Skip to content
Home » Ai City In The Bible

Ai City In The Bible

The Bible is a historical and spiritual treasure trove, offering insights into ancient civilizations, their struggles, and the enduring lessons they provide. Among these ancient cities, Ai stands out as a pivotal location in the biblical narrative. In this blog post, we will explore Ai, its significance in the Bible, and the valuable lessons it offers in the context of conquest and consequences.

Churchgists has provided a well detailed information on the aforementioned and so much more. You will find these details very useful in whatever course you intend to use them for.

The Biblical Account of Ai:

Ai is first mentioned in the Book of Genesis (Genesis 12:8), where it is described as a location where Abraham built an altar. However, it is in the Book of Joshua that Ai plays a more prominent role.

In the context of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, Ai was a city located near Jericho. The biblical account, found in Joshua 7-8, describes how the Israelites, under the leadership of Joshua, were defeated in their initial attempt to capture Ai due to the disobedience of one of their own, Achan.

After addressing the issue of disobedience, Joshua’s second attempt to conquer Ai succeeded. The city was captured, and the lesson of obedience and consequences was made clear.

Lessons from Ai in the Bible:

  1. Obedience and Consequences: The story of Ai emphasizes the importance of obedience to divine commands. Achan’s disobedience led to the initial defeat at Ai, highlighting that our actions have consequences, not only for ourselves but for the entire community.
  2. Leadership and Redemption: Joshua’s leadership and his ability to address the issue of disobedience effectively demonstrate the qualities of a strong leader who can navigate challenges and lead his people to redemption.
  3. Lessons in Strategy: The strategy employed by Joshua to capture Ai in the second attempt is a valuable lesson in military strategy and the importance of learning from past failures.

Historical and Archaeological Significance:

Archaeological evidence supports the existence of the biblical city of Ai in the region near modern-day Deir Dibwan in the West Bank. The ruins of Ai have provided valuable insights into the material culture and daily life of ancient Canaanite cities.

The Problem of Joshua’s Ai: Solved

After conquering Jericho, Joshua and the Israelites destroyed Ai, the second stronghold of the conquest (Jos 7–8). Everyone agrees on the location of Jericho, but the location of Ai continues to puzzle researchers. The issue garners attention because of its profound implications for biblical studies.

The debate over the location of Ai intertwines with the excavation of Jericho. Kathleen Kenyon excavated Jericho from 1952 to 1956. She concluded that the archaeological evidence at Jericho contradicts the biblical account. In 1961, Joseph Callaway studied with Kenyon in London and three years later, on behalf of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, began excavations at et-Tell, 10 mi (16 km) north of Jerusalem (the City of David). Et-Tell had long prevailed as the leading candidate for Ai because of the endorsement by W. F. Albright, the father of biblical archaeology and one of Callaway’s mentors. When Callaway ceased excavations in 1972, he concluded that et-Tell sat unoccupied at the time of the biblical conquest. Together, the interpretations of Kenyon, Callaway, and Albright eroded the evangelical belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.

In response to this erosion, David Livingston formed the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) in order to investigate the “problem” of Ai. In a personal letter dated February 23, 1970, Albright assured Livingston that Ai belongs at et-Tell:

You can take it from me, and from Callaway and others, that there just isn’t any other possibility for Ai than et-Tell and that Bethel can only have been modern Beitin. Since 1921 we have examined and reexamined the whole countryside, and there just isn’t any archaeologically viable identification. 1

Undeterred, Livingston began excavations at Khirbet Nisya, his candidate for the Ai of Joshua 7–8 [photo at top of article]. He excavated there from 1979 to 2002, during which time he completed his doctor of philosophy degree at Andrews University. The findings at Khirbet Nisya illuminated the background of the Old and New Testaments, but a positive correlation with Ai proved allusive.

In 1994, ABR colleague Bryant Wood identified Khirbet el-Maqatir as another candidate for Ai, and the following year he launched excavations at the new site, 0.6 mi (1 km) west of et-Tell, and 10 mi (16 km) north of Jerusalem. Excavations continued at Khirbet el-Maqatir through 2016, with the final three years under the direction of Scott Stripling. Thus, from Livingston to Wood to Stripling, ABR has conducted excavations in search of Ai for nearly 40 years, 37 to be precise.

