[Ahaziah] had been hiding in Samaria. But in Kings it says, “and he fled along the road to Beth-haggan, and Jehu pursued him and said, ‘Kill him too!’ …” (2 Kings 9:27), from which it seems that they killed him on the road, when he was fleeing! It might be that they pursued him but did not catch up to him. After all, the text does not say “they killed him on the chariot,” but rather “kill him.” So they did not actually catch up to him but rather shot arrows at him, whereas he managed to flee, as it says, “He fled to Megiddo” (ibid.). Perhaps he then left Megiddo; and when the text says “and he died there” (ibid.), it does not mean that he really died. Rather, the arrows struck him on the road while he was fleeing, and he fled to Megiddo and “died” there in the sense of having been knocked out because of his wounds—just as the text says “and he died” concerning Nabal (1 Samuel 25:37) even though he did not die until ten days later (ibid. v. 38). Then afterward, [Ahaziah’s] servants carried him to hide in Samaria, which he did. But Jehu’s servants found him there and brought him to Jehu and killed him—for he had not yet died. When the text then says here, “And they buried him, for it was said, ‘He is a son of Jehoshaphat,’” it means that they designated him for burial, allowing his servants to carry him to Jerusalem, as it says in Kings, “His servants conveyed him in a chariot to Jerusalem, and they buried him in his grave with his fathers, in the city of David” (2 Kings 9:28).

The house of Ahaziah could not then muster the strength to rule. From the time he died, there was nobody left in the house of Ahaziah who could muster the strength to rule, because he did not have a son old enough to rule. Indeed, all the potential royal heirs were minors. That is why Athaliah had the ability to kill off all the potential royal heirs of the house of David (v. 10)