joo'-bal (yubhal; for meaning See JABAL ): Son of Lamech by Adah, and inventor of musical instruments (Gen 4:21).
(shenath ha-yobhel; etos tes apheseos; annus jubilaeus, "year of jubilee" (Lev 25:13), or simply ha-yobhel, "the jubilee" (Lev 25:28; compare Nu 36:4), the King James Version and the English Revised Version Jubile): The Hebrew word yobhel stands for qeren ha-yobhel, meaning the horn of a ram. Now, such a horn can be made into a trumpet, and thus the word yobhel came to be used as a synonym of trumpet. According to Lev 25:9 a loud trumpet should proclaim liberty throughout the country on the 10th day of the 7th month (the Day of Atonement), after the lapse of 7 sabbaths of years = 49 years. In this manner, every 50th year was to be announced as a jubilee year. All real property should automatically revert to its original owner (Lev 25:10; compare 25:13), and those who, compelled by poverty, had sold themselves as slaves to their brothers, should regain their liberty (Lev 25:10; compare 25:39).
In addition to this, the Jubilee Year was to be observed after the manner of the sabbatic year, i.e. there should be neither sowing nor reaping nor pruning of vines, and everybody was expected to live on what the fields and the vineyards produced "of themselves," and no attempt should be made at storing up the products of the land (Lev 25:11 f). Thus there are three distinct factors constituting the essential features of the Jubilee Year: personal liberty, restitution of property, and what we might call the simple life.
The 50th year was to be a time in which liberty should be proclaimed to all the inhabitants of the country. We should, indeed, diminish the import of this institution if we should apply it only to those who were to be freed from the bonds of physical servitude. Undoubtedly, they must have been the foremost in realizing its beneficial effects. But the law was intended to benefit all, the masters as well as the servants. They should never lose sight of their being brothers and citizens of theocratic kingdom. They owed their life to God and were subject to His sovereign will. Only through loyalty to Him were they free and could ever hope to be free and independent of all other masters.
The institution of the Jubilee Year should become the means of fixing the price of real property (Lev 25:15 f; compare 25:25-28); moreover, it should exclude the possibility of selling any piece of land permanently (Lev 25:23), the next verse furnishing the motive: "The land is mine: for ye are strangers and sojourners with me." The same rule was to be applied to dwelling-houses outside of the walled cities (Lev 25:31), and also to the houses owned by Levites, although they were built within walled cities (Lev 25:32).
In the same manner the price of Hebrew slaves was to vary according to the proximity of the Jubilee Year (Lev 25:47-54). This passage deals with the enslaving of a Hebrew by a foreigner living among the Jews; it goes without saying that the same rule would hold good in the case of a Hebrew selling himself to one of his own people.
In Lev 27:17-25 we find a similar arrangement respecting such lands that were "sanctified unto Yahweh." In all these cases the original owner was at liberty to redeem his property at any time, or have it redeemed by some of his nearest relatives (25:25-27,29,48 ff; 27:19).
The crowning feature, though, was the full restitution of all real property in the Jubilee Year. The primary object of this regulation was, of course, the reversion of all hereditary property to the family which originally possessed it, and the reestablishment of the original arrangement regarding the division of the land. But that was not all; for this legal disposition and regulation of external matters was closely connected with the high calling of the Jewish people. It was a part of the Divine plan looking forward to the salvation of mankind. "The deepest meaning of it (the Jubilee Year) is to be found in the apokatastasis tes basileias tou theou, i.e. in the restoring of all that which in the course of time was perverted by man's sin, in the removing of all slavery of sin, in the establishing of the true liberty of the children of God, and in the delivering of the creation from the bondage of corruption to which it was subjected on account of man's depravity" (Rom 8:19 ff) (compare Keil, Manual of Biblical Archaeology). In the Year of Jubilee a great future era of Yahweh's favor is foreshadowed, that period which, according to Isa 61:1-3, shall be ushered in to all those that labor and are heavy laden, by Him who was anointed by the spirit of the Lord Yahweh.
The Jubilee Year, being the crowning point of all sabbatical institutions, gave the finishing touch as it were to the whole cycle of sabbatic days, months and years. It is, therefore, quite appropriate that it should be a year of rest for the land like the preceding sabbatic year (Lev 25:11 f). It follows, of course, that in this instance there were two years, one after the other, in which there should be no sowing or systematic ingathering. This seems to be clear from Lev 25:18-22: "And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat of the fruits, the old store; until the ninth year, until its fruits come in, ye shall eat the old store." Thus in the 7th and 8th years the people were to live on what the fields had produced in the 6th year and whatever grew spontaneously. This shows the reason why we may say that one of the factors constituting the Jubilee Year was the "simple life." They could not help but live simply for two consecutive years. Nobody can deny that this afforded ample opportunity to develop the habit of living within very limited means. And again we see that this external part of the matter did not fully come up to the intention of the Lawgiver. It was not the simple life as such that He had in view, but rather the laying down of its moral and religious foundations. In this connection we must again refer to Lev 25:18-22, "What shall we eat the seventh year?" The answer is very simple and yet of surpassing grandeur: "Then I will command my blessing upon you," etc. Nothing was expected of the people but faith in Yahweh and confidence in His power, which was not to be shaken by any doubtful reflection. And right here we have found the root of the simple life: no life without the true God, and no simplicity of life without true faith in Him. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mt 4:4; compare Dt 8:3).
We may well ask: Did the Jewish people ever observe the Jubilee Year? There is no reason why they should not have observed it in pre-exilic times (compare Lotz in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, X, under the word "Sabbatical Year" and "Year of Jubilee"). Perhaps they signally failed in it, and if so, we should not be surprised at all. Not that the institution in itself was cumbered with any obstacles that could not have been overcome; but what is more common than unbelief and unwillingness to trust absolutely in Yahweh? Or, was it observed in post-exilic times? Here, too, we are in the dark. There is, indeed, a tradition according to which the Jubilee Year has never been observed--neither in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah nor at any later period. The truth of this seems to be corroborated by the silence of Josephus, who, while referring quite frequently to the sabbatic year, never once mentions the Year of Jubilee.
William Baur
joo'-bi-le, ju'-bi-le.
See Luni-solar cycle, underASTRONOMY , sec. I, 5.
See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE .
joo'-kal.
See JEHUCAL .
joo'-da: Lk 1:39 the King James Version, See JUTTAH ; Lk 3:26, See JODA ; 3:30, See JUDAS .
joo-de'-a, ju-de'-a (Ioudaia): The "land of the Jews," the Greco-Roman equivalent of Judah. As most of the Israelites returning from the captivity belonged to the tribe of Judah, they came to be called Jews and their land Judea. In Tobit 1:18 the name is applied to the old kingdom of Judah. For a general description of the physical geography and early history of this region See JUDAH . The limits of this district varied greatly, extending as the Jewish population increased, but in many periods with very indefinite boundaries.
Under the Persian empire, Judea (or Judah) was a district administered by a governor who, like Zerubbabel (Hag 1:14; 2:2), was probably usually a Jew. Even as late as Judas Maccabeus, Hebron and its surroundings--the very heart of old Judah was under the domination of the Edomites, whom, however, Judas conquered (1 Macc 5:65); in the time of his brother Jonathan (145 BC), three tetrarchies of Samaria, Aphaerema, Lydda and Ramathaim, were added to Judea (1 Macc 10:30,38; 11:34); in some passages it is referred to at this time as the "land of Judah" (Iouda) (1 Macc 10:30,33,37). The land was then roughly limited by what may be called the "natural boundaries of Judah" (See JUDAH ).
Strabo (xvi.11, 21) extends the name Judea to include practically all Palestine; as does Lk (4:44 m; 23:5; Acts 2:9; 10:37, etc.). In several New Testament references (Mt 4:25; Mk 1:5; 3:7; Lk 5:17; Jn 3:22; Acts 1:8), Judea is contrasted with its capital Jerusalem. The country bordering on the shores of the Dead Sea for some miles inland was known as the Wilderness of Judea (See JUDAH ;JESHIMON ) (Mt 3:1), or "the wilderness" (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:2); here John the Baptist appeared as a preacher. According to Mt 19:1 (but compare Mk 10:1, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "Judaea and beyond Jordan"), some cities beyond Jordan belonged to Judea. That this was an actual fact we know from Ptolemy (v.16,9) and Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 11).
According to Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 5), Judea extended from Anuath-Borkaeos (i.e. Khan Berkit near Khan es Saweh, close to the most northerly frontier of Judah as described in JUDAH (which see)) to the village Jordan, possibly Tell `Arad, near Arabia in the South. Its breadth was from Joppa in the West to Jordan in the East. The seacoast also as far north as Ptolemais (`Akka), except Jamnia, Joppa and (according to the Talm) Caesarea, belonged to this province.
After the death of Herod the Great, Archelaus received Judea, Samaria and Idumea as his ethnarchy, but on his deposition Judea was absorbed into the Roman province of Syria, the procurator of which lived at Caesarea.
Of later history it is only necessary to notice that in the 5th century Judea became part of the land known as Palaestina Prima; that at the time of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem (12th century) all the hill country of Judah from Sinjil to Tekoa was the royal domain, while the southern section to Beersheba belonged to the Seigneur de Abraham (i.e. of Hebron); and lastly that a district, the rough equivalent of the kingdom of Judah, though larger, and of the Judea described by Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 5), though slightly smaller, forms today the Mutaserraflic of el Kuds, an administrative area where more than in any spot in the world the problem of the "land of the Jews" is today increasingly acute.
E. W. G. Masterman
(Mt 3:1).
See JUDAEA .
joo'-da (yehudhah, "praised"):
(1) 4th son of Jacob by Leah (see separate article).
(2) An ancestor of Kadmiel, one of those who had the oversight of the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 3:9). He is the same as Hodaviah (Ezr 2:40), and Hodevah (Neh 7:43).
(3) A Levite who had taken a strange wife (Ezr, 10:23).
(4) A Levite who came up with Zerubbabel (Neh 12:8).
(5) A priest and musician who took part in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 12:36); (3), (4) and (5) may be the same person.
(6) A Benjamite, the son of Hassenuah, who was second over the city of Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah (Neh 11:9).
(7) One of the princes of Judah who took part in the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 12:34).
S. F. Hunter
(yehudah; in Gen 29:35 Codex Vaticanus, Ioudan; Codex Alexandrinus, Iouda; elsewhere Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, Ioudas):
The 4th son born to Jacob by Leah in Paddan-aram (Gen 29:35, etc.). Of this patriarch's life only scanty details remain to us. He turned his brethren from their purpose to slay Joseph, persuading them to sell him to the Midianites at Dothan (Gen 37:26 ff). A dark stain is left upon his memory by the disgraceful story told in Genesis 38. Reuben forfeited the rights of primogeniture by an act of infamy; Simeon and Levi, who came next in order, were passed over because of their cruel and treacherous conduct at Shechem; to Judah, therefore, were assigned the honors and responsibilities of the firstborn (34; 35:22; 49:5 ff). On the occasion of their first visit to Egypt, Reuben acted as spokesman for his brethren (42:22,37). Then the leadership passed to Judah (43:3, etc.). The sons of Joseph evidently looked askance upon Judah's promotion, and their own claims to hegemony were backed by considerable resources (49:22 ff). The rivalry between the two tribes, thus early visible, culminated in the disruption of the kingdom. To Judah, the "lion's whelp," a prolonged dominion was assured (49:9 ff).
The tribe of Judah, of which the patriarch was the name-father, at the first census in the wilderness numbered 74,600 fighting men; at Sinai the number "from 20 years old and upward" was 76,500 (Nu 1:27; 26:22; See NUMBERS ). The standard of the camp of Judah, with which were also the tribes of Zebulun and Issachar, was to the East of the tabernacle "toward the sunrising," the prince of Judah being Nahshon, the son of Amminadab (Nu 2:3). Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, represented Judah among the spies (Nu 13:6); he also was told off to assist at the future allocation of the tribal portions (Nu 34:19).
The land assigned to Judah lay in the South of Palestine (See JUDAH ,TERRITORY OF ), comprising part of the mountain, the Shephelah, and the maritime plain. The information given of its conquest is meager and cannot be arranged in a self-consistent story. In Josh 11:21 ff, the conquest is ascribed to Joshua. Caleb is described as conquering at least a portion in Josh 14:12; 15:13 ff; while in Jdg 1 the tribes of Judah and Simeon play a conspicuous part; and the latter found a settlement in the South within the territory of Judah The tribal organization seems to have been maintained after the occupation of the land, and Judah was so loosely related to the northern tribes that it was not expected to help them against Sisera. Deborah has no reproaches for absent Judah. It is remarkable that no judge over Israel (except Othniel, Jdg 3:9-11) arose from the tribe of Judah. The first king of all Israel was chosen from the tribe of Benjamin. This made acquiescence on the part of Judah easier than it would have been had Saul sprung from the ancient rival, Ephraim. But the dignity of Judah was fully vindicated by the splendid reigns of David and Solomon, in lineal descent from whom the Saviour of the world should come. The further history of the tribe is merged in that of Israel.
W. Ewing
(yehudhah ha-yarden): A place marking the eastern limit of the territory of Naphtali (Josh 19:34). It is generally thought among scholars that the text is corrupt; but no very probable emendation has been suggested. Thomson (L B, II, 466) proposes to identify it with Seiyid Jehuda, a small white-domed sanctuary about 3 miles to the Southeast of Tell el-Qady.
|| I. CANAAN BEFORE THE MONARCHY
5. Revolution in the Northern Kingdom
6. Effect on the Southern Kingdom
7. Davidic House at Lowest Ebb
12. Period of Great Prosperity
I. Canaan before the Monarchy.
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.
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 Lettersname the Chabiri, who are, no doubt, the people known to us as the Hebrews.
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 (`ebher) 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.
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 1:2,10, 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.
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.
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 khalifa) 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 (Nu 22:4).
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 (shopheT, 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.
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--Philistin or Palestine. At the same time the Ammonites and Midianites were pressing into the country from the East (1 Sam 11). 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 (1 Sam 9:16) and the Ammonite king (1 Sam 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.
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; 1 Sam 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 1:2,3), 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.
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 1 Ch 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 (2 Sam 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 (1 Ki 11:14 ff), and especially the aspiration of the tribe of Ephraim, after independence was fomented by the prophets (1 Ki 11:26 ff). Egypt afforded a convenient asylum for the disaffected until opportunity should ripen. They had not long to wait.
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.
Rehoboam made no decisive attempt to bring back the recalcitrant tribes to their allegiance (1 Ki 12:21 ff), though the two countries made raids, one upon the other (1 Ki 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 (2 Ch 11:5 ff). These excited the suspicion of Shishak of Egypt, who invaded the country and reduced it to vassalage (1 Ki 14:25 ff). Under Rehoboam's son Abijah, actual war broke out between the two kingdoms (1 Ki 15:6 as corrected in 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.
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 (1 Ki 15:14; but compare 2 Ch 14:5). He also, like his grandfather, was a builder of castles, and with a similar, though more fortunate, result (2 Ch 14:6,9 ff). Asa's old age and illness helped to bring to the rival kingdoms a peace which lasted beyond his own reign (1 Ki 15:23).
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 (1 Ki 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 (2 Ki 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.
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 `Abbasid 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 (2 Ch 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 (2 Ki 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 (2 Ch 21:4); the Arab marauders had killed his sons except the youngest (2 Ch 22:1; compare 21:17). The youngest, Ahaziah, after the death of his father, was, with 42 of his "brethren," executed by Jehu (2 Ki 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.
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 (2 Ki 12:17 ff; 2 Ch 24:17 ff; Mt 23:35), and Joash was the first of the Judean kings to be assassinated by his own people (2 Ki 12:20 f).
