We hear nothing more of Judah till he received, along with his brothers, the final blessing of his father (B. C. 1856), which was conveyed in lofty language, glancing far into futurity, and strongly indicative of the high destinies which awaited the tribe that was to descend from him (Gen. xlix: 8-12).
2. A Levite whose sons assisted in rebuilding the temple after the return from captivity (Ezra iii :9), B. C. 536. (Hervey, Genealogy, p. 119.) 3. A Levite who had taken a foreign wife (Ezra x :23). Probably the same porson is meant in Neh. xii:8, 36 (B. C. 536).
4. Son of Senuah, a Benjamite (Neh. xi:9), B.
C. about 440.
5. One of those who followed half of the Jewish chiefs around the southern section of the newly erected walls of Jerusalem (Neh. xn:34), B. C. 446.
j1TDAH, KINGDOM OF (Kedah, king'clum ov), When the territory of all the rest of Israel, ex cept Judah and Benjamin, was lost to the kingdom of Rehoboam, a special single name was needed to denote that which remained to him.
(1) Extended Meaning. And almost of neces sity the word Judah received an extended mean ing, 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.
(2) The Term jew. 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 Je rusalem, 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 Zcdekiah.
(3) Revolt and Invasion. When the king dom 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 be come again practically independent ; and some ir regular invasion of these tribes might have been dreaded. It was a mark of conscious weakness, and not a result of strength, that Rehoboam forti fied fifteen cities (2 Chron. xi :5-t ), in which his people might find defense against the irregular armies of his roving neighbors. But a more for
midable enemy came in, Shishak, king of Egypt, against whom the fortresses were of no avail (xii: 4)• and to whom Jerusalem was forced to open its gates; and, from the despoiling of his treas ures, 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.
(4) Decline. 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 ef forts were made: hut Amaziah, son of Jchoash, after hiring too,000 Israelites to no purpose, made war on the Edomites, slew to,000. and threw to,000 more down from the top of thcir rock (xxv :5, 6, it, 12). His own force in Judah, from twenty years old and upwards, was numbered at only 3oo,000 choice men, able to handle spear and shield. His son Uzziali had 2,600 military officers and 3o7,5oo men of war (xxvi :la, 13). Ahaz lost, in a single battle with Pekah, tzo.000 valiant men (xxviii :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.
(5) Army of Rehoboam. It perhaps deserves remark, that in the book of Kings no numbers of such magnitude are found. The army ascribed to Rehoboam (I Kings xii :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. (See the article on STansTics.) (6) External Relations. As the most impor tant external relations of Israel were with Da mascus, 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 undcr the power of an Ethiopian dynasty; for the name of the Lublin, who accompanied Zerah in his at tack on Asa, is generally regarded as proving that Zerah was from Sennaar, thc ancient Meroe. But as this invasion was signally repulsed, the at tempt was not repeated ; and Judah enjoyed entire tranquillity from that quarter until the invasion of Pha raoh-n echo.