this tribe the first king was chosen (see SAUL). He, however, proved unequal to his task. After some years spent in war with the Philistines and in repressing supposed disloyalty at home, he was defeated and killed.
Meantime, one of the less-known clans was coming to the front. The territory of the tribe of Judah lay in the South. After its occupation (compare Jdg_1:2, Jdg_1:3), the tribe of Judah appears to have settled down to the care of its flocks and herds. It is not mentioned in the Song of Deborah. None of the judges belonged to it, unless Ibzan, who seems to have been of little account (Jdg_12:8 f). Under the leadership of DAVID (which see), this tribe now came to the front, and proved in the end to be endowed with by far the greatest vitality of all the tribes. It outlived them all, and survives to this day.

2. Rachel and Leah Tribes:
The Rachel tribes, led by Benjamin and Ephraim (2 Sam 2; 3), resisted for some time the hegemony of Judah, but were obliged in the end to submit. Under David Israel became again a united whole. By making Jerusalem his capital on the borders of Judah and Benjamin, he did much to insure the continuance of this union (compare 1Ch_9:3). The union, however, was only on the surface. By playing off the Rachel tribes, Benjamin and Ephraim, against the rest, Absalom was able to bring the whole structure to the ground (2 Sam 15 ff), the tribe to which Saul belonged being especially disloyal (2Sa_16:5 ff). Nor was this the only occasion on which the smoldering enmity between the two houses burst out into flame (2 Sam 20). As soon as the strong hand of David was removed, disaffection showed itself in several quarters (1Ki_11:14 ff), and especially the aspiration of the tribe of Ephraim, after independence was fomented by the prophets (1Ki_11:26 ff). Egypt afforded a convenient asylum for the disaffected until opportunity should ripen. They had not long to wait.

3. The Disruption:
Solomon was succeeded by Rehoboam, who found it politic to hold a coronation ceremony at Shechem as well, presumably, as at Jerusalem. The malcontents found themselves strong enough to dictate terms. These Rehoboam rejected, and the northern tribes at once threw off their allegiance to the dynasty of David. The disruption thus created in the Israelite nation was never again healed. The secession was like that of the Moors in Spain from the 'Abbhsid caliphs. Henceforth ?Israel,? except in the Chronicler, denotes the Northern Kingdom only. In that writer, who does not recognize the kingdom of the ten tribes, it means Judah. It is usual at the present day to recognize in the Northern Kingdom the true Israelite kingdom. Certainly in point of extent of territory and in resources it was far the greater of the two. But as regards intellectual power and influence, even down to the present day, not to mention continuity of dynasty, the smaller kingdom is by far the more important. It is, therefore, treated here as the true representative of the nation. Lying, as it did, in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, the tribe of Benjamin could hardly do otherwise than throw in its lot with that of Judah Bethel, which became one of the religious capitals of the Northern Kingdom, although nominally within their territory, in fact belonged to Ephraim (Jdg_1:22 ff). With this union of opposing interests may be compared that of the 'Alids and 'Abbhsids, both belonging to the house of Mohammed and both aspirants to the caliphate, against the house of Umeiya.

III. The Dual Monarchy.
1. War Between Two Kingdoms:
Rehoboam made no decisive attempt to bring back the recalcitrant tribes to their allegiance (1Ki_12:21 ff), though the two countries made raids, one upon the other (1Ki_14:30). For his own security he built numerous fortresses, the remains of some of which have, it is probable, been recovered within recent years (2Ch_11:5 ff). These excited the suspicion of Shishak of Egypt, who invaded the country and reduced it to vassalage (1Ki_14:25 ff). Under Rehoboam's son Abijah, actual war broke out between the two kingdoms (1Ki_15:6 as corrected in 1Ki_15:7; 2 Ch 13). The war was continued during the long reign of his son Asa, whose opponent, Baasha, built a fort some 6 miles North of Jerusalem in order to cut off that city from communication with the North Asa confessed his weakness by appealing for help to Ben-hadad of Damascus. The end justified the means. The fort was demolished.

2. First Reform of Religion:
The reign of Asa is also remarkable for the first of those reformations of worship which recur at intervals throughout the history of the Southern Kingdom. The high places Reform of were not yet, however, considered illegitimate (1Ki_15:14; but compare 2Ch_14:5). He also, like his grandfather, was a builder of castles, and with a similar, though more fortunate, result (2Ch_14:6, 2Ch_14:9 ff). Asa's old age and illness helped to bring to the rival kingdoms a peace which lasted beyond his own reign (1Ki_15:23).

3. Two Kingdoms at Peace:
An effect of this peace is seen in the expanding foreign trade of the country under his successor Jehoshaphat. He rebuilt the navy as in the days of Solomon, but a storm ruined the enterprise (1Ki_22:48 f). During this reign the two kingdoms came nearer being united than they had done since the disruption. This was no doubt largely due to the Northern Kingdom having been greatly weakened by the wars with Syria and Assyria, and having given up the idea of annexing the smaller country. Moreover, Jehoshaphat had married his son Joram (Jehoram) to Ahab's daughter Athaliah. From a religious point of view, the two states reacted upon one another. Jehoram of Israel inaugurated a reformation of worship in the Northern Kingdom, and at the same time that of Judah was brought into line with the practice of the sister kingdom (2Ki_8:18). The peace, from a political point of view, did much to strengthen both countries, and enabled them to render mutual assistance against the common foe.

4. Two Kingdoms Contrasted:
Up to the death of Jehoram of Israel, which synchronized with that of Joram and Ahaziah of Judah, 6 kings had reigned in Judah Of these the first 4 died in their beds and were buried in their own mausoleum. During the same period of about 90 years there were in Israel 9 kings divided into 4 dynasties. The second king of the Ist Dynasty was immediately assassinated and the entire family annihilated. Precisely the same fate overtook the IId Dynasty. Then followed a civil war in which two pretenders were killed, one perishing by his own hand. The IIIrd Dynasty lasted longer than the first two and counted 4 kings. Of these one was defeated and killed in battle and another assassinated. The fate of the kings of Israel is very like that of the middle and later ‛Abbâsid caliphs. The murder of his brothers by the Judean Jehoram, a proceeding once regular with the sultans of Turkey, must also be put down to the influence of his Israelite wife.