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 (2 Ki 14:5,6; Dt 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 (2 Ch 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 (2 Ki 14:8 ff). The chief event of the reign was the reconquest of Edom and taking of Petra (2 Ki 14:7).
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.
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 (2 Ch 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.
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 (2 Ch 26:16 ff).
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.
During the regency of Jotham, the effeminacy and luxury of the Northern Kingdom had already begun to infect the Southern (Mic 1:9; 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 (2 Ch 28:17 ff). In despair Ahaz placed himself and his country under the protection of Assyria (2 Ki 16:7 ff).
It was a part of the cosmopolitan tendencies of the time that the worship became tarnished with foreign innovations (2 Ki 16:10). The temple for the first time in its history was closed (2 Ch 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.
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 (2 Ki 18:13 ff).
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 (2 Ki 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.
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 (2 Ki 17:4; Isa 30:2,3; 31:1). Hezekiah followed Isaiah's advice in rejecting all alliances.
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 (1 Ki 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 (Dt 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 (Ex 15:1; Jdg 5:22, etc.).
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 2 Ch 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 (2 Ki 21:19 ff).
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 (2 Ch 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; 6:1, etc.). The storm passed, and hope rose higher than before, for the power of Assyria had been shattered forever.
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 (2 Ki 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.
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; Zeph 2:13-15; Hab 1:5 f).
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).
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; Ezek 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 (2 Ki 24:2), and Jehoiakim came to an untimely end (Jer 22:19).
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 21:4,9; 38:2, etc.). Isaiah had held that the Holy City was impregnable (2 Ki 19:32); Jeremiah was sure that it would be taken by the Chaldeans (Jer 32:24,43). Events proved that each prophet was right for the time in which he lived.
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; Ezek 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 (Ezek 17:15 ff). On the advance of the Chaldeans, Judah was deserted by her allies, the Edomites and Philistines (See JOB ,BOOK OF ), 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.
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 .
Thomas Hunter Weir
(yehudhah):
2. The Natural Divisions of Judah
II. THE TRIBE OF JUDAH AND ITS TERRITORY
III. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH
LITERATURE
Although the physical conformation of Western Palestine divides this land into very definite areas running longitudinally North and South, yet all through history there has been a recognition of a further--and politically more important--division into 3 areas running transversely, known in New Testament times as Galilee, Samaria and Judea. These districts are differentiated to some extent by distinctive physical features which have in no small degree influenced the history of their inhabitants.
The southernmost of these regions possesses on 3 sides very definite natural boundaries: to the West the Mediterranean, to the East the Dead Sea, and the Jordan, and to the South 60 miles, North to South, of practically trackless desert, a frontier as secure as sea or mountain range. On the North no such marked "scientific frontier" exists, and on this the one really accessible side, history bears witness that the frontier has been pushed backward and forward. The most ideal natural northern frontier, which only became the actual one comparatively late in Hebrew times (See JUDAEA ), is that which passes from the river `Aujeh in the West, up the Wady Deir Baldt, by the wide and deep Wady Ishar to `Akrabbeh and thence East to the Jordan. A second natural frontier commences at the same line on the West, but after following the Wady Deir Baldt, branches off southward along the Wady Nimr (now traversed by the modern carriage road from Jerusalem to Nablus), crosses the water-parting close to the lofty Tell Ashur and runs successively down the Wady Sanieh and the Wady `Aujeh and by the eastern river `Aujeh to the Jordan. This division-line is one conformable to the physical features, because north of it the table-lands of "Judea" give place to the more broken mountain groups of "Samaria." Another less natural, though much more historic, frontier is that which traverses the Vale of Ajalon, follows the Beth-horon pass, and, after crossing the central plateau near el Jib (Gibeon) and er Ram (Ramah of Benjamin), runs down the deep and rugged Wady SuweiniT, between Jeba` (Geba) and Mukhmas (Michmash), to Jericho and the Jordan. It was along this line that the great frontier fortresses, Bethel, Gibeon, Ramah, Adasa, Geba and Michmash, were erected. Such, on the North, South, East, and West, were the natural boundaries of the southern third of Palestine; yet in all history the land thus enclosed scarcely ever formed a homogeneous whole.
2. The Natural Divisions of Judah:
Within these boundaries lay four very different types of land--the maritime plain, the "lowland" or Shephelah, the "hill country" and, included usually with the last, the desert or Jeshimon.
The maritime plain, the "land Judah of the Philis" (1 Sam 6:1; 27:1; 2 Ki 8:2; Zeph 2:5), was ideally though never actually, the territory of Judah (compare Josh 15:45-47); it may have been included, as it is by some modern writers, as part of the Shephelah, but this is not the usual use of the word. It is a great stretch of level plain or rolling downs of very fertile soil, capable of supporting a thriving population and cities of considerable size, especially near the seacoast.
The Shephelah (shephelah), or "lowland" of Judah (Dt 1:7; Josh 9:1; 11:2,16; 15:33-44; 1 Ki 10:27; 1 Ch 27:28; Jer 17:26).--In these references the word is variously rendered in the King James Version, usually as "vale" or "valley," sometimes, as in the last two, as "plain." In the Revised Version (British and American) the usual rendering is "lowland." In 1 Macc 12:38, the King James Version has "Shephela" and the Revised Version (British and American) "plain country." The word "Shephelah" appears to survive in the Arabic Sifla about Beit Jebrin.
This is a very important region in the history of Judah. It is a district consisting mainly of rounded hills, 500-800 ft. high, with fertile open valleys full of corn fields; caves abound, and there are abundant evidences of a once crowded population. Situated as it is between the "hill country" and the maritime plain, it was the scene of frequent skirmishes between the Hebrews and the Philistines; Judah failed to hold it against the Philistines who kept it during most of their history. The Shephelah is somewhat sharply divided off from the central mountain mass by a remarkable series of valleys running North and South. Commencing at the Vale of Ajalon and passing South, we have in succession the Wady el Ghurab and, after crossing the Wady es Siwan, the Wady en Najil, the Wady es Sunt (Elah) and the Wady es Cur. It is noticeable that the western extremity of the most historic northern frontier of ancient Judah--that limited by the Vale of Ajalon in the West--appears to have been determined by the presence of this natural feature. North of this the hills of Samaria flatten out to the plain without any such intervening valleys.
(3) The Hill Country of Judah:
The hill country of Judah is by far the most characteristic part of that tribe's possessions; it was on account of the shelter of these mountain fastnesses that this people managed to hold their own against their neighbors and hide away from the conquering armies of Assyria and Egypt. No other section of the country was so secluded and protected by her natural borders. It was the environment of these bare hills and rugged valleys which did much to form the character and influence the literature of the Jews. The hill country is an area well defined, about 35 miles long and some 15 broad, and is protected on three sides by natural frontiers of great strength; on the North alone it has no "scientific frontier." On the South lay the Negeb, and beyond that the almost waterless wilderness, a barrier consisting of a series of stony hills running East and West, difficult for a caravan and almost impracticable for an army. On the West the hills rise sharply from those valleys which delimit them from the Shephelah, but they are pierced by a series of steep and rugged defiles which wind upward to the central table-land. At the northwestern corner the Bethhoron pass--part of the northern frontier line--runs upward from the wide Vale of Ajalon; this route, the most historic of all, has been associated with a succession of defeats inflicted by those holding the higher ground (See BETH-HORON ). South of this is the Wady `Ali, up which runs the modern carriage road to Jerusalem, and still farther South lies the winding rocky defile, up part of which the railway from Jaffa is laid, the Wady es Surar. A more important valley, because of its width and easier gradient, is the great Vale of Elah (Wady es Cunt), to guard the highest parts of which (now the Wady es Cur) was built the powerful fortress of Beth-zur (2 Ch 11:7, etc.), which Josephus (Ant., XIII, v, 6) describes as "the strongest place in all Judea (See BETH-ZUR ). Up this pass the Syrians successfully with the aid of elephants (Ant., XII, ix, 4) invaded Judea. The eastern frontier of the hill country is one of extraordinary natural strength. Firstly, there were the Jordan and the Dead Sea; then along all but the northernmost part of the eastern frontier lay a long line of semi-precipitous cliffs, in places over 1,000 ft. high, absolutely unscalable and pierced at long intervals by passes all steep and dangerous. Within this again came a wide area of waterless and barren desert, the Wilderness of Judah (or Judea) known in English Versions of the Bible as JESHIMON (which see). To the northeasterly part of the frontier, where the ascent from the Jericho plain to the mountains presents no special difficulty in gradation, the waterless condition of the Jeshimon greatly restricted the possible routes for an enemy. The natural position for the first line of defense was the fortified city of Jericho, but as a frontier fortress she failed from the days of Joshua onward (See JERICHO ). From Jericho four roads pass upward to the plateau of Judah; unlike the corresponding passes on the western frontier, they do not traverse any definite line of valley, but in many places run actually along the ridges.
These roads are: (a) The earliest historically, though now the least frequented, is the most northerly, which passes westward at the back of ancient Jericho (near `Ain es Sultan) and ascends by Michmash and Ai to Bethel; (b) the route traversed by the modern Jerus-Jericho road; (c) the more natural route which enters the hills by Wady Joreif Ghusal and runs by Nebi Musa joining the line of the modern carriage road a mile or so after passing the deserted ruin of the Saracenic Khan el Ahmar. Here runs the road for the thousands of pilgrims who visit the shrine of Nebi Musa in the spring. (d) The most natural pass of all is by way of Wady el Kuneiterah, across the open plateau of el Bukeia' and over the shoulder of Jebel el Muntar to Bethlehem. From `Ain Feshkhah a very steep road, probably ancient, ascends to join this last route in el Bukeia`, From Engedi (`Ain Jidy) a steep ascent--almost a stairway--winds abruptly to the plateau above, whence a road passes northwesterly by the Wady Hucaceh past Tekoa to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, and another branch goes west to Hebron and Juttah.
Somewhere along these routes must have lain the "Ascent of Ziz" and the "Wilderness of Jeruel," the scene of the events of 2 Ch 20. The hill country of Judah is distinguished from other parts of Palestine by certain physical characteristics. Its central part is a long plateau--or really series of plateaus-running North and South, very stony and barren and supplied with but scanty springs: "dew" is less plentiful than in the north; several of the elevated plains, e.g. about Bethlehem, Beit Jala and Hebron, are well suited to the growth of corn and olive trees; in the sheltered valleys and on the terraced hillsides to the West of the water-parting, vines, olives, figs and other fruit trees flourish exceedingly. There is evidence everywhere that cultivation was far more highly developed in ancient times; on most of the hill slopes to the West traces of ancient terraces can still be seen (See BOTANY ). This district in many parts, especially on its eastern slopes, is preeminently a pastoral land, and flocks of sheep and goats abound, invading in the spring even the desert itself. This last is ever in evidence, visible from the environs of all Judah's greater cities and doubtless profoundly influencing the lives and thoughts of their inhabitants.
The altitude attained in this "hill country" is usually below 3,000 ft. in the north (e.g. Ramallah, 2,850 ft., Nebi Samwil, 2,935 ft.), but is higher near Hebron, where we get 3,545 ft. at Ramet el Khulil. Many would limit the term "hill country of Judea" to the higher hills centering around Hebron, but this is unnecessary. Jerusalem is situated near a lower and more expanded part of the plateau, while the higher hills to its north, are, like that city itself, in the territory of Benjamin.
II. The Tribe of Judah and Its Territory.
In Nu 26:19-22, when the tribes of the Hebrews are enumerated "in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho" (Nu 26:3), Judah is described as made up of the families of the Shelanites, the Perezites, the Zerahites, the Hezronites and the Hamulites. "These are the families of Judah according to those that were numbered of them," a total of 76,500 (Nu 26:22). In Jdg 1:16 we read that the Kenites united with the tribe of Judah, and from other references (Josh 14:6-15; 15:13-19; Jdg 1:12-15,20) we learn that the two Kenizzite clans of Caleb and Othniel also were absorbed; and it is clear from 1 Sam 27:10; 30:29 that the Jerahmeelites--closely connected with the Calebites (compare 1 Ch 2:42)--also formed a part of the tribe of Judah. The Kenizzites and Jerahmeelites were probably of Edomite origin (Gen 36:11; compare 1 Ch 2:42), and this large admixture of foreign blood may partly account for the comparative isolation of Judah from the other tribes (e.g. she is not mentioned in Jdg 5).
The territory of the tribe of Judas is described ideally in Josh 15, but it never really extended over the maritime plain to the West. The natural frontiers to the West and East have already been described as the frontiers of the "hill country"; to the South the boundary is described as going "even to the wilderness of Zin southward, at the uttermost part of the south," i.e. of the Negeb (15:1), and (15:3) as far south as Kadesh-barnea, i.e. the oasis of `Ain Kadis, 50 miles South of Beersheba, far in the desert; the position of the "Ascent of Akrabbim," i.e. of scorpions, is not known. The "Brook of Egypt" is generally accepted to be the Wady el `Arish. The fact is, the actual frontier shaded off imperceptibly into the desert--varying perhaps with the possibilities of agriculture and depending therefore upon the rainfall. The cities mentioned on the boundaries, whose sites are now lost, probably roughly marked the edge of the habitable area (See NEGEB ).
The northern boundary which separated the land of Judah from that of Benjamin requires brief mention. The various localities mentioned in Josh 15:5-12 are dealt with in separate articles, but, omitting the very doubtful, the following, which are generally accepted, will show the general direction of the boundary line: The border went from the mouth of the Jordan to Beth-hoglah (`Ain Hajlah), and from the Valley of Achor (Wady Kelt) by the ascent of Adummin (Tala `at edition Dumm) to the waters of Enoch Shemesh (probably `Ain Haud), Enoch Rogel (Bir Eyyub), and the Valley of Hinnom (Wady er Rababi). The line then crossed the Vale of Rephaim (el Bukeia') to the waters of Nephtoah (Lifta), Kiriath-jearim (Kuryet el `Enab), Chesalon (Kesla), Beth-shemesh (`Ain Shems), Ekron (`Akir), and Jabneel (Yebnah), "and the goings out of the border were at the sea." According to the above line, Jerusalem lay entirely within the bounds of Benjamin, though, according to a tradition recorded in the Talmud, the site of the altar was in a piece of land belonging to Judah. The above frontier line can be followed on any modern map of Palestine, and if it does not in many parts describe a natural frontier, it must be remembered that the frontiers of village and town possessions in modern Palestine are extremely arbitrary, and though undetermined by any natural limits such as streams or mountain summits, they persist from generation to generation, and this too during periods--not long past--when there was constant warfare between different clans.
The territory of Judah was small; even had it included all within its ideal boundaries, it would have been no more than 2,000 square miles; actually it was nearer 1,300 square miles, of which nearly half was desert.
III. The Boundaries of the Kingdom of Judah.
These were very circumscribed. In 2 Ch 11:5-12 there is a list of the cities--chiefly those on the frontier--which Rehoboam fortified. On the East were Bethlehem, Etam and Tekoa; and on the West and Southwest were Beth-zur, Soco, Adullam, Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah, Zorah, Aijalon and Hebron. The sites of the great majority of these are known, and they are all upon the borders of the Shephelah or the hill country. It will be seen too that the military preparation then made was against an attack from the West. In the 5th year of the reign of Rehoboam the expected attack came, and Shishak (Sheshenq I) of Egypt swept over the land and not only conquered all Judah and Jerusalem, but, according to the reading of some authorities in the account of this campaign given in the great temple of Karnak, he handed over to Jeroboam of Israel certain strongholds of Judah.
