2 Chronicles Chapter 17
Features of Jehoshaphat’s Reign
A. How King Jehoshaphat pleased God.
1. (2 Chronicles 17:1-4) The personal spiritual commitment of King Jehoshaphat.
“Then Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his place, and strengthened himself against Israel. And he placed troops in all the fortified cities of Judah, and set garrisons in the land of Judah and in the cities of Ephraim which Asa his father had taken. Now the LORD was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the former ways of his father David; he did not seek the Baals, but sought the God of his father, and walked in His commandments and not according to the acts of Israel.”
Jehoshaphat begins his reign with spiritual integrity and decisive leadership. The Chronicler immediately connects his success with his personal walk before God. In contrast to Asa’s tragic decline, the beginning of Jehoshaphat’s reign rekindles the earlier spirit of Davidic faithfulness. The defining feature of his kingship is that “the LORD was with Jehoshaphat”, and the text clearly states why: he walked in obedience, he sought the LORD, and he refused the idolatrous practices rampant in the northern kingdom.
a. “Then Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his place.”
Jehoshaphat inherited a throne marked by early reforms but overshadowed by Asa’s spiritual decline. The Chronicler, however, highlights Jehoshaphat’s strength of character. He did not repeat his father’s late-life errors. Instead, he modeled himself after David — specifically, David’s early years, before his moral failure.
i. Trapp notes that Jehoshaphat followed David “in the first ways.”
He followed David before the sins of adultery and murder, before his kingdom was marred by internal sorrow. Trapp’s statement reminds us that Scripture presents David as the ideal king not because he was flawless, but because his early path reflected purity, humility, and wholehearted pursuit of God.
ii. Spurgeon highlights David’s brokenness after sin.
Spurgeon paints a vivid contrast between David before his fall and David after:
Before Bathsheba, David’s life was marked by joy, courage, song, and an unbroken sense of God’s favor.
After his fall, David lived with a wounded spirit, a broken tone, and lifelong consequences.
Jehoshaphat chose to imitate David’s early devotion, not his later failures. The Chronicler presents him as a model for all leaders: choose the obedience, humility, and zeal of David — not the path that leads to sorrow.
b. “Strengthened himself against Israel.”
Jehoshaphat understood that the northern kingdom represented a danger on multiple levels:
Militarily, because Baasha and later kings maintained hostility toward Judah.
Politically, because Israel’s instability could spill south.
Spiritually, because Israel’s idolatry — the Baals, the golden calves, and the corrupt priesthood — represented a direct threat to Judah’s purity.
He therefore fortified the defenses of Judah, deploying troops strategically in fortified cities and establishing garrisons in the territories Asa had captured in Ephraim. This shows that spiritual faithfulness does not exclude practical wisdom and preparedness.
i. The Chronicler’s ongoing contrast.
Throughout Kings and Chronicles, Judah and Israel serve as contrasting models. Judah represents covenant faithfulness, fragile yet redeemable. Israel represents spiritual rebellion and the destructive consequences of rejecting God. Jehoshaphat consciously chooses the Judah path — not Israel’s.
c. “He did not seek the Baals… but sought the God of his father.”
Jehoshaphat deliberately rejected the idolatry of the north. The Baals were false fertility gods whose worship included immoral rituals and syncretistic practices. To repudiate the Baals was to repudiate the spirit of compromise.
Jehoshaphat’s devotion is personal and inherited — he sought “the God of his father” — but it is also scriptural. He walked “in His commandments.”
d. “Not according to the acts of Israel.”
The Chronicler draws a firm theological line: walking with God requires rejecting the ways of those who reject Him. Jehoshaphat’s obedience was not vague or sentimental. It required real separation.
2. (2 Chronicles 17:5-6) The blessing upon his reign.
“Therefore the LORD established the kingdom in his hand; and all Judah gave presents to Jehoshaphat, and he had riches and honor in abundance. And his heart took delight in the ways of the LORD; moreover he removed the high places and wooden images from Judah.”