5. Revolution in the Northern Kingdom:
It was obvious that a crisis was impending. Edom and Libnah had thrown off their allegiance, and the Philistines had attacked and plundered Jerusalem, even the king's sons being taken prisoners, with the exception of the youngest (2Ch_21:16). Moreover, the two kingdoms had become so closely united, not only by intermarriage, but also in religion and politics, that they must stand and fall together. The hurricane which swept away the northern dynasty also carried off the members of the southern royal house more nearly connected with Ahab, and the fury of the queen-mother Athaliah made the destruction complete (2Ki_11:1).

6. Effect on the Southern Kingdom:
For 6 years the daughter of Ahab held sway in Jerusalem. The only woman who sat on the throne of David was a daughter of the hated Ahab. In her uniqueness, she thus holds a place similar to that of Shejered-Durr among the Memluk sultans of Egypt. The character of her reign is not described, but it can easily be imagined. She came to her inevitable end 6 years later.

7. Davidic House at Lowest Ebb:
Successive massacres had reduced the descendants of David until only one representative was left. Jehoram, the last king but one, had murdered all his brothers (2Ch_21:4); the Arab marauders had killed his sons except the youngest (2Ch_22:1; compare 2Ch_21:17). The youngest, Ahaziah, after the death of his father, was, with 42 of his ?brethren,? executed by Jehu (2Ki_10:14). Finally, Athaliah ?destroyed all the seed royal.? The entente with the Northern Kingdom had brought the Davidic dynasty to the brink of extinction.

8. Begins to Recover:
But just as ‛Abd er-Rahman escaped from the slaughter of the Umeiyads to found a new dynasty in Spain, so the Davidic dynasty made a fresh start under Joash. The church had saved the state, and naturally the years that followed were years in which the religious factor bulked large. The temple of Baal which Athaliah had built and supported was wrecked, the idols broken, and the priest killed. A fund was inaugurated for the repair of the national temple. The religious enthusiasm, however, quickly cooled. The priests were found to be diverting the fund for the restoration of the temple to their own uses. A precisely similar diversion of public funds occurred in connection with the Qarawiyin mosque in Fez under the Almoravids in the 12th century. The reign which had begun with so much promise ended in clouds and darkness (2Ki_12:17 ff; 2Ch_24:17 ff; Mat_23:35), and Joash was the first of the Judean kings to be assassinated by his own people (2Ki_12:20 f).

9. Reviving Fortunes:
By a curious coincidence, a new king ascended the throne of Syria, of Israel and of Judah about the same time. The death of Hazael, and accession of Ben-hadad III led to a revival in the fortunes of both of the Israelite kingdoms. The act of clemency with which Amaziah commenced his reign (2Ki_14:5, 2Ki_14:6; Deu_24:16) presents a pleasing contrast to the moral code which had come to prevail in the sister kingdom; and the story of his hiring mercenaries from the Ephraimite kingdom (2Ch_25:5-10) sheds a curious light on the relations subsisting between the two countries, and even on those times generally. It is still more curious to find him, some time after, sending, without provocation, a challenge to Jehoash; and the capture and release of Amaziah evinces some rudimentary ideas of chivalry (2Ki_14:8 ff). The chief event of the reign was the reconquest of Edom and taking of Petra (2Ki_14:7).

10. Monarchy Still Elective:
The principle of the election of kings by the people was in force in Judah, although it seemed to be in abeyance since the people were content to limit their choice to the Davidic line. But it was exercised when occasion required. Joash had been chosen by the populace, and it was they who, when the public discontent culminated in the assassination of Amaziah, chose his 16-year-old son Uzziah (or Azariah) to succeed him.

11. Government by Regents:
The minority of the king involved something equivalent to a regency. As Jehoiada at first carried on the government for Joash, so Uzziah was at first under the tutelage of Zechariah (2Ch_26:5), and the latter part of his reign was covered by the regency of his son Jotham. It is obvious that with the unstable dynasties of the north, such government by deputy would have been impracticable.

12. Period of Great Prosperity:
The reign of Uzziah (2 Ch 26) was one of the most glorious in the annals of the Judean kingdom. The Philistines and southern Arabs, who had been so powerful in the reign of Jehoram, were subdued, and other Bedouin were held in check. The frontiers were strengthened with numerous castles. Now that Edom was again annexed, the Red Sea trade was resumed. Irrigation was attended to, and the agricultural resources of the country were developed. Uzziah also established a standing army, properly equipped and trained. Artillery, in the shape of catapults and other siege engines, was manufactured. It is obvious that in this reign we have advanced far beyond the earlier and ruder times.

13. Rise of Priestly Caste:
In this and the preceding reigns, we notice also how the priests are becoming a distinct and powerful caste. Zadok and Abiathar were no more than the domestic chaplains of David. The kings might at pleasure discharge the functions of the priest. But the all-powerful position of Jehoiada seems to have given the order new life; and in the latter part of the reign of Uzziah, king and priest come into conflict, and the king comes off second-best (2Ch_26:16 ff).

14. Advent of Assyria:
Uzziah is the first king of Judah to be mentioned in the Assyrian annals. He was fighting against ?Pul? in the years 742-740. The advent of the great eastern power upon the scene of Judean politics could end but in one way - as it was soon to do with Israel also. The reign of Jotham may be passed over as it coincided almost entirely with that of his father. But in the following reign we find Judah already paying tribute to Assyria in the year of the fall of Damascus and the conquest of the East-Jordan land, the year 734.