Various lines of reasoning allow for the possibility that the fortress of Ai in Joshua’s day stood at Khirbet el-Maqatir. For one, local tradition in the 1800s equated the sites.2 Moreover, a monastery from the Byzantine Age once graced the locale. The placement of the monastery seems deliberate in that monasteries often memorialized biblical events. Unfortunately, the excavation did not yield any mosaics or other clues as to what the monastery may have memorialized. Regardless, the geographical and archaeological indicators in Joshua 7–8 correspond to the evidence unearthed at Khirbet el-Maqatir. This study summarizes the correspondences and proposes a viable solution to the “problem” of Ai.

Ai City in the Bible: Lessons from Conquest and Consequences”

Ai, one of the ancient royal cities of the Canaanites

Joshua Burns the Town of Ai

“Joshua Burns the Town of Ai,” Illustration by Gustave Doré, La Grande Bible de Tours (1866).

See: Joshua 10:1Genesis 12:813:3

It was the scene of Joshua’s defeat, and afterwards of his victory.

Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the ground on his face before the ark of the Lord until the evening, both he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust on their heads. And Joshua said, “Oh, Lord God! Why did You ever bring this people across the Jordan, only to hand us over to the Amorites, to eliminate us? …O Lord, what can I say since Israel has turned their back before their enemies? For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear about it, and they will surround us and eliminate our name from the earth. And what will You do for Your great name?”

So the Lord said to Joshua, “Stand up! Why is it that you have fallen on your face? Israel has sinned, and they have also violated My covenant which I commanded them. And they have even taken some of the things designated for destruction, and have both stolen and kept it a secret. …” —Joshua 7:6-11 excerpts

Ai was the second Canaanite city taken by Israel (Joshua 7:2-58:1-29)—the first being Jericho. Ai was later rebuilt and inhabited by the Benjamites (Ezra 2:28Nehemiah 7:3211:31). It lay to the east of Bethel, “beside Bethaven.”

This Ai is also mentioned in Joshua 9:310:1-212:9, and Jeremiah 49:3.

Khirbet El-Maqatir. Photo © Licensed.

Aerial view of Khirbet El-Maqatir in Israel, the location of the Ai destroyed by Joshua

Photo © BiblePlaces—a ChristianAnswers Contributing Specialist.

Archaeologists of the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR), a Christian Answers team member, have spent many years in trying to determine the site of this ancient city, as well as Bethel. The Bethel/Ai Project is central to the Associates for Biblical Research’s work on the Israelite Conquest of Canaan. A major scholarly battle developed over the identification of the biblical cities of Ai and Bethel. Dr. David Livingston, founder and former director of the Associates for Biblical Research, pioneered research in this area.

Khirbet el-Maqatir, Israel —satellite view

ABR has excavated Khirbet el-Maqatir as a possible candidate. The site is located 10 miles north of Jerusalem. Excavations since 1995 have revealed a city gate and wall system and many evidences that match this 15th-century B.C. Canaanite fortress that Joshua destroyed.

Khirbet el-Maqatir matches the following requirements for the correct location of Ai:

  • The site must have been occupied and fortified at the time of Israel’s conquest of Canaan (Joshua 7:58:29)
  • It must be in the vicinity of Bethel (Joshua 12:9).
  • To the east of Bethel (Joshua 7:2)
  • Adjacent to Beth-aven (Joshua 7:2)
  • There must be a gate on the north side of the city (Joshua 8:11).
  • A hill of military significance must exist north of the city (Joshua 8:11).
  • There must be a shallow valley north of the city (Joshua 8:13-14).
  • Must be a suitable ambush site between Bethel and Ai (Joshua 8:98:12)
  • It must be smaller than the Canaanite city of Gibeon (Joshua 10:2).
  • It must have been destroyed by a military force at the time of Joshua, and there must be evidence of destruction by fire (Joshua 8:198:28).
  • There should be some evidence of women at the site, not exclusively men (Joshua 8:25).

Researcher Gary Byers of ABR reported in 2011,

…we found pottery [at Khirbet el-Maqatir] from the time of Joshua (15th century BC) in almost every square—even one beneath the foundation of the monastery—this season we did not reach architecture from the fortress in any of the squares we excavated. As in previous seasons, some of the 15th century BC pottery was ‘refired.’ That means, subsequent to its manufacture, it had been subjected to a second very intense heating which baked it to a metallic hardness. This is powerful evidence for the burning of Ai as described in Joshua 8:28.


The story of Ai in the Bible is more than a historical account; it is a narrative rich in lessons on obedience, leadership, and consequences. The conquest of Ai serves as a reminder that our actions have far-reaching effects and that the path to redemption often requires addressing and rectifying past mistakes. The ruins of Ai also offer tangible evidence of the historical and archaeological richness of the biblical narrative, reinforcing the timeless significance of these ancient stories.z

Join the conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *