Send Teachers, Not Tanks: Jehoshaphat’s Surprising Strategy for National Strength

Today I read 1 Kings 16 and 2 Chronicles 17, and the contrast between the two chapters was hard to ignore. On one side, a chaotic line of kings in Israel, each seemingly worse than the last. On the other, a king in Judah—Jehoshaphat—who appears to take a different approach to leadership. The stories feel like they're from different worlds.

1 Kings 16 is a grim list of political violence, short reigns, and a growing trend of idolatry. There’s a sense that things are unraveling quickly in Israel. A string of kings rise and fall, often through assassination, and Ahab ends the chapter by pushing things even further, marrying Jezebel and openly promoting the worship of Baal. It reads like a descent.

Meanwhile in Judah: A King with a Game Plan (and a Lesson Plan)

Then there’s 2 Chronicles 17. Jehoshaphat begins his reign not by expanding territory or reforming laws, but by "seeking the God of his father" and strengthening his defenses. What stood out most to me, though, was the section about education. In his third year, he sends out officials and Levites to teach throughout the cities of Judah. The text says they carried the Book of the Law with them.

This isn’t a story about a dramatic battle or a sweeping decree. It’s quiet. Intentional. Instead of consolidating power through fear or alliances, Jehoshaphat seems to focus on internal resilience. He reinforces cities, builds up the military, but also invests in public instruction. I don’t know how common that was in ancient monarchies, but it feels unusual.

Teaching as Tactic: What If Wisdom Was a Defense System?

What did it mean to send teachers instead of soldiers? How did the people respond to this kind of leadership? Did it make them more loyal, more stable, more unified? The text doesn’t answer those questions directly, but it does suggest that surrounding nations noticed. There's a brief note that "the fear of the Lord fell on the kingdoms around Judah," and that Jehoshaphat received tribute rather than threats. Maybe education and moral clarity were seen as strength, not softness.

This makes me think about what modern leadership could look like if more of it was focused on instruction and grounding rather than reaction and image. Jehoshaphat isn’t perfect—later chapters show his flaws—but in this moment, his priorities seem clear: fortify the people, not just the walls.

The Chronicler’s Cut: What Gets Remembered (and What Doesn’t)

It’s also interesting that the Chronicles account is the only one that gives so much attention to this side of his reign. The writer seems to care about how faith, education, and stability are linked. That might say as much about the chronicler's values as it does about Jehoshaphat himself.

I don’t know how well these efforts worked in the long term, but I’m drawn to the idea that strength doesn’t have to come from domination. Sometimes, it might come from teaching, from clarity, from calm. That’s not always the kind of leadership that gets remembered—but maybe it should be.