15. Judah a Protectorate:
During the regency of Jotham, the effeminacy and luxury of the Northern Kingdom had already begun to infect the Southern (Mic_1:9; Mic_6:16), and under the irresolute Ahaz the declension went on rapidly. This rapprochement in morals and customs did not prevent Israel under Pekah joining with Rezin of Syria against Judah, with no less an object than to subvert the dynasty by placing an Aramean on the throne (Isa_7:6). What the result might have been, had not Isaiah taken the reins out of Ahaz' hands, it is impossible to say. As it was, Judah felt the strain of the conflict for many a year. The country was invaded from other points, and many towns were lost, some of which were never recovered (2Ch_28:17 ff). In despair Ahaz placed himself and his country under the protection of Assyria (2Ki_16:7 ff).

16. Cosmopolitan Tendencies:
It was a part of the cosmopolitan tendencies of the time that the worship became tarnished with foreign innovations (2Ki_16:10). The temple for the first time in its history was closed (2Ch_28:24). Altars of Baal were set up in all the open spaces of Jerusalem, each representing some urban god (Jer_11:13). About the closing of the temple Isaiah would not be greatly concerned. Perhaps it was his suggestion (compare Isa 1). The priests who were supreme in the preceding reigns had lost their influence: their place had been taken by the prophets. The introduction of Baalism, however, was no doubt due to Ahaz alone.

IV. Period of Decline.
1. Judah Independent:
The following reign - that of Hezekiah - was, perhaps as a result of the disappearance of the Northern Kingdom, a period of reformation. Isaiah is now supreme, and the history of the times will be found in his biography. It must have been with a sigh of relief that Hezekiah saw the Northern Kingdom disappear forever from the scene. The relations of the two countries had been too uniformly hostile to make that event anything but an omen for good. It was no doubt due to Isaiah that Hezekiah sought to recover the old independence of his country. Their patriotism went near to be their own undoing. Sennacherib invaded Palestine, and Hezekiah found himself shorn of everything that was outside the walls of Jerusalem. Isaiah's patriotism rose to the occasion; the invading armies melted away as by a miracle; Judah was once more free (2Ki_18:13 ff).

2. Reform of Religion:
A curious result of Sennacherib's invasion was the disappearance of the high places - local shrines where Levitical priests officiated in opposition to those of the temple. When the Judean territories were limited to the city, these of necessity vanished, and, when the siege was over, they were not restored. They were henceforward regarded as illegal. It is generally held by scholars that this reform occurred later under Josiah, on the discovery of the ?Book of the Law? by Hilkiah in the temple (2Ki_22:8), and that this book was Deuteronomy. The high places, however, are not mentioned in the law book of Deuteronomy. The reform was probably the work of Isaiah, and due to considerations of morals.

3. Egypt and Judah:
The Judeans had always had a friendly feeling toward Egypt. When the great eastern power became threatening, it was to Egypt they turned for safety. Recent excavation has shown that the influence of Egypt upon the life and manners of Palestine was very great, and that that of Assyria and Babylonia was comparatively slight, and generally confined to the North. In the reign of Hezekiah a powerful party proposed an alliance with Egypt with the view of check-mating the designs of Assyria (2Ki_17:4; Isa_30:2, Isa_30:3; Isa_31:1). Hezekiah followed Isaiah's advice in rejecting all alliances.

4. Traffic in Horses:
The commercial and other ties which bound Palestine to Egypt were much stronger than those between Palestine and the East. One of the most considerable of these was the trade in horses. This traffic had been begun by Solomon (1Ki_10:28 f). The chief seat of the trade in Palestine was Lachish (Mic_1:13). In their nomadic state the Israelites had used camels and donkeys, and the use of the horse was looked upon with suspicion by the prophets (Deu_17:16; Zec_9:10). When the horse is spoken of in the Old Testament, it is as the chief weapon of the enemies of the nation (Exo_15:1; Jdg_5:22, etc.).

5. Reaction Under Manasseh:
On the death of Hezekiah, the nation reverted to the culture and manners of the time of Ahaz and even went farther than he in corrupt practices. Especially at this time human sacrifice became common in Israel (Mic_6:7). The influence for good of the prophets had gone (2 Ki 21). There is a curious story in 2Ch_33:11 f that Manasseh was taken captive by the Assyrians, and, after spending some time in captivity in Babylon, reformed and was restored to his throne. His son, however, undid these reforms, and public discontent grew to such an extent that he was assassinated (2Ki_21:19 ff).

6. Triumph of Reform Party:
Once more the tide turned in the direction of reform, and on this occasion it rose higher than ever before. The reformation under Josiah was never again wholly undone. The enthusiasm of the iconoclasts carried them far beyond the frontiers of Judah (2Ch_34:6), for on this occasion they were backed up by the newly found ?Book of the Law.? All boded well for a prosperous reign, but unforeseen disasters came from without. The Scythian invasion swept over Southwestern Asia (Jer_1:14-16; Jer_6:1, etc.). The storm passed, and hope rose higher than before, for the power of Assyria had been shattered forever.

7. Babylonia and Judah:
Already in 722, when Sargon seized the throne on the death of Shalmaneser, Babylonia had revolted, and crowned Marduk-baladan king (Isa_39:1). Hezekiah received a deputation from Babylonia (2Ki_20:12 ff), no doubt in the hope of freeing himself from the Assyrian danger by such an alliance. The revolt of Merodach-baladan was maintained for 12 years; then it was suppressed. There was, however, a second revolt of Babylonia on the accession of Sennacherib, Sargon's son, in 705, which went on till 691, and the events referred to in 2 Ki 20 may have happened at this time, for Hezekiah's reign seems to have ended prosperously.

