1 Kings 1:16

1Ki 1:16 And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou?

Ver. 16. What wouldest thou?] Heb., What to thee? q.d., I am ready to hearken to thee. She had been a good wife to him, and knew how to command him by obeying him, as Livia did Augustus, and much better. {a} For Livia, notwithstanding her smooth carriage toward her husband, is foully slandered, if she were not over familiar with Eudemus her physician, and if she did not at his death help to set him going, lest he should alter his will, and put her son Tiberius beside the empire. But good Bathsheba was none such. {b}

{a} Plin.

{b} Eutrop.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. bowed and did obeisance] After the fashion of Orientals in the presence of a monarch.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance to the king,.... Not only as being her husband, but her sovereign; and this behaviour might intimate, that she had something to say to him, and more than to inquire of his health:

and the king said, wouldest thou? what hast thou to say to me? or to ask of me? what is thy will and pleasure, or thine errand to me?

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Bath-sheba bowed, like the woman of Tekoah 2Sa 14:4, with the humble prostration of a suppliant. Hence, the king’s question, “What wouldest thou?”

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Worshipped. Protestants, "did obeisance." Hebrew, "fell prostrate on the ground before the king," (Calmet) without any danger of idolatry. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

16. Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance — Though the wife of his fondest love, she is careful to observe the etiquette of those who appear in the royal presence. Nathan the prophet shows the same respect and reverence. 1Ki_1:23.

What wouldest thou — There was something in the manner of her presenting herself that impressed the king that she had a request to make.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance cf. 2Sa_14:4. But we are hardly justified in seeing here "more than the ordinaryEastern salutation" (Rawlinson). The Jewish court seems to have been very ceremonious and stately (1Sa_24:8; 2Sa_19:24) The king was the representative of Heaven. And the king said, What wouldest thou marg., What to thee? Not necessarily, What thy supplication? (as Rawlinson). It rather means generally, "What thy business?" Quid tibi, not quid petis. IN this section we see how remarkably the gracious promise of Gibeon (ver. 12) was fulfilled. The "understanding to discern judgment" has been richly bestowed. And this, no doubt, is the reason why the story is related here. jEpideixai thqh sofian (Theodoret). It is just possible, as Thenius maintains, that the narrative was handed down to a succeeding age by tradition, and was not incorporated into any of the documents from which our historian compiled his narrative; but this argues nothing against its authenticity or its inspiration. It is, as Bahr observes, a thoroughly Oriental story.

Then came there two women that were harlots The Jewish writers here, as in the case of Rahab, (Jos_2:1) would understand "hostess," "innkeeper" (atyqdnwp, not qdnwp, as Bahr, which=, pandokeion, "inn"). In support of which it is alleged that prostitutes never have children, or if they have are not solicitous about them. The meaning "hostess," however (as if from Wz, to feed), is not to be entertained for a moment, but we may readily admit that these children, though born out of wedlock, were not necessarily the offspring of professed harlots, though the fact that their mothers dwelt together and alone (ver. 17) is certainly suspicious; and see Gesen. s.v. hn; z; Grotius, Deu_23:17, concludes that they must have been foreigners. But it is equally probable that the law was constantly violated unto the king as supreme judge and stood before him.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.