David G. Hansena
Military commanders have commonly attempted to gain as much information about the enemy as possible. In ancient times, when maps did not exist and the quality or number of the potential adversaries was practically unknown, the need for such knowledge could, and often did, mean the difference between survival or defeat on the battlefield. So obvious is the need for information about the enemy that Jesus used such imagery when He argued, “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand?” (Luke 14:31–32).
In military terms, information about the enemy is “intelligence.” The 19th century Prussian military theorist, Clausewitz, defined intelligence as “every sort of information about the enemy and his country – the basis, in short, of our own plans and operation.”1 Joab, King David’s military commander, knew the importance of intelligence and how it was collected. When Joab returned from a military campaign to fund that Abner, Ish-Bosheth’s commanding general, had visited David during his absence, Joab replied, “You know Abner, son of Ner; he came to deceive you and observe your movements and find out everything you are doing.” (2 Samuel 3:25).
The Bible describes the earliest existence of developed intelligence systems, a fact which distinguishes warfare in the Second Millennium BC from that of earlier periods.2 Although ancient military leaders began campaigning far from the safety of their borders well before the Israelites left Egypt, extra-Biblical sources do not detail how such armies gathered intelligence. Therefore, descriptions of how intelligence was collected during Old Testament times are important sources for military historians.
The Old Testament records that the Israelites obtained a comprehensive picture of the enemy when their objective was settlement of the land. Moses’ guidance to the twelve men selected to collect information about Canaan is an example. What Moses required of his agents was the same as what any modern commander would need before a major invasion.
Go up through the Negev and on into the hill country. See what the land is like and whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many. What kind of land do they live in? What kind of towns do they live
BSP 2:2 (Spring 1989) p. 43
in? Are they unwalled or fortified? How is the soil? Is it fertile or poor? Are there trees on it or not? Do your best to bring back some fruit of the land. (Numbers 13:17–20.)
Moses had need of information on a grand scale since he was considering a significant strategic operation. But when the objective of a military action was more limited, like the destruction of a specific location, tactical or battlefield intelligence was gathered. Information was collected by small reconnaissance parties or spies and there is frequent reference in the Old Testament to the “sending of spies.”3 For example, Joshua dispatched a reconnaissance team of two men to “look over the land… especially Jericho” (Joshua 2:1). They subsequently reported to Joshua all they had observed and described the population’s low morale. This background helps us to understand why Joab might have been concerned about the vital information Abner had learned from his visit to Hebron.
Immediately following the Jericho campaign, Joshua sent a unit “to spy out the region” of Ai (Joshua 7:2). He did this without con-suiting God and this failure to look to God was to have tragic consequences. The spies returned and reported on the condition of the target city and its surrounding area. In this instance the spies went beyond reporting just facts and indulged in military counsel,
Not all the people will have to go up against Ai. Send two or three thousand men to take it and do not weary all the people, for only a few men are there (Joshua 7:3).
Machiavelli would have counselled Joshua that “after you have consulted with many about what you ought to do, confer with few concerning what you are actually resolved to do.”4 In this instance, Joshua did not consult with anyone, not even God, and relied on the advice of his spies who were men not trained to analyze tactical situations or command forces in war. Thus, Joshua depended on inferior human advice for his assault on Ai, and that advice came from not very reliable sources.
Not unexpectedly, Joshua’s first assault on Ai was a defeat for his inadequate forces. Further, Joshua discovered that although the Jericho campaign had been a mil-italy victory, he had serious problems in his camp. Perhaps if Joshua had consulted with God before the assault on Ai he would have found out that he had a disciplinary issue to settle in his army and that God would also give him an operations plan which would result in a victory the first time.
After the Ai debacle, Joshua appealed to God for help who pointed out that during the earlier Jericho campaign one of the soldiers had taken prohibited items as plunder. Achan was discovered to be the sinner and in order for the army to be sanctified, Achan was destroyed along with “the silver, the robe, the gold wedge, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had …. “ (Joshua 7:24). John David writes that the sequence of Achan’s temptation and sin is instructive …. His sin involved three crucial steps: 1) He saw; 2) he coveted; and 3) he took. This is not the first time that one has been led into sin by this means. Compare, for example, the experience of Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:6), and the temptation of David (2 Samuel 11:2–4).5
Once the sin in the camp was taken care of, Joshua could prepare for another assault on Ai. This time God provided Joshua with a multi-phased, complex plan. Joshua must also have had a
BSP 2:2 (Spring 1989) p. 44
THE SECOND CAMPAIGN OF AI*
(JOSHUA 8)
1. ISRAELITE MAIN ATTACK.
2. FEIGNED RETREAT.
3. DEFENDER’S OF Ai PURSUE “FLEEING” ISRAELITES.
4. AMBUSHER’S ASSAULT Ai AND SET Ai ON FIRE 5 .
5. ISRAELITE MAIN FORCE, SEEING SMOKE, TURNS TO ATTACK Ai’s DEFENDERS.
6. AMBUSHER’S ATTACK Ai’s DEFENDERS FROM REAR.
7. Ai’s DEFENDERS SURROUNDED AND ANNIHILATED.
*BASED ON A MAP IN “THE PROBLEMS OF Ai” BY ZIONY ZEVIT, BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGICAL REVIEW VOL II, NO. 2. MARCH/APRIL 1985. P, 60.
superb understanding of the battlefield in order to explain the details of the plan to his subordinate commanders. The Bible records that God provided a general outline of the campaign (Joshua 8:1–2). However, the specific information Joshua needed to position his ambush forces so they could enter the city undetected, or the fact that he could observe and control the movements of his large, dispersed army from a hill that overlooked the
BSP 2:2 (Spring 1989) p. 45
battle area, was undoubtedly provided by his spies.
Gideon is another example of a Biblical commander who heeded God’s direction and used tactical intelligence. God advised him to make a personal reconnaissance of the enemy’s camp where he observed the location of the enemy’s outposts and discovered that the Midianite’s morale was poor. He returned to his three hundred soldiers, outlined a unique strategem, and routed the invading army (Judges 7).
It is clear from these and many other references that use of intelligence and organized services were well-established during the period of the conquest and settlement of Canaan. Good intelligence helped many leaders in the Bible to be successful military commanders and enabled small forces to undertake ambushes as a regular method of warfare. Those leaders that violated both the need for accurate information about the enemy and God’s advice were defeated. No less a great archaeologist and Biblical scholar than Yigael Yadin has reminded us that “the records of these ancient incidents show that when two armies were ranged against each other for open battle at a particular site, superior force was not always the decisive factor. Exploitation of terrain, good intelligence, foresight, and deceptive tactics frequently tipped the scales in favor of the weaker side.”6
Many contemporary students of military affairs are discovering that a comprehensive study of the Bible can provide them with a rich and accurate source of information about warfare in ancient times. Although for many years the Bible has been considered by military scholars and historians as a collection of pre-history legends, descriptions of battles and campaigns in the Old Testament are today being seriously considered by many who study and teach the art of war. Recent archaeological discoveries are substantiating the Bible’s accuracy to even the most cynical of them. Thus, the Bible is now being used more often as a reference to illustrate “unchanging principles of war.” Scholars and students of the art of war are finding that much of what is suggested in later secular writings exists in abundance in the Bible.