8. End of Assyrian Empire:
Sennacherib was assassinated in 681 (Isa_37:38) and was succeeded by his son Esar-haddon, who rebuilt Babylon, razed to the ground by his father, and under whom the province remained quiet. In 674 hostilities with Egypt broke out, and that country was overrun, and TIRHAKAH (which see) was expelled in 670. Two years later, however, occurred the revolt of Egypt and the death of Esar-haddon. Assur-bani-pal succeeded, and Egypt regained her independence in 660. The revolt of Babylonia, the incursion of the Scythians (Jer_1:14 ff) and the death of Assur-bani-pal followed. Two more kings sat on the throne of Assyria, and then Nineveh was taken by the combined Scythians (Mandor) and Babylonians (Herod. i. 74; Nah; Zep_2:13-15; Hab_1:5 f).

9. After Scythian Invasion:
The Scythian tempest passed quickly, and when it was over the Assyrian peril was no more. Pharaoh-necoh seized the opportunity to avenge the injuries of his country by the invasion of the erstwhile Assyrian territories. Josiah, pursuing the policy of alliance with Babylonia inaugurated by Hezekiah, endeavored to arrest his progress. He was defeated and mortally wounded at Megiddo (Zec_12:11).

10. Judah Again Dependent:
By the foolhardy action of Josiah, Judah lost its independence. The people, indeed, elected Jehoahaz (Shallum) king, but he was immediately deposed and carried to Egypt by the Pharaoh (Jer_22:10 ff; Eze_19:3 f), who appointed Jehoiakim (Eliakim) as vassal-king. After the defeat of the Pharaoh at Carchemish, the old Hittite stronghold, by Nebuchadrezzar, Jehoiakim submitted, and Judah became a dependency of Babylon. There must have been some return of prosperity, for Jehoiakim is denounced for his luxury and extravagance and oppressive taxation (Jer_22:13 ff), but the country was raided by the neighboring Bedouin (2Ki_24:2), and Jehoiakim came to an untimely end (Jer_22:19).

11. Prophets Lose Influence:
The prophets were no longer, as under Hezekiah, all-powerful in the state. The influence of Jeremiah was no doubt great, but the majority was against him. His program was both unpopular in itself and it had the fatal defect of being diametrically opposed to that of Isaiah, the patriot-politician (if such there be), who had saved the state from shipwreck. Isaiah had preached reliance upon the national God and through it the political independence of the nation. It was the sad duty of Jeremiah to advise the surrender of the national independence to the newly risen power of Babylon. (Jer_21:4, Jer_21:9; Jer_38:2, etc.). Isaiah had held that the Holy City was impregnable (2Ki_19:32); Jeremiah was sure that it would be taken by the Chaldeans (Jer_32:24, Jer_32:43). Events proved that each prophet was right for the time in which he lived.

12. The Deportations:
Jehoiakim was the only Judean king who was a vassal first to one overlord and then to another. Judah took a step downward in his reign. It was under him also that the first deportation of the Judeans occurred (Dan 1:1-17). He was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin who, on account of a rebellion which closed the reign of his father, was ere long deported, along with the best of the nation (Jer_22:24 ff; Eze_19:5 ff). A 3rd son of Josiah, Mattaniah, was set on the throne under the title of Zedekiah. Against the advice of Jeremiah, this, the last king of Judah, declared himself independent of Babylon, and threw in his lot with Egypt under Pharaoh Hophra (Apries), thus breaking his oath of fealty (Eze_17:15 ff). On the advance of the Chaldeans, Judah was deserted by her allies, the Edomites and Philistines (see BOOK OF OB), and soon only Lachish (Tell el-Hesy), Azekah (probably Tell Zakarua) and Jerusalem remained in the hands of Zedekiah. The siege of the city lasted two years. It was taken on the fatal 9th of Ab in the year 586. Zedekiah's family was put to the sword, and he himself was taken to Babylon. Egypt shared the fate of Judah, with whom she had been often so closely connected, and Hophra was the last of the Pharaohs.

13. Summary:
The kingdom of Judah had lasted 480 years, counting from its commencement, exactly twice as long as the kingdom of Israel, counting from the disruption. No doubt this longer mary existence was due in the first place to the religious faith of the people. This is clear from the fact that the national religion not only survived the extinction of the nation, but spread far beyond its original territories and has endured down to the present day. But there were also circumstances which conspired to foster the growth of the nation in its earliest and most critical period. One of these was the comparative isolation and remoteness of the country. Neither the kingdom of Israel nor that of Judah is for a moment to be compared to those of Egypt and Assyria. Even the combined kingdom under David and Solomon hardly deserves that comparison; and separate, the Northern Kingdom would be about the size of New Hampshire and the Southern Kingdom about that of Connecticut. The smaller kingdom survived the larger because it happened to be slightly farther removed from the danger zone. Even had the two kingdoms held together, it is impossible that they could have withstood the expansion of Assyria and Babylonia on the one side and of Egypt on the other. The Egyptian party in Judean politics in the times of Isaiah and Jeremiah were so far in the right, that, if Judah could have maintained her independence in alliance with Egypt, these two countries combined might have withstood the power of Assyria or Babylon. But it is because this ancient race, tracing its descent from remote antiquity, preserved its religious, at the expense of its national independence, that its literature continues to mold much of the thought of Europe and America today. See ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

When the territory of all the rest of Israel, except Judah and Benjamin, was lost to the kingdom of Rehoboam, a special single name was needed to denote that which remained to him; and almost of necessity the word Judah received an extended meaning, according to which it comprised not Benjamin only, but the priests and Levites, who were ejected in great numbers from Israel, and rallied round the house of David. At a still later time, when the nationality of the ten tribes had been dissolved, and every practical distinction between the ten and the two had vanished during the captivity, the scattered body had no visible head, except in Jerusalem, which had been re-occupied by a portion of Judah's exiles. In consequence the name Judah (or Jew) attached itself to the entire nation from about the epoch of the restoration. But in this article Judah is understood of the people over which David's successors reigned, from Rehoboam to Zedekiah. Under the article Israel the chronology of the two kingdoms has been discussed, which, however, was not carried below the capture of Samaria. In the lower part of the list we lose the check which the double line of kings afforded; but for the same reason the problem is simpler. The only difficulty encountered here rises out of the ages assigned to some of the kings of Judah. For this reason, in the following list, all their ages are inserted, so far as they are recorded. It has been thought sufficient to add Winer's chronology to the dates as given above in the article Israel.
Accession of
Years of Reign
Age
B.C.
Father's Age at Son's Birth
Rehoboam
17
41
975
?
Abijah
3
?
957
*22
Asa
41
?
955
*22
Jehoshaphat
25
35
914
*22
[Jehoram installed]
8
32
?
?
Jehoram alone
?
(35)
889
25
Ahaziah
1
22
885
17
[Queen Athaliah]
7
?
884
?
Jehoash
39?
7
878
22
Amaziah
29
25
838
22
Uzziah
53?
16
809
38
Jotham
16
25
757
43
Ahaz
16
20
741
22
Hezekiah
29
25
726
10
Manasseh
55
12
696
42
Amon
2
22
641
45
Josiah
31
8
639
16
Jehoahaz
?
23
609
15
Jehoiakim, his brother
11
25?
609
13?
Jehoiachin
?
18
598
18
Zedekiah, his father's brother
11
21
598
28
Zedekiah is deposed
?
?
588
?
The ages of Abijah and Asa at their accession not being given, the three first numbers in the last column are averages only, Rehoboam having been born 66 or 67 years before Jehoshaphat. A glance at the table is sufficient to show that various errors must have crept into the numbers, but it is now extremely difficult, if not impossible, to correct them.
When the kingdom of Solomon became rent with intestine war, it might have been foreseen that the Edomites, Moabites, and other surrounding nations would at once refuse their accustomed tribute, and become again practically independent and some irregular invasion of these tribes might have been dreaded. It was a mark of conscious weakness, and not a result of strength, that Rehoboam fortified 15 cities (2Ch_11:5-11), in which his people might find defense against the irregular armies of his roving neighbors. But a more formidable enemy came in, Shishak king of Egypt, against whom the fortresses were of no avail (2Ch_12:4), and to whom Jerusalem was forced to open its gates; and, from the despoiling of his treasures, Rehoboam probably sustained a still greater shock in its moral effect on the Moabites and Edomites, than in the direct loss: nor is it easy to conceive that he any longer retained the commerce of the Red Sea, or any very lucrative trade.
After, Jehoshaphat followed the calamitous affinity with the house of Ahab, and the massacres of both families. 'Under Jehoiada the priest, and Jehoash his pupil, no martial efforts were made; but Amaziah son of Jehoash, after hiring 100,000 Israelites to no purpose, made war on the Edomites, slew 10,000, and threw 10,000 more down from the top of their rock (2Ch_25:5-6; 2Ch_25:11-12). His own force in Judah, from 20 years old and upwards, was numbered at 300,000 choice men, able to handle spear and shield. His son Uzziah had 2600 military officers, and 307,500 men of war (2Ch_26:12-13). Ahaz lost, in a single battle with Pekah, 120,000 valiant men (2Ch_28:6), after the severe slaughter he had received from Rezin king of Syria; after which no further military strength is ascribed to the kings of Judah.
These figures have caused no small perplexity, and have suggested to some the need of conjectural emendation. It perhaps deserves remark, that in the book of Kings no numbers of such startling magnitude are found. The army ascribed to Rehoboam (1Ki_12:21) is, indeed, as in Chronicles, 180,000 men; but if we explain it of those able to fight, the number, though certainly large, may be dealt with historically.
As the most important external relations of Israel were with Damascus, so were those of Judah with Edom and Egypt. Some revolution in the state of Egypt appears to have followed the reign of Shishak, Apparently the country must have fallen under the power of an Ethiopian dynasty, for the name of the Lubim, who accompanied Zerah in his attack on Asa, is generally regarded as proving that Zerah was from Sennaar, the ancient Meroe. But as this invasion was signally repulsed, the attempt was not repeated; and Judah enjoyed entire tranquility from that quarter until the invasion of Pharaoh Necho. In fact it may seem that this success assisted the reaction, favorable to the power of Judah, which was already begun, in consequence of a change in the policy of Damascus. Asa having bought, by a costly sacrifice, the serviceable aid of the Damascene king, Israel was soon distressed, and Judah became once more formidable to her southern neighbors. Jehoshaphat appears to have re-asserted the Jewish authority over the Edomites without war, and to have set his own viceroy over them (1Ki_22:47). Intending to resume the distant commerce which had been so profitable to Solomon, he built ships suitable for long voyages ('ships of Tarshish' as they are rightly called in 1Ki_22:48), but not having the advantage of Tyrian sailors, as Solomon had, he lost the vessels by violent weather before they had sailed. Upon this, Ahaziah, king of Israel, offered the service of his own mariners, probably from the tribe of Asher and others accustomed to the Mediterranean; but Jehoshaphat was too discouraged to accept his offer, and the experiment was never renewed by any Hebrew king. The Edomites, who paid only a forced allegiance, soon after revolted from Jehoram, and elected their own king (2Ki_8:20; 2Ki_8:22). At a later time they were severely defeated by Amaziah (2Ki_14:7), whose son, Uzziah, fortified the town of Elath, intending, probably, to resume maritime enterprise; but it remained a barren possession, and was finally taken from them by Rezin, in the reign of Ahaz (2Ki_16:6). The Philistines, in these times, seem to have fallen from their former greatness, their league having been so long dissolved. The most remarkable event in which they are concerned is the assault on Jerusalem, in the reign of Jehoram (2Ch_21:16-17).
