- Apr 14, 2003
- 7,176
- 1,226
- 71
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
John Gill can have whatever comment he wanted. But there were only two human kings of Israel before Solomon. Saul and David. It is was not by a law set that those two were anointed king, but by God's instruction. The point is that the only three kings of united Israel involved being anointed by a prophet. That's what the Jews base their belief regarding the King of Israel/Messiah.
Here is what it says in 1Kings1:
32 And king David said, Call me Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. And they came before the king.
33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon:
34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon.
John Gill knows far more about Jewish law and ancient Hebrew writings than you do. You ought to take heed. His commentary on Solomon taking the throne also takes account of the actual political situation, that the country had recently been through a revolt, where most army officers and other important people had sided against David. The point of the anointing, by the High Priest, is to solidify Solomon's claim to the throne. Since King David has multiple wives and many children, the line of succession was much murkier than it would be in a European kingdom based on monogamy.
If Nathan had anointed Solomon, his status as an important adviser to David would have been at least as important as his status as a court prophet.
Upvote
0