Jehoshaphat’s faithfulness leads to divine favor. When the king aligns himself with God, the kingdom is stabilized, strengthened, and blessed.
a. “Therefore the LORD established the kingdom in his hand.”
This stability is supernatural. Ancient Near Eastern kingships were volatile. Dynasties rose and fell rapidly. Yet God promised David that if his descendants walked faithfully, He would secure their throne.
Jehoshaphat experienced this blessing firsthand.
i. The same promise applies today in principle.
Jesus teaches in Matthew 6:33, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.”
Jehoshaphat lived this principle centuries before Christ voiced it.
b. “All Judah gave presents to Jehoshaphat, and he had riches and honor in abundance.”
This echoes earlier statements about kings like Solomon and Hezekiah. When God blesses a righteous leader, the people respond with loyalty and generosity. Riches and honor are not wrong in themselves; they become dangerous only when the heart delights in riches rather than God.
Jehoshaphat’s blessing is legitimate because of the next statement:
c. “His heart took delight in the ways of the LORD.”
This is the clearest sign of spiritual health. Jehoshaphat’s joy was not in wealth, power, or conquest, but in pleasing God. The phrase “took delight” reflects deep affection, not mere obligation. His obedience was joyful, not mechanical.
Psalm 37:4 captures this principle:
“Delight yourself also in the LORD, and He shall give you the desires of your heart.”
Jehoshaphat is the living proof of that verse.
d. “Moreover he removed the high places and wooden images from Judah.”
This issue of high places is complex, because Scripture gives a mixed report between Kings and Chronicles.
1 Kings 22:43 states that Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places.
2 Chronicles 17:6 states that he did remove them.
These statements are reconciled by Clarke’s helpful explanation:
i. Clarke: There were two types of high places.
Idolatrous high places – used for Canaanite worship.
Old Yahwistic high places – used for worship of the LORD before the temple was built.
Jehoshaphat removed the idolatrous high places, not the pre-temple worship sites. Kings focuses on the latter; Chronicles emphasizes the former.
ii. Selman highlights the deeper issue.
The persistence of high places — even legitimate ones — shows how deeply Canaanite worship had permeated Israel. Reform was difficult because popular religion often differs from official doctrine. The people clung to their traditional high places even after the temple existed.
Jehoshaphat’s removal of the idolatrous ones shows genuine zeal, even if complete reform remained elusive.
B. The Strength of Jehoshaphat’s Kingdom
Jehoshaphat’s greatness did not rest merely in military or political power. His kingdom was strong because it was built upon spiritual priorities, moral order, and a commitment to teach the Word of God throughout Judah. The Chronicler highlights this carefully: Jehoshaphat’s external strength was simply the natural outflow of his internal devotion to the LORD.
1. (2 Chronicles 17:7-10) The spiritual strength of the kingdom: Jehoshaphat brings the word of God to the people.
“Also in the third year of his reign he sent his leaders… to teach in the cities of Judah… So they taught in Judah, and had the Book of the Law of the LORD with them… And the fear of the LORD fell on all the kingdoms… so that they did not make war against Jehoshaphat.”
Jehoshaphat’s most impressive achievement was not a military conquest but a kingdom-wide Bible teaching mission. He understood that national strength flows from spiritual health.
a. “To teach in the cities of Judah.”
The Chronicler previously lamented a time when Israel was “without a teaching priest” (2 Chronicles 15:3). Jehoshaphat remedies that by sending teachers — leaders, Levites, and priests — throughout the land. This reflects deliberate spiritual strategy. Most of the population lived far from Jerusalem, so truth had to be taken to them.
Teaching the Word was not an optional ministry. It was the backbone of national righteousness. When the people understand God’s law, they understand His will, their responsibilities, their identity, and the foundations of justice.
b. “They taught in Judah… and had the Book of the Law of the LORD with them.”
Jehoshaphat did more than promote religious sentiment. He promoted Scripture. This is critical. The Word of God was not merely read; it was taught, interpreted, applied.