It is strikingly indicative of the stormy scenes through which the line of David passed, that the treasures of the king and of the Temple were so often plundered or bargained away. First, under Rehoboam, all the hoards of Solomon, consecrated and common alike, were carried off by Shishak (1Ki_14:26). Two generations later, Asa emptied out to Benhadad all that had since accumulated 'in the house of Jehovah or in the king's house.' A third time, when Hazael had taken Gath, and was preparing to march on Jerusalem, Jehoash, king of Judah, turned him away by sending to him all 'that Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah and Jehoash himself had dedicated, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of Jehovah and in the king's house' (2Ki_12:18). In the very next reign Jehoash, king of Israel, defeated and captured Amaziah, took Jerusalem, broke down the walls, carried off hostages, and plundered the gold and silver deposited in the temple and in the royal palace (2Ki_14:11-14). A fifth sacrifice of the sacred and of the royal treasure was made by Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser (2Ki_16:8). The act was repeated by his son Hezekiah to Sennacherib, who had demanded '300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold.' It is extraordinary, therefore, to find expressions used when Nebuchadnezzar took the city, which at first sight imply that Solomon's far-famed stores were still untouched (2Ki_24:13).
The severest shock which the house of David received was the double massacre which it endured from Jehu and from Athaliah. After a long minority, a youthful king, the sole surviving male descendant of his great-grandfather, and reared under the paternal rule of the priest Jehoiada, to whom he was indebted not only for his throne but even for his recognition as a son of Ahaziah, was not in a situation to uphold the royal authority. That Jehoash conceived the priests to have abused the power which they had gained, sufficiently appears in 2 Kings 12, where he complains that they had for twenty-three years appropriated the money, which they ought to have spent on the repairs of the temple. Jehoiada gave way; but we see here the beginning of a feud (hitherto unknown in the house of David) between the crown and the priestly order; which, after Jehoiada's death, led to the murder of his son Zachariah. The massacre of the priests of Baal, and of Athaliah, granddaughter of a king of Sidon, must also have destroyed cordiality between the Phoenicians and the kingdom of Judah; and when the victorious Hazael had subjugated all Israel and showed himself near Jerusalem, Jehoash could look for no help from without, and had neither the faith of Hezekiah nor a prophet like Isaiah to support him. The assassination of Jehoash in his bed by 'his own servants' is described in the Chronicles as a revenge taken upon him by the priestly party for his murder of 'the sons' of Jehoiada; and the same fate, from the same influence, fell upon his son Amaziah, if we may so interpret the words in 2Ch_25:27 : 'From the time that Amaziah turned away from following Jehovah they made a conspiracy against him,' etc. Thus the house of David appeared to be committing itself, like that of Saul, to permanent enmity with the priests. The wisdom of Uzziah, during a long reign, averted this collision, though a symptom of it returned towards its close. No further mischief from this cause followed, until the reign of his grandson, the weak and unfortunate Ahaz: after which the power of the kingdom, rapidly moldered away.
The struggle of the crown against (what we might call) the constitutional check of the priests, was perhaps the most immediate cause of the ruin of Judah. Ahaz was probably less guided by policy than by superstition, or by architectural taste, in erecting his Damascene altar (2Ki_16:10-18). But the far more outrageous proceedings of Manasseh seem to have been a systematic attempt to extirpate the national religion because of its supporting the priestly power; and the 'innocent blood very much,' which he is stigmatized for shedding (2Ki_21:16), was undoubtedly a sanguinary attack on the party opposed to his impious and despotic innovations. The storm which he had raised did not burst in his lifetime; but, two years after, it fell on the head of his son Amon; and the disorganization of the kingdom which his madness had wrought is commemorated as the cause of the Babylonish captivity (2Ki_23:26; 2Ki_24:3-4). It is also credible that the long-continued despotism had greatly lessened patriotic spirit; and that the Jewish people of the declining kingdom were less brave against foreign invaders than against kindred and neighbor tribes or civil opponents. Faction had become very fierce within Jerusalem itself (Ezekiel 22), and civil bloodshed was common. Wealth, where it existed, was generally a source of corruption, by introducing foreign luxury, tastes, manners, superstitions, immorality, or idolatry; and when consecrated to pious purposes, as by Hezekiah and Josiah, produced little more than a formal and exterior religion.
The appointment of Hilkiah to the office of high priest seems to mark the era at which (by a reaction after the atrocities of Manasseh and Amon) the purer priestly sentiment obtained its triumph over the crown. But the victory came too late. Society was corrupt and convulsed within, and the two great powers of Egypt and Babylon menaced it from without. True lovers of their God and of their country, like Jeremiah, saw that it was a time rather for weeping than for action; and that the faithful must resign themselves to the bitter lot which the sins of their nation had earned.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Judah, Kingdom Of
When the territory of all the rest of Israel, except Judah and Benjamin, was lost to the kingdom of Rehoboam, a special single name was needed to denote that which remained to him; and almost of necessity the word Judah received an extended meaning, according to which it comprised not Benjamin only, but the priests and Levites, who were ejected in great numbers from Israel, and rallied round the house of David. At a still later time, when the nationality of the ten tribes had been dissolved, and every practical distinction between the ten and the two had vanished during the captivity, the scattered body had no visible head, except in Jerusalem, which had been reoccupied mostly by a portion of Judah's exiles. SEE CAPTIVITY. In consequence, the name Judah (or Jew) attached itself to the entire nation from about the epoch of the restoration SEE JEW. But in this article Judah is understood of the people over which David's successors reigned, from Rehoboam to Zedekiah. It substantially corresponded to the Judoea (q.v.) of later times.
