The common label given to the period in Israelite history when all the twelve tribes were formally ruled, at any one time, by a single king. It began with the appointment of Saul as king by Samuel when the people rejected the prophet's appointment of his own corrupt sons as judges over Israel, and asked for a king instead (2 Sam 8). It lasted through the reigns of David (c.1011-c.970 BC) and then through Solomon (971-931 BC). The United Monarchy came to an end in the early days of Rehoboam when the people gathered at Shechem to inaugurate his reign asked for the burden of corvée placed upon them by his father to be lightened; foolishly he rejected their fair appeal and the northern tribes left to form their own sovereign state under Jeroboam ben Nebat (1 Ki 12ff.).
In a very real sense the 'Israelite united monarchy' was never a reality. At best it had always been a dual monarchy linked in the person of the king. Rehoboam's mistake was the failure to recognize this reality. Already in the reign of Saul, we see the continuous conflict between him and David over the loyalties of the people. It is almost always forgotten that, upon Saul's death the northern tribes had "taken Ish-Bosheth, son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim. He made him king over Gilead, Ashuri [or Asher] and Jezreel, and also over Ephraim, Benjamin and all Israel" (2 Sam 2:8). Only "the house of Judah, however, followed David" (v10b). The tribes came back into David's fold only reluctantly when, "while the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker" (3:1) and for his own benefit, Abner engineered to secession of the northern tribes to David (3:17ff.). After David's death, Solomon could do what he did by force for his character. But he was already laying the ground for the dissolution of the "united" state with the heavy burden he laid upon the people by his building programme and extravagant lifestyle on his people.
Whether the northern tribes were prepared to recognize the validity of the divine calling of the Davidic dynasty to rule them in perpetuity or not is impossible to tell for certain. The early days at Shechem and their leaders' preparedness to pally with Rehoboam suggest that they were, provided that it did not come with a heavy hand. The oppressive model of divine kingship of Solomon was not something they imagined the dictates of the Deuteronomic covenant to be. Rehoboam only needed to change slightly for their loyalty; he foolishly threw the opportunity away.
©ALBERITH
311019lch