In the ancient world, sending out a trained team of teachers equipped with Scripture was revolutionary. It lifted the spiritual literacy of the entire nation.
i. Knapp emphasizes the value of this “little band.”
He notes that this group of sixteen men accomplished more in securing national safety than a massive army could have. Spiritual truth produces moral unity. Moral unity produces national strength.
ii. Morgan compares it to modern “Special Missions.”
Jehoshaphat’s kingdom-wide teaching movement resembles revival crusades or missionary campaigns. Scripture is proclaimed in every town, village, and settlement — and the nation is transformed.
iii. Morgan again: No greater service exists.
Teaching the Word of God strengthens individuals, families, and societies. It corrects sin, elevates righteousness, purifies worship, and strengthens national conscience. In Jehoshaphat’s reign, this mass instruction became the foundation for peace.
iv. Clarke notes that instruction produces unity.
A population taught in Scripture becomes united in understanding and conviction. Such unity makes a nation resilient. A spiritually instructed people cannot be easily manipulated, divided, or conquered.
v. Clarke parallels this to Wesley’s itinerant ministry.
Clarke attributes Britain’s stability in the 18th–19th centuries—in contrast to the political revolutions of Europe—to widespread itinerant preaching and gospel teaching. Revival preserved the nation.
vi. Trapp notes that preaching brought protection.
Judah’s military defenses are mentioned earlier, but only the teaching mission causes “the fear of the LORD” to fall on surrounding nations. The implication is profound:
Spiritual defenses are stronger than military defenses.
The nations did not fear Judah’s weapons — they feared Judah’s God.
2. (2 Chronicles 17:11-19) The international strength of Jehoshaphat’s kingdom.
“Some of the Philistines brought Jehoshaphat presents… the Arabians brought him flocks… So Jehoshaphat became increasingly powerful…”
Jehoshaphat’s spiritual reforms produced external influence and regional dominance. The kingdom prospered, expanded, and commanded widespread respect.
a. “Some of the Philistines brought Jehoshaphat presents… and the Arabians brought him flocks.”
This fulfilled the covenant promises of Deuteronomy 28:1-13: when a nation obeys the LORD, it rises in prominence, receives tribute, and becomes the head and not the tail. Jehoshaphat’s devotion was rewarded with both prosperity and stability.
His enemies did not merely avoid war — they honored him. God exalted Judah because Judah exalted God.
b. “These served the king.”
The Chronicler now lists the military strength surrounding Jehoshaphat, but he highlights something far more important than raw numbers: the quality of his men. Judah’s strength was measured in the character of its warriors — “mighty men of valor.”
Jehoshaphat ruled over courageous, loyal, and spiritually influenced soldiers.
i. “Amasiah the son of Zichri, who willingly offered himself to the LORD.”
Spurgeon is fascinated by Amasiah, a man unknown outside this verse. His entire biography is summarized in one phrase:
“He willingly offered himself to the LORD.”
From this, Spurgeon deduces:
Amasiah experienced a turning point, where he recognized God’s grace and committed himself entirely.
His devotion was voluntary, wholehearted, and joyful.
His offering of himself took place in the context of military service — showing that God is honored in every calling.
ii. Amasiah is a model of wholehearted service.
His example teaches that:
He did not have to be pressured into serving.
He did not have to be sought out.
He did not have to be monitored.
He did not have to be pulled along by others.
He offered himself. God uses such men in every generation.
iii. Spurgeon: Every lawful calling can serve God.
Spurgeon emphasizes that ministry is not limited to clergy or temple service. Any occupation — soldier, farmer, statesman, tradesman — becomes holy when done unto the LORD. Jehoshaphat’s army was filled with men whose hearts belonged to God even in secular roles.
Summary of Jehoshaphat’s Strength
Jehoshaphat’s kingdom was strong because:
He prioritized teaching God’s Word.
He cultivated national obedience and unity.
He lived in personal devotion to the LORD.
God responded with peace, honor, tribute, and military strength.
His men were not merely powerful but spiritually committed.
The Chronicler’s message is unmistakable: True national strength flows from spiritual faithfulness.