I. Extent of the Kingdom. — When the disruption of Solomon's kingdom took place at Shechem, only the tribe of Judah followed the house of David. But almost immediately afterwards, when Rehoboam conceived the design of establishing his authority over Israel by force of arms, the tribe of Benjamin also is recorded as obeying his summons, and contributing its warriors to make up his army. Jerusalem, situate within the borders of Benjamin (Jos_18:28, etc.), yet won from the heathen by a prince of Judah, connected the frontiers of the two tribes by an indissoluble political bond. By the erection of the city of David, Benjamin's former adherence to Israel (2Sa_2:9) was cancelled, though at least two Benjamite towns, Bethel and Jericho, were included in the northern kingdom. A part, if not all, of the territory of Simeon (1Sa_27:6; 1Ki_19:3; comp. Jos_19:1) and of Dan (2Ch_11:10; comp. Jos_19:41-42) was recognized as belonging to Judah, and in the reigns of Abijah and Asa the southern kingdom was enlarged by some additions taken out of the territory of Ephraim (2Ch_13:19; 2Ch_15:8; 2Ch_17:2). After the conquest and deportation of Israel by Assyria, the influence, and perhaps the delegated jurisdiction of the king of Judah, sometimes extended over the territory which formerly belonged to Israel. SEE JUDAEA.
II. Population. — A singular gauge of the growth of the kingdom of Judah is supplied by the progressive augmentation of the army under successive kings. In David's time (2Sa_24:9, and 1Ch_21:5) the warriors of Judah numbered at least 500,000. But Rehoboam brought into the field (1Ki_12:21) only 180,000 men; Abijah, eighteen years afterwards, 400,000 (2Ch_13:3); Asa (2Ch_14:8), his successor, 580,000, exactly equal to the sum of the armies of his two predecessors; Jehoshaphat (2Ch_17:14-19), the next king, numbered his warriors in five armies, the aggregate of which is 1,160,000, exactly double the army of his father, and exactly equal to the sum of the armies of his three predecessors. After four inglorious reigns, the energetic Amaziah could muster only 300,000 men when he set out to recover Edom. His son Uzziah had a standing (2Ch_26:11) force of 307,500 fighting men. It would be out of place here to discuss the question which has been raised as to the accuracy of these numbers. SEE NUMBER So far as they are authentic, it may be safely reckoned that the population subject to each king was about four times the number of the fighting men in his dominions. SEE ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF.
III. Resources. — Unless Judah had some other means of acquiring wealth besides pasture and tillage — as by maritime commerce from the Red Sea ports, or (less probably) from Joppa, or by keeping up the old trade (1Ki_10:28) with Egypt — it seems difficult to account for that ability to accumulate wealth which supplied the Temple treasury with sufficient store to invite so frequently the hand of the spoiler. Egypt, Damascus, Samaria, Nineveh, and Babylon had each in succession a share of the pillage. The treasury was emptied by Shishak (1Ki_14:26), again by Asa (1Ki_15:18), by Jehoash of Judah (2Ki_12:18), by Jehoash of Israel (2Ki_14:14), by Ahaz (2Ki_16:8), by Hezekiah (2Ki_18:15), and by Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki_24:13).
IV. Advantages of Position. — In Edom a vassal king probably retained his fidelity to the son of Solomon, and guarded for Jewish enterprise the road to the maritime trade with Ophir. Philistia maintained, for the most part, a quiet independence. Syria, in the height of her brief power, pushed her conquests along the northern and eastern frontiers of Judah, and threatened Jerusalem; but the interposition of the territory of Israel generally relieved Judah from any immediate contact with that dangerous neighbor. The southern border of Judah, resting on the uninhabited desert, was not agitated by any turbulent stream of commercial activity like that which flowed by the rear of Israel, from Damascus to Tyre. Though some of the Egyptian kings were ambitious, that ancient kingdom was far less aggressive as a neighbor to Judah than Assyria was to Israel.
The kingdom of Judah thus possessed many advantages which secured for it a longer continuance than that of Israel. A frontier less exposed to powerful enemies, a soil less fertile, a population hardier and more united, a fixed and venerated center of administration and religion, a hereditary aristocracy in the sacerdotal caste, an army always subordinate, a succession of kings which no revolution interrupted, many of whom were wise and good, and strove successfully to promote the moral and spiritual as well as the material prosperity of their people; still more than these, the devotion of the people to the One True God, which, if not always a pure and elevated sentiment, was yet a contrast to such devotion as could be inspired by the worship of the calves or of Baal; and, lastly, the popular reverence for arid obedience to the divine law so far as they learned it from their teachers — to these and other secondary causes is to be attributed the fact that Judah survived her more populous and more powerful sister kingdom by 135 years, and lasted from B.C. 975 to B.C. 586. (See Bernhardy, De causis quibus effectum sit quod regnum Judoe diutius persisteret quam regn. Israel, in the Annal. Acad. Groning. 1822-23, p. 124 sq.; also Lovan. 1824; Schmeidler, Der Untergang d. Reichs Juda, Bresl. 1831.)
V. History. — For the circumstances that led to the schism, and for a comparison with the history of the rival kingdom, SEE ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF. For a further examination of the many chronological difficulties arising from the double list of kings, SEE CHRONOLOGY. The annals of the kingdom will be found detailed under the name of the several kings, and a general view under the articles JERUSALEM SEE JERUSALEM, and PALESTINE SEE PALESTINE. (See White, Kings of Judah and Israel, Lond. 1863; Hessey, Biographies of Kings of Judah, Lond. 1865; Hess, Geschichte der Könige Juda und Israel, Zurich, 1787; also Gesch. der Regenten Juda nach dem Exil, ib. 1788.) It will be sufficient, as a resume, here to notice the fact that the kingdom of Judah, in the course of its history, acted upon three different lines of policy in succession.
1. Animosity against the rival Kingdom of Israel. — The first three kings of Judah seem to have cherished the hope of reestablishing their authority over the Ten Tribes; for sixty years there was war between them and the kings of Israel. Neither the disbanding of Rehoboam's forces by the authority of Shemaiah, nor the pillage of Jerusalem by the irresistible Shishak, served to put an end to the fraternal hostility. The victory achieved by the daring Abijah brought to Judah a temporary accession of territory. Asa appears to have enlarged it still further, and to have given so powerful a stimulus to the migration of religious Israelites to Jerusalem that Baasha was induced to fortify Ramah with a view to checking the movement. Asa provided for the safety of his subjects from invaders by building, like Rehoboam, several fenced cities; he repelled an alarming irruption of an Ethiopian horde, he hired the armed intervention of Benhadad I, king of Damascus, against Baasha; and he discouraged idolatry and enforced the worship of the true God by severe penal laws. (See Junge, Bella inter Judsam et Israel. Tub. 1716.)