The usual northern frontier between the two Hebrew kingdoms appears to have been the southernmost of the three natural lines described in I above, namely by the Valley of Ajalon on the West and the Gorge of Michmash (Wady SuweiniT) on the East. Along the central plateau the frontier varied. Bethel (1 Ki 12:29; 2 Ki 10:29; Am 3:14; 4:4; 7:10,13; Hos 10:15) belonged to Israel, though once it fell to Judah when Abijah took it and with it Jeshanah (`Ain Sinia) and Ephron (probably et Taiyibeh) (2 Ch 13:19). Geba (Jeba`), just to the South of the Wady Suweinit, was on the northern frontier of Judah, hence, instead of the old term "from Dan to Beer-sheba" we read now of "from Geba to Beersheba" (2 Ki 23:8). Baasha, king of Israel, went South and fortified Ramah (er Ram, but 4 miles from Jerusalem) against Judah (1 Ki 15:17), but Asa stopped his work, removed the fortifications and with the materials strengthened his own frontier at Geba and Mizpah (1 Ki 15:21,22). In the Jordan valley Jericho was held by Israel (1 Ki 16:34; 2 Ki 2:4).
After the Northern Kingdom fell, the frontier of Judah appears to have extended a little farther North, and Bethel (2 Ki 23:15-19) and Jericho (to judge from Ezr 2:34; Neh 3:2; 7:36) also became part of the kingdom of Judah. For the further history of this district See JUDAEA .
LITERATURE.
See especially H G H L , chapters viii-xv;P E F ,III , and Saunders, Introduction to the Survey of Western Palestine.
E. W. G. Masterman
joo'-da-iz'-m.
See ISRAEL ,RELIGION OF .
joo'-das (Ioudas; Greek form of Hebrew "Judah"):
(1) A Levite mentioned in 1 Esdras 9:23 = JUDAH (3).
(2) Judas Maccabeus, 3rd son of Mattathias (1 Macc 2:4).
See MACCABEES .
(3) Judas, son of Chalphi, a Jewish officer who supported Jonathan bravely at the battle of Hazor (1 Macc 11:70; Ant, XIII, v, 7).
(4) A person of good position in Jerusalem at the time of the mission to Aristobulus (2 Macc 1:10); he has been identified with Judas Maccabeus and also with an Essene prophet (Ant., XIII, xi, 2; BJ, III, 5).
(5) Son of Simon the Maccabee, and brother of John Hyrcanus (1 Macc 16:2). He was wounded in the battle which he fought along with his brother against Cendebeus (1 Macc 16:1 ff; Ant, XIII, vii, 3), and was murdered by Ptolemy the usurper, his brother-in-law, at Dok (1 Macc 16:11 ff).
J. Hutchinson
bar-sab-'as (Ioudas Barsabbas): Judas was, with Silas, a delegate from the church in Jerusalem to the GentileChristians of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. They were appointed to convey the letter containing the decision of "the apostles and the elders, with the whole church" regarding the attitude to be taken by GentileChristians toward the Mosaic law, and also to explain "the same things by word of mouth." They accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, and, "being themselves also prophets," i.e. preachers, they not only handed over the epistle but stayed some time in the city preaching and teaching. They seem to have gone no farther than Antioch, for "they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth," and it was Paul and Silas who some time afterward strengthened the churches in Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:40,41).
According to Acts 15:34 the King James Version, Judas returned to Jerusalem without Silas, who remained at Antioch and afterward became Paul's companion (Acts 15:40). The oldest manuscripts, however, omit Acts 15:34, and it is therefore omitted from the Revised Version (British and American). It was probably a marginal note to explain Acts 15:40, and in time it crept into the text. Judas and Silas are called "chief men among the brethren" (15:22), probably elders, and "prophets" (15:32).
Barsabbas being a patronymic, Judas was probably the brother of Joseph Barsabbas. He cannot be identified with any other Judas, e.g. "Judas not Iscariot" (Jn 14:22). We hear no more of Judas after his return to Jerusalem (Acts 15:22 ff).
S. F. Hunter
is-kar'-i-ot (Ioudas Iskariotes, i.e. 'ish qeriyoth, "Judas, man of Kerioth"): One of the twelve apostles and the betrayer of Jesus; for etymology, etc., See JUDAS .
Judas was, as his second name indicates, a native of Kerioth or Karioth. The exact locality of Kerioth (compare Josh 15:25) is doubtful, but it lay probably to the South of Judea, being identified with the ruins of el Karjetein (compare A. Plummer, article "Judas Iscariot" in HDB).
He was the son of Simon (Jn 13:2) or Simon Iscariot (Jn 6:71; 13:26), the meaning of Iscariot explaining why it was applied to his father also. The first Scriptural reference to Judas is his election to the apostleship (compare Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16). He may have been present at the preaching of John the Baptist at Bethany beyond Jordan (compare Jn 1:28), but more probably he first met Jesus during the return of the latter through Judea with His followers (compare Jn 3:22). According to the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles (See SIMON THE CANAANITE ), Judas was among those who received the call at the Sea of Tiberias (compare Mt 4:18-22).
For any definite allusion to Judas during the interval lying between his call and the events immediately preceding the betrayal, we are indebted to John alone. These allusions are made with the manifest purpose of showing forth the nefarious character of Judas from the beginning; and in their sequence there is a gradual development and growing clearness in the manner in which Jesus makes prophecy regarding his future betrayer. Thus, after the discourse on the Bread of Life in the synagogue of Capernaum (Jn 6:26-59), when many of the disciples deserted Jesus (Jn 6:66) and Peter protested the allegiance of the apostles (Jn 6:69), Jesus answered, "Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil" (Jn 6:70). Then follows John's commentary, "Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve" (Jn 6:71), implying that Judas was already known to Jesus as being in spirit one of those who "went back, arid walked no more with him" (Jn 6:66). But the situation, however disquieting it must have been to the ambitious designs which probably actuated Judas in his acceptance of the apostleship (compare below), was not sufficiently critical to call for immediate desertion on his part. Instead, he lulled his fears of exposure by the fact that he was not mentioned by name, and continued ostensibly one of the faithful. Personal motives of a sordid nature had also influence in causing him to remain. Appointed keeper of the purse, he disregarded the warnings of Jesus concerning greed and hypocrisy (compare Mt 6:20; Lk 12:1-3) and appropriated the funds to his own use. As a cloak to his avarice, he pretended to be zealous in their administration, and therefore, at the anointing of Jesus' feet by Mary, he asked "Why was not this ointment sold for 300 shillings, and given to the poor? Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein" (Jn 12:5,6; compare also Mt 26:7-13; Mk 14:3-8).
Yet, although by this craftiness Judas concealed for a time his true nature from the rest of the disciples, and fomented any discontent that might arise among them (compare Mk 14:4), he now felt that his present source of income could not long remain secure. The pregnant words of his Master regarding the day of his burial (compare Mt 26:12; Mk 14:8; Jn 12:7) revealed to His betrayer that Jesus already knew well the evil powers that were at work against Him; and it is significant that, according to Mt and Mk, who alone of the synoptists mention the anointing, Judas departed immediately afterward and made his compact with the chief priests (compare Mt 26:14,15; Mk 14:10,11; compare also Lk 22:3-6). But his absence was only temporary. He was present at the washing of the disciples' feet, there to be differentiated once more by Jesus from the rest of the Twelve (compare "Ye are clean, but not all" and "He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me," Jn 13:10,18), but again without being named. It seemed as if Jesus wished to give Judas every opportunity, even at this late hour, of repenting and making his confession. For the last time, when they had sat down to eat, Jesus appealed him thus with the words, "One of you shall betray me" (Mt 26:21; Mk 14:18; Lk 22:21; Jn 13:21). And at the end, in answer to the anxious queries of His disciples, "Is it I?" He indicated his betrayer, not by name, but by a sign: "He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it him" (Jn 13:26). Immediately upon its reception, Judas left the supper room; the opportunity which he sought for was come (compare Jn 13:30; Mt 26:16). There is some doubt as to whether he actually received the eucharistic bread and wine previous to his departure or not, but most modern commentators hold that he did not. On his departure, Judas made his way to the high priests and their followers, and coming upon Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, he betrayed his Master with a kiss (Mt 26:47-50; Mk 14:43,44; Lk 22:47; Jn 18:2-5).
After the betrayal, Mk, Lk and Jn are silent as regards Judas, and the accounts given in Mt and Acts of his remorse and death vary in detail. According to Mt, the actual condemnation of Jesus awakened Judas' sense of guilt, and becoming still more despondent at his repulse by the chief priests and elders, "he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself." With the money the chief priests purchased the potter's field, afterward called "the field of blood," and in this way was fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah (11:12-14) ascribed by Matthew to Jeremiah (Mt 27:3-10). The account given in Acts 1:16-20 is much shorter. It mentions neither Judas' repentance nor the chief priests, but simply states that Judas "obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out" (1:18). The author of Acts finds in this the fulfillment of the prophecy in Ps 69:25. The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) rendering, "When he had hanged himself, he burst asunder," suggests a means of reconciling the two accounts.
According to a legendary account mentioned by Papias, the death of Judas was due to elephantiasis (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 5). A so-called "Gospel of Judas" was in use among the Gnostic sect of the Cainites.
1. Joined the Apostles to Betray Jesus:
Much discussion and controversy have centered, not only around the discrepancies of the Gospel narratives of Judas, but also around his character and the problems connected with it. That the betrayer of Jesus should also be one of the chosen Twelve has given opportunity for the attacks of the foes of Christianity from the earliest times (compare Orig., Con. Cel., ii.12); and the difficulty of finding any proper solution has proved so great that some have been induced to regard Judas as merely a personification of the spirit of Judaism. The acceptance of this view would, however, invalidate the historical value of much of the Scriptural writings. Other theories are put forward in explanation, namely, that Judas joined the apostolic band with the definite intention of betraying Jesus. The aim of this intention has again received two different interpretations, both of which seek to elevate the character of Judas and to free him from the charge of sordid motives and cowardly treachery. According to one, Judas was a strong patriot, who saw in Jesus the foe of his race and its ancient creed, and therefore betrayed Him in the interests of his country. This view is, however, irreconcilable with the rejection of Judas by the chief priests (compare Mt 27:3-10). According to the other, Judas regarded himself as a true servant of Christianity, who assumed the role of traitor to precipitate the action of the Messiah and induce Him to manifest His miraculous powers by calling down the angels of God from heaven to help Him (compare Mt 26:53). His suicide was further due to his disappointment at the failure of Jesus to fulfill his expectations. This theory found favor in ancient times with the Cainites (compare above), and in modern days with De Quincey and Bishop Whately. But the terms and manner of denunciation employed by Jesus in regard to Judas (compare also Jn 17:12) render this view also untenable.
2. Foreordained to Be a Traitor:
Another view is that Judas was foreordained to be the traitor: that Jesus was conscious from the first that He was to suffer death on the cross, and chose Judas because He knew that he should betray Him and thus fulfill the Divine decrees (compare Mt 26:54). Those holding this view base their arguments on the omniscience of Jesus implied in Jn 2:24, Jesus "knew all men"; Jn 6:64, "Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray him," and Jn 18:4, "knowing all the things that were coming upon him." Yet to take those texts literally would mean too rigid application of the doctrine of predestination. It would treat Judas as a mere instrument, as a means and not an end in the hands of a higher power: it would render meaningless the appeals and reproaches made to him by Jesus and deny any real existence of that personal responsibility and sense of guilt which it was our Lord's very purpose to awaken and stimulate in the hearts of His hearers. John himself wrote after the event, but in the words of our Lord there was, as we have seen, a growing clearness in the manner in which He foretold His betrayal. The omniscience of Jesus was greater than that of a mere clairvoyant who claimed to foretell the exact course of future events. It was the omniscience of one who knew on the one hand the ways of His Eternal Father among men, and who, on the other, penetrated into the deepest recesses of human character and beheld there all its secret feelings and motives and tendencies.
3. Betrayal the Result of Gradual Development:
Although a full discussion of the character of Judas would of necessity involve those ultimate problems of Free Will and Original Sin (Westcott) which no theology can adequately solve, theory which regards the betrayal as the result of a gradual development within the soul of Judas seems the most practical. It is significant that Judas alone among the disciples was of southern extraction; and the differences in temperament and social outlook, together with the petty prejudices to which these generally give rise, may explain in part, though they do not justify, his after treachery--that lack of inner sympathy which existed between Judas and the rest of the apostles. He undoubtedly possessed certain business ability, and was therefore appointed keeper of the purse. But his heart could not have been clean, even from the first, as he administered even his primary charge dishonestly. The cancer of this greed spread from the material to the spiritual. To none of the disciples did the fading of the dream of an earthly kingdom of pomp and glory bring greater disappointment than to Judas. The cords of love by which Jesus gradually drew the hearts of the other disciples to Himself, the teaching by which He uplifted their souls above all earthly things, were as chafing bonds to the selfishness of Judas. And from his fettered greed and disappointed ambition sprang jealousy and spite and hatred. It was the hatred, not of a strong, but of an essentially weak man. Instead of making an open breach with his Lord, he remained ostensibly one of His followers: and this continued contact with a goodness to which he would not yield (compare Swete on Mk 14:10), and his brooding over the rebukes of his Master, gave ready entrance for "Satan into his soul." But if he "knew the good and did not do it" (compare Jn 13:17), so also he was weak in the carrying out of his nefarious designs. It was this hesitancy, rather than a fiendish cunning, which induced him to remain till the last moment in the supper room, and which prompted the remark of Jesus "What thou doest, do quickly" (Jn 13:27). Of piece with this weak-mindedness was his attempt to cast the blame upon the chief priests and elders (compare Mt 27:3,4). He sought to set himself right, not with the innocent Jesus whom he had betrayed, but with the accomplices in his crime; and because that world which his selfishness had made his god failed him at the last, he went and hanged himself. It was the tragic end of one who espoused a great cause in the spirit of speculation and selfish ambition, and who weighed not the dread consequences to which those impure motives might lead him (compare also Bruce, Training of the Twelve; Latham, Pastor Pastorum; Stalker, Trial and Death of Jesus Christ).
C. M. Kerr
A "Gospel of Judas" is mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., i.31), Epiphanius (Haer., xxxviii.1), Theodoret, etc., as current in the Gnostic sect of the Cainites, to whom Judas was a hero. It must have been in existence in the 2nd century, but no quotation is given from it (see Baring-Gould, Lost and Hostile Gospels,III , chapter v).
See MACCABAEUS .
See JUDAS , (6).
(ho Galilaios): Mentioned in Acts 5:37 as the leader of an insurrection occasioned by the census of Quirinius in 7 AD (See QUIRINIUS ). He, and those who obeyed him, it is said, perished in that revolt. Josephus also repeatedly mentions Judas by this same name, "the Galilean," and speaks of his revolt (Ant., XVIII, i, 6; XX, v, 2; BJ, II, viii, 1; xviii, 8; VII, viii, 1), but in Ant, XVIII, i, names him a Gaulonite, of the city of Gamala. As Gamala was in Gaulonitis, not far from the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, it may be regarded as belonging to that province. The party of Judas seems to have been identified with the Zealots.
James Oar
(Ioudas Iakobou): One of the twelve apostles (Lk 6:16; Acts 1:13; for etymology, etc., See JUDAS ). the King James Version has the reading "brother of James," and the Revised Version (British and American) reads "son of James." The latter is to be preferred. In Jn 14:22 he is described as "Judas (not Iscariot)." The name corresponds with the "Thaddaeus" or "Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddaeus" of Mt 10:3 the King James Version and Mk 3:18 (compare THADDAEUS ). The identification of Thaddaeus with Judas is generally accepted, though Ewald and others hold that they were different persons, that Thaddeus died during Christ's lifetime, and that Judas was chosen in his place (compare Bruce, Training of the Twelve, 34). If the Revised Version (British and American) is accepted as the correct rendering of Lk 6:16 and Acts 1:13, this Judas cannot be identified either with the Juda (Mk 6:3 the King James Version), Judas (Mk 6:3 the Revised Version (British and American)), or Judas (Mt 13:55), the brother of Jesus; or with the Judas (Jude 1:1 the Revised Version margin) or Jude (Jude 1:1 the King James Version), the brother of James, whether these two latter Judases are to be regarded as the same or not. The only incident recorded of Judas of James is in Jn 14:22, where during Christ's address to the disciples after the last supper he put the question, "Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?"
C. M. Kerr
(1) The name of an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3:30). In the King James Version it occurs also in Lk 3:26, but the Revised Version (British and American) has "Joda" (Westcott-Hort, Ioda).
(2) Judas Iscariot (see separate article).
(3) One of the brothers of Jesus (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).
See JUDE .
(4) An apostle, "not Iscariot" (Jn 14:22). He is generally identified with Lebbaeus (Mt 10:3) and Thaddeus (Mk 3:18). See LEBBAEUS ;THADDAEUS . He is called JUDAS OF JAMES (which see) (Lk 6:16; Acts 1:13), which means "the son of James" not (the King James Version) "the brother of James."
(5) A Galilean who stirred up rebellion "in the days of the enrollment" (Acts 5:37).
See JUDAS OF GALILEE .
(6) One with whom Paul lodged in Damascus, whose house was in "the street which is called Straight" (Acts 9:11). Nothing further is known of him. A house is pointed out as his, in a lane off the Straight Street.
(7) Judas Barsabbas (Acts 15:22,27,32; see separate article).
S. F. Hunter
(Ioudas ouch ho Iskariotes): One of the Twelve Apostles (Jn 14:22).
See JUDAS OF JAMES ;LEBBAEUS ;THADDAEUS .
See JUDE .
jud'-a.
See JUTTAH .
jood (Ioudas): Brother of the Lord, and author of the Epistle of Jude.
See JUDAS OF JAMES and following article.
I. JUDE'S POSITION IN THE CANON
II. THE OCCASION OF ITS COMPOSITION
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE LIBERTINES AND APOSTATES
IV. RELATION OF JUDE TO THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER
5. Evidence of Priority of Peter
VI. THE LIBERTINES OF JUDE'S EPISTLE
LITERATURE
The Writer:
The writer of this short epistle calls himself Jude or Judas (Ioudas. His name was a common one among the Jews: there were few others of more frequent use. Two among the apostles bore it, namely, Judas, mentioned in Jn 14:22 (compare Lk 6:16), and Judas Iscariot. Jude describes himself as "a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James" (Jude 1:1). The James here mentioned is no doubt the person who is called "the Lord's brother" (Gal 1:19), the writer of the epistle that bears his name. Neither of the two was an apostle. The opening sentence of Jude simply affirms that the writer is a "servant of Jesus Christ." This, if anywhere, should be the appropriate place for the mention of his apostleship, if he were an apostle. The appellation "servant of Jesus Christ" "is never thus barely used in an address of an epistle to designate an apostle" (Alford). Phil 1:1 has a similar expression, "Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ," but "the designation common to two persons necessarily sinks to the rank of the inferior one." In other instances "servant" is associated with "apostle" (Rom 1:1; Tit 1:1). Jude 1:17,18 speaks of the "apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; that they said to you"--language which an apostle would hardly use of his fellow-apostles.
In Mk 6:3 are found the names of those of whom Jesus is said to be the brother, namely, James and Joses, and Judas and Simon. It is quite generally held by writers that the James and Judas here mentioned are the two whose epistles are found in the New Testament. It is noteworthy, however, that neither of them hints at his relationship with Jesus; their unaffected humility kept them silent. Jude mentions that he is the "brother of James," perhaps to give authority and weight to his words, for James was far more distinguished and influential than he. The inference seems legitimate that Jude addresses Christians among whom James was highly esteemed, or, if no longer living, among whom his memory was sacredly revered, and accordingly it is altogether probable that Jude writes to the same class of readers as James--Jewish Christians. James writes to the "Twelve Tribes of the Dispersion." Jude likewise addresses a wide circle of believers, namely, the "called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ" (1:1). While he does not designate a special and distinct class, yet as James's "brother," as belonging to the family of Joseph, and as in some true sense related to the Lord Jesus Himself, it seems probable, if not certain, that his Epistle was intended for Christian Hebrews who stood in urgent need of such testimony and appeal as Jude offers.
I. Jude's Position in the Canon.
It is now and for a long while has been an assured one. Its rank, though not altogether that of 1 Peter and 1 John, is high, for centuries indeed undoubted. Almost from the beginning of the Christian era men every way qualified to speak with authority on the question of genuineness and authenticity endorsed it as entitled to a place in the New Testament Scriptures. Origen repeatedly quotes it, in one place describing it as an "ep. of but few lines, but full of powerful words of heavenly grace" (Matt., tom. X, 17). But Origen knew that it was not universally received. Clement of Alexandria "gave concise expositions of all the canonical Scriptures, not omitting the disputed books--the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic epp." (quoted by Westcott, Canaanite, 322-23 and Salmon, Intro, 493). Tertullian (Cult. Fem. i.3) in striving to establish the authority of the Book of Enoch urges as a crowning argument that it is quoted by "the apostle Jude." "We may infer that, Jude's Ep,; was an unquestioned part of Tertullian's Canon. Athanasius inserted it in his list of New Testament books, but Eusebius placed it among the disputed books in his classification. The Canon of Muratori includes Jude among the books of Scripture, though it omits the Epistles of James, Peter and Hebrews. This is one of the earliest documents containing a list of the New Testament books now known. By the great majority of writers the date of the fragment is given as circa 170 AD, as it claims to have been written not long after Pius was bishop of Rome, and the latest date of Pius is 142-57 AD. The words of the document are, "The Shepherd was written very recently in our own time by Hermas, while his brother Pius sat in the chair of the Church of Rome." Twenty or twenty-five years would probably satisfy the period indicated by the words, "written very recently in our own time," which would fix the date of the fragment at circa 170 AD. Salmon, however, strongly inclines to a later date, namely, circa 200-210 AD, as does Zahn.
Zahn (Introduction to the New Testament, II, 259, English Translation), and Professor Chase (H D B) are of the decided opinion that the Didache, ii. 7: "Thou shalt not hate anyone, but some thou shalt rebuke, and for some thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love above thine own soul (or life)," is rounded on Jude 1:22. Dr. Philip Schaff dates the Didache between 90-100 AD. L'Abbe E. Jacquier (La doctrine des Douze Apotres, 1891) is persuaded that the famous document was written not later than 80 AD. It appears, therefore, more than probable that the Epistle of Jude was known and referred to as Scripture some time before the end of the 1st century. From the survey we have thus rapidly taken of the field in which the Epistle circulated, we may conclude that in Palestine, at Alexandria, in North Africa, and at Rome, it was received as the veritable letter of Jude, "the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James."
The chief reason why it was rejected by some and regarded with suspicion by others in primitive times is its quotation from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, so Jerome informs us (Vir. Ill., 4). It is possible that Jude had in mind another spurious writing, namely, the Assumption of Moses, when he spoke of the contention of Michael the archangel with the devil about the body of Moses (1:9). This, however, is not quite certain, for the date assigned to that writing is circa 44 AD, and although Jude might have seen and read it, yet its composition is so near his own day that it could hardly have exerted much influence on his mind. Besides, the brevity of the Epistle and its dealing with a special class of errorists would limit to a certain extent its circulation among Christians. All this serves to explain its refusal by some and the absence of reference to it by others.
