And the seventh year. — When perhaps discontent at Athalialı’s tyranny had reached a climax.
Jehoiada. — The high priest (2 Kings 11:9). The curious fact that his rank is not specified hero upon the first mention of his name, suggests the inference that in the original authority of this narrative he had been mentioned as high priest, and husband of Jehosheba, at the outset of the story, as in 2 Chronicles 22:11.
The rulers over hundreds, with the captains and the guard. — Rather, the centurions of the Carians and the Couriers — i.e., the officers commanding the royal guard. The terms rendered “Carians” and “Couriers” are obscure. Thenius prefers to translate the first “executioners.” (Comp. Notes on 1 Kings 1:38; 2 Samuel 8:18; 2 Samuel 15:18; 2 Samuel 16:6; 1 Chronicles 18:17.) Thenius argues against the idea that so patriotic and pious a king as David could have employed foreign and heathen soldiers as his body-guard. But did not David himself serve as a mercenary with Achish, king of Gath, and commit his parents to the care of the king of Moab? And would not the mercenaries who enlisted in the guard of the Israelite sovereigns adopt the religion of their new country? (Comp. the case of Uriah the Hittite.) The apparently gentilic ending of the words rendered “Cherethites and Pelethites” in Samuel, and that rendered “captains” in this place, Thenius explains as marking an adjective denoting position or class. It may be so, but sub judice lis est.
Made a covenant with them. — The chronicler gives the names of the centurions. His account of the whole transaction, while generally coinciding with that given here, presents certain striking differences, of which the most salient is the prominence assigned to the priests and Levites in the matter. These deviations are explicable on the assumption that the chronicler drew his information from a large historical compilation somewhat later than the Books of Kings, and containing much more than they contain, though mainly based upon the same annalistic sources. The compilors of the two canonical histories were determined in their choice of materials and manner of treatment by their individual aims and points of view, which differed considerably. (See the Introductions to Kings and Chronicles.) At the same time, it must not be forgotten that the account before us is the older and more original, and, therefore, the more valuable regarded as mere history.