2. Resistance (generally in Alliance with Israel) to Damascus. — Hanani's remonstrance (2Ch_16:7) prepares us for the reversal by Jehoshaphat of the policy which Asa pursued towards Israel and Damascus. A close alliance sprang up with strange rapidity between Judah and Israel. For eighty-years, till the time of Amaziah, there was no open war between them, and Damascus appears as their chief and common enemy, though it rose afterwards from its overthrow to become, under Rezin, the ally of Pekal against Ahaz. Jehoshaphat, active and prosperous, repelled nomad invaders from the desert, curbed the aggressive spirit of his nearer neighbors, and made his influence felt even among the Philistines and Arabians. A still more lasting benefit was conferred on his kingdom by his persevering efforts for the religious instruction of the people and the regular administration of justice. The reign of Jehoram, the husband of Athaliah, a time of bloodshed, idolatry, and disaster, was cut short by disease. Ahaziah was slain by Jehu. Athaliah, the granddaughter of a Tyrian king, usurped the blood stained throne of David, till the followers of the ancient religion put her to death, and crowned Jehoash the surviving scion of the royal house. His preserver, the high priest, acquired prominent personal influence for a time; but the king fell into idolatry, and failing to withstand the power of Syria, was murdered by his own officers. The vigorous Amaziah, flushed with the victory of Edom, provoked a war with his more powerful contemporary Jehoash, the conqueror of the Syrians, and Jerusalem was entered and plundered by the Israelites. But their energies were sufficiently occupied in the task of completing the subjugation of Damascus. Under Uzziah and Jotham, Judah long enjoyed political and religious prosperity till the wanton Ahaz, surrounded by united enemies, with whom he was unable to cope, became in an evil hour the tributary and vassal of Tiglath-Pileser.
3. Deference, perhaps Vassalage, to the Assyrian King. — Already in the fatal grasp of Assyria, Judah was yet spared for a checkered existence of almost another century and a half after the termination of the kingdom of Israel. The effect of the repulse of Sennacherib, of the signal religious revivals under Hezekiah and Josiah, and of the extension of these kings' salutary influence over the long severed territory of Israel, was apparently done away by the ignominious reign of the impious Manasseh, and the lingering decay of the whole people under the four feeble descendants of Josiah. Provoked by their treachery and imbecility, their Babylonian master, who had meanwhile succeeded to the dominion of the Assyrians, drained, in successive deportations, all the strength of the kingdom. The consummation of the ruin came upon them in the destruction of the Temple by the hand of Nebuzaradan, amid the wailing of prophets and the taunts of heathen tribes released at length from the yoke of David.
VI. Moral State. — The national life of the Hebrews appeared to become gradually weaker during these successive stages of history, until at length it seemed extinct; but there was still, as there had been all along, a spiritual life hidden within the body. It was a time of hopeless darkness to all but those Jews who had strong faith in God, with a clear and steady insight into the ways of Providence as interpreted by prophecy. The time of the division of the kingdoms was the golden age of prophecy. In each kingdom the prophetical office was subject to peculiar modifications which were required in Judah by the circumstances of the priesthood, in Israel by the existence of the house of Baal and the altar in Bethel. If, under the shadow of the Temple, there was a depth and a grasp elsewhere unequalled, in the views of Isaiah and the prophets of Judah; if their writings touched and elevated the hearts of thinking men in studious retirement in the silent night watches, there was also, in the few burning words and energetic deeds of the prophets of Israel, a power to tame a lawless multitude and to check the high handed tyranny and idolatry of kings. The organization and moral influence of the priesthood were matured in the time of David; from about that time to the building of the second Temple the influence of the prophets rose and became predominant. Some historians have suspected that after the reign of Athaliah, the priesthood gradually acquired and retained excessive and unconstitutional power in Judah. The recorded facts scarcely sustain the conjecture. Had it been so, the effect of such power would have been manifest in the exorbitant wealth and luxury of the priests, and in the constant and cruel enforcement of penal laws, like those of Asa, against irreligion. But the peculiar offenses of the priesthood, as witnessed in the prophetic writings, were of another kind. Ignorance of God's word, neglect of the instruction of the laity, untruthfulness, and partial judgments, are the offenses specially imputed to them, just such as might be looked for where the priesthood is a hereditary caste and irresponsible, but neither ambitious nor powerful. When the priest either, as was the case in Israel, abandoned the land, or, as in Judah, ceased to be really a teacher, ceased from spiritual communion with God, ceased from living sympathy with man, and became the mere image of an intercessor, a mechanical performer of ceremonial duties little understood or heeded by himself, then the prophet was raised up to supply some of his deficiencies, and to exercise his functions so far as was necessary. While the priests sink into obscurity and almost disappear, except from the genealogical tables, the prophets come forward appealing everywhere to the conscience of individuals — in Israel as wonder workers, calling together God's chosen few out of an idolatrous nation, and in Judah as teachers and seers, supporting and purifying all that remained of ancient piety, explaining each mysterious dispensation of God as it was unfolded, and promulgating his gracious spiritual promises in all their extent. The part which Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets took in preparing the Jews for their captivity, cannot, indeed, be fully appreciated without reviewing the succeeding efforts of Ezekiel and Daniel. But the influence which they exercised on the national mind was too important to be overlooked in a sketch, however brief, of the history of the kingdom of Judah. SEE PROPHET.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores