"TO YOUR TENTS, O ISRAEL!" (I KINGS 12:16 // II CHRONICLES 10:16)

The above cry is part of the following poetic reply of the Northern tribes to the foolhardy boast of Rehoboam that he would treat them even more harshly than his father Solomon had done when he was made king of the United Monarchy. The whole verse reads:

    “And when all Israel saw that the king did not hearken to them, the people answered the king, 

        'What portion have we in David?

        We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse.

        To your tents, O Israel!

        Look now to your own house, David.'

So Israel departed to their tents.” (RSV)

Note the sort of parallelism between lines 1 and 2 and between 3 and 4 of the poem that is common to Hebrew poetry. As Watts says, “Prose's monopoly on story telling did not...completely exclude poetry from the Historical Books. The stories occasionally depict characters voicing poetic couplets and singing songs, usually by quoting only excerpts...” We sometimes underestimate the effect of poetry on history, but this simple song actually marks a watershed event in the life of the Jewish people.

From our perspective, it is hard to understand how someone like Rehoboam could be so clueless as to antagonize the Northern tribes when it was not a foregone conclusion in their minds that Solomon's son would necessarily become their king automatically.

McKnight comments on this shortcoming: “The evidence suggests a king who was preoccupied with political and military consolidation and power...In Rehoboam's arrogant desire to dominate the north we find the human origins of the schism,...Rehoboam, with his ego boosted by his council members, decides in favor of an increase in the ...corvee [i.e. forced labor].”

McKnight adds that even after the resulting rebellion of Israel, “it appears that Rehoboam never quite surrendered his dream of unity (I Kings 14:30)...Rehoboam's hope to conquer the seceded tribes by force is met by the prophetic warning of Shemaiah to avoid this war because the split is part of Yahweh's plans (I Kings 12:21-24)...” Thus, as Brueggermann points out, “politics is not an autonomous zone of life where the working of power has a life of its own.”

So we see that, as McKnight says, the human cause of the split of the United Monarchy was due to a misstep on a human's part. However, as Hill points out, at the same time according to the prophet Ahijah, this split was punishment for the idolatry of Solomon (see I Kings 11:34-40).

Conversely, Greenwood feels the precipitating human action was Solomon's census in II Chronicles. “The intended benefit was that it would determine the available labor force for the construction of the temple. The unintended consequence, however, was the dissolution of the united kingdom of Israel.”At this point in the discussion, I am reminded of the title of Jacques Ellul's penetrating study of the books of Kings: “The Politics of God and the Politics of Man.”

Whatever the cause or causes, the result was the same: “The united monarchy ended where it began, with the Hebrew tribes in disarray and clamoring for new leadership.” (Hill) Or, in House's words, “One incredibly poor decision tears down in a few days what David and Solomon labored eighty years to build.” DeVries comments, “Possibly this passage's most important lesson is how much easier it is to break up what belongs together than it is to restore what is broken.” I will wisely refrain from trying to draw any parallels between ancient Israel and 21st century political events in the United States.

“Tents”

For the remainder of this short study, I would like to concentrate on a single word which appears twice in the verse, “tents.” There have been various understandings among scholars regarding the significance, if any, regarding this simple noun.

An Anachronism

“Some scholars understand 'tents' to be a symbolic anachronism referencing Israel's earliest history...” (BAR Summer 2023, p. 42) As one example, here is what Cogan says regarding tents: “...it had no current significance (such as tents erected for the tribal representatives during the Shechem assembly).”

(Poetic) Synonym for “Homes”

Cogan cites two Old Testament passages in which it is obvious that 'tents' is a “time-honored term” standing for 'dwellings.' These are I Kings 8:66 and Judges 20:8. The last example is especially pertinent since it appears in a poetic announcement by the people as in I Kings 12:16:

        “We will not any of us go to our tents,

        nor will any of us return to our houses.”

Thus, both NIV and the Anchor Bible translate the first occurrence of the word as 'tents' since it is part of a poem in which words often have figurative meanings. However, since the second appearance of the Hebrew word is found in a section of prose, it is translated in regard to its literal meaning (“homes” and “houses,” respectively).

Reference to II Samuel 20:1

“The Israelite reply, containing the decision to separate from the house of David, is a repetition of words spoken in David's lifetime by Seba [i.e. Sheba], although there are some variations in detail. The tribal representatives lodged in tents during the covenant making ceremony at Shechem, and with the pronouncement of this phrase the sacral community was disbanded and the covenant renounced ...Because the tents were permanent homes during the desert period, the meaning here is that the Israelites were told to return home and to sever all diplomatic relations with the house of David.” (G.H. Jones)

Dismissal from Military Service

“The formulaic phrase, '(he went) every man to his tent,' probably originated in a military context...” Biblical references cited in favor of this view are Judges 7:8; 20:8; I Samuel 4:10; and II Samuel 18:17; 20:1; and II Chronicles 25:22. In the specific case of I Kings 12:16, “They were apparently announcing their intention not to serve in his armies, which was tantamount to secession from the kingdom.” (Tomasino)

Literal Understanding

In contrast to all the above views, recent archeological studies in Israel indicate that during the United Monarchy period, most of the people in Israel actually did continue to live in tents. This explains why some critical Bible scholars have cast doubts on the stories of the wealth and power of the Davidic reign: there was little archeological trace of the majority of the population since they didn't live in the large cities. We sometimes also get a skewed view of what the kingdom of David and Solomon looked like since a large amount of the stories in the Bible concentrate on the urban centers and large building projects rather than talking about life in the countryside.