There may be more to this (I haven't looked at that part of Jeremiah before writing this) but in the OT, Israel sometimes means "the northern kingdom", or "All of the tribes except Judah" whereas Judah means "the southern kingdom" or the tribe of Judah.

This split occured after Solomon died.

There was this big split that occurred (Dwight mentioned it). Basically, the Israelites went all nutso for a while and decided to put their own king on the throne who wasn't of the line of David. Obviously that's no good -- remember God's whole thing about the line of David? But Judah kept on worshipping God and doing what was right and submitting to the rightful heirs. So, for a time, Judah is considered all of Israel because they were the only ones who were following the faith of Israel (the man) and were were all of the nation that was faithful to God. At one point there was even a war over it (and the good guys won).

It's the same principle that Paul speaks of when he says, "Who is a son of Abraham? One of his blood or one of his faith? It's the one's who keep to the faith of Abraham that are his children" (paraphrase). It's why I feel free to call myself a Jew at times when it is helpful in evangelism (I'm a faithful son of Abraham, and therefore one of his descendants).

Judah was Israel for a while.

P.S. You can check it out in 2nd Chronicles (and other places).

Touche, Dave.

I just went back and checked my memory against the text -- you're right =)

1) Solomon commits his various idolatries
2) God gives the 10 northern tribes to Jeroboam to rule (via populace support)
3) God gives Rehoboam (Solomon's heir) the other two tribes.
4) Jeroboam gets all wacky and Godless
5) Bad things happen.

I had forgotten all about the prophet and the aborted battle (between Rehoboam and Jeroboam). I checked to see what I was thinking of ... I figured it out =) (This is just a side note, btw). I once heard someone ask the question, "Why don't we see the Bible follow the kings of Israel for a number of generations, but focuses on the kings of Judah instead?" The answer (as it came) was that it was because the scriptures (as holy scriptures) focused on the line of David. The nation of Israel (as such) was the focus of various annals and historical chronicles. Sorry about that, Jared!

I agree regarding it being an action of the people -- that's why I was hoping to convey by calling it a thing God did "via populace support" -- or "by way of the support of the people." I'm not sure if it was a rebellion against God for them to pick a new king... Were the people obligated to God to prefer an heir of the line of David? I'm not sure.

I strongly suspect the causality here is something like the "geist" of that "zeit" was the holy "geist" (a la Chompsky).

I don't think it would have mattered much in the long run whether or not Jeroboam had stayed faithful. The kingdoms would have come back to David's line (per the infallible promise of God) when God's wrath against the line was satisified. It would, however, have made things much better for the Israelites if he hadn't freaked out.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that the non-Davidic kings are simply ignored -- it just doesn't follow them in the same way (as far as I can tell). There's a general scriptural focus on the seat of the line of David, and it is the focus of the prophecies (as you pointed out), and -- for obvious reasons -- the important bloodlines.

Cool; thanks,guys :)

The Northern Kingdom gets taken off into captivity and does not return with Nehemiah and/or Ezra...