II. The Occasion of Its Composition.
Jude, after his brief introduction (1:1,2), explains very definitely why he writes as he does. He indicates distinctly his anxiety on behalf of the saints (1:3): "Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." He had received very distressing knowledge of the serious state into which the Christian brotherhood was rapidly drifting, and he must as a faithful servant of Jesus Christ exhort them to steadfastness and warn them of their danger. He had in mind to write them a doctrinal work on the salvation common to all Christians. Perhaps he contemplated the composition of a book or treatise that would have discussed the great subject in an exhaustive manner. But in face of the perils that threatened, of the evils already present in the community, his purpose was indefinitely postponed. We are not told how he became acquainted with the dangers which beset his fellow-believers, but the conjecture is probably correct that it was by means of his journeys as an evangelist. At any rate, he was thoroughly conversant with the evils in the churches, and he deals with them as befitted the enormities that were practiced and the ruin that impended.
The address of the Epistle is remarkable for the affection Jude expresses for these saints. Obviously they are distinct from the libertines of whom he speaks with such solemn condemnation. They were the faithful who kept aloof from the ungodly that surrounded them, and who held fast to the truth they had been taught. Jude describes them as those "that are called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ: Mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied." At the close of the Epistle he commends them "unto him that is able to guard you from stumbling, and to set you before the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy." A separated and devoted band they certainly were, a noble and trustworthy company of believers for whose well-being Jude was supremely anxious.
III. Description of the Libertines and Apostates.
It is needful to gaze with steady vision on the portrait Jude furnishes of these depraved foes, if we are to appreciate in any measure the force of his language and the corruption already wrought in the brotherhood. Some of their foul teachings and their vicious practices, not all, are here set down.
"For there are certain men crept in privily .... ungodly men" (Jude 1:4). They are enemies who feign to be friends, and hence, in reality are spies and traitors; like a stealthy beast of prey they creep into the company of the godly, actuated by evil intent.
2. Perverters of Grace and Deniers of Christ.
"Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4). They are those who by a vile perverseness turn the grace and the liberty of the Gospel into a means for gratifying their unholy passions, and who in doctrine and life repudiate their Master and Lord.
3. Censorious and Arrogant Detractors.
"In their dreamings defile the flesh, and set at nought dominion, and rail at dignities" (Jude 1:8). Destitute of true reverence, they rail at the holiest and best things, and sit in judgment on all rule and all authority. They have the proud tongue of the lawless: "Our lips are our own: who Is lord over us?" (Ps 12:4).
4. Ignorant Calumniators and Brutish Sensualists.
"These rail at whatsoever things they know not: and what they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason, in these things are they destroyed" (Jude 1:10). What they do not know, as something lofty and noble, they deride and denounce; what they know is that which ministers to their disordered appetites and their debased tastes.
"These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves; clouds without water .... autumn trees without fruit .... wild waves of the sea .... wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved forever" (Jude 1:12,13). A most graphic picture of the insincerity, the depravity, and the doom of these insolents! And yet they are found in the bosom of the Christian body, even sitting with the saints at their love-feasts!
6. Grumblers, Fault-finders, Pleasure-seekers, Boasters, Parasites.
"These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts .... showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage" (Jude 1:16). They impeach Divine wisdom, are the foes of peace and quietness, boast of their capacities to manage things, and yet they can be servile, even sycophants, when thereby advantage is secured.
7. Schismatics and Sensualists.
"These are they who make separations, sensual, having not the Spirit" (Jude 1:19). It was characteristic of the false teachers and mockers who had invaded the Christian church that they drew lines of demarcation between themselves and others, or between different classes of believers, which the Holy Spirit did not warrant, but which was the product of their own crafty and wicked wills. There seems to be a hint in these words of incipient Gnosticism, that fatal heresy that boasted of a recondite knowledge, a deep mystery which only the initiated possessed, of which the great mass of Christians were ignorant. Jude brands the pretension as the offspring of their own sensuality, not at all of God's Spirit.
Such is the forbidding portrait drawn of the libertines in the Epistle. But Jude adds other and even darker features. He furnishes a number of examples of apostates and of apostasy which disclose even more strikingly the spirit and the doom of them that pervert the truth, that deny the Lord Jesus Christ, and that mock at the things of God. These all mark a fatal degeneracy, a "falling away," which bodes nothing but evil and judgment. Against the corrupters and skeptics Jude writes with a vehemence that in the New Testament is without a parallel. Matters must have come to a dreadful pass when the Spirit of God is compelled to use such stern and awful language.
IV. Relation of Jude to the Second Epistle of Peter.
The relation is confined to 2 Pet 2 through 3:4. A large portion of Peter's Epistle, namely, 2 Peter 1 and 3:5-18, bears no resemblance to Jude, at least no more than does Jas or 1 Pet. Between the sections of 2 Pet indicated above and Jude the parallelism is close, both as to the subjects treated and the historical illustrations introduced, and the language itself to some considerable extent is common to both. All readers must be impressed with the similarity. Accordingly, it is very generally held by interpreters that one of the writers copied from the other. There is not entire agreement as to which of the two epistles is the older, that is, whether Peter copied from Jude, or Jude from Peter. Perhaps a majority favor the former of the two alternatives, though some of the very latest and most learned of those who write on Introductions to the New Testament hold strongly to the view that Jude copied from 2 Pet. Reference is made particularly to Deuteronomy. Theodore v. Zahn, whose magnificent work on Introduction has been but recently translated into English, and who argues convincingly that Jude copied from 2 Pet.
However, it must be admitted that there are in the two epistles as pronounced differences and divergences as there are resemblances. If one of the two did actually copy from the other, he was careful to add, subtract, and change what he found in his "source" as best suited his purpose. A servile copyist he certainly was not. He maintained his independence throughout, as an exact comparison of the one with the other will demonstrate.
If we bring them into close proximity, following the example of Professor Lumby in the "Bible Comm." (Intro to 2 Pet), we shall discover a marked difference between the two pictures drawn by the writers. We cannot fail to perceive how much darker and more sinister is that of Jude. The evil, alarming certainly in Peter, becomes appalling in Jude. Subjoined are proofs of the fact above stated:
2 Peter 2:1
But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers ....
Jude 1:4
For there are certain men crept in privily ....
2 Peter 2:1
who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them ....
Jude 1:4
.... ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 2:3
And in covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you ....
Jude 1:16
.... murmerers, complainers, walking after their own lusts (and their mouth speaketh great swelling words), showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage.
These contrasts and comparisons between the two epistles prove (1) that in Jude the false teachers are worse, more virulent than in Peter, and (2) that in Peter the whole description is predictive, whereas in Jude the deplorable condition is actually present. If 2 Pet is dependent on Jude, if the apostle cited from Jude, how explain the strong predictive element in his opening verses (2 Pet 2:1-3)? If as Peter-wrote he had lying before him Jude's letter, which represents the corrupters as already within the Christian community and doing their deadly work, his repeated use of the future tense is absolutely inexplicable. Assuming, however, that he wrote prior to Jude, his predictions become perfectly intelligible. No doubt the virus was working when he wrote, but it was latent, undeveloped; far worse would appear; but when Jude wrote the poison was widely diffused, as 1:12,19 clearly show. The very life of the churches was endangered.
2 Peter 2:4,5
For if God spared not the angels when they sinned .... and spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah with seven others ....
Jude 1:5,6
.... The Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them .... and angels that .... left their proper habitation ....
Peter speaks of the angels that sinned, Jude of their apostasy. Peter makes prominent the salvation of Noah and his family when the flood overwhelmed the world of the ungodly, while Jude tells of those who, delivered from bondage, afterward were destroyed because of their unbelief. He speaks of no rescue; we know of but two who survived the judgments of the wilderness and who entered the Land of Promise, Caleb and Joshua. Peter mentions the fate of the guilty cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but he is careful to remind us of the deliverance of righteous Lot, while Jude makes prominent their nameless crimes and consigns them to "the punishment of eternal fire," but he is silent on the rescue of Lot. Manifestly Jude's illustrations are darker and more hopeless than Peter's.
Peter instances Balsam as an example of one who loved the hire of wrongdoing and who was rebuked for his transgression. But Jude cites three notable instances in the Old Testament to indicate how far in apostasy and rebellion the libertines had gone. Three words mark their course, rising into a climax, "way" "err