Joshua 15:63 states that the men of Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem; how does this align with claims of total conquest elsewhere in the book? Context of the Conquest in Joshua The Book of Joshua details Israel’s entrance into Canaan after the Exodus and wilderness wanderings. Multiple passages describe large-scale victories over various city-states and peoples, culminating in statements that Joshua “left no survivors” and “struck down everything that drew breath” (cf. Joshua 10:40). Additionally, Joshua 11:23 states, “So Joshua took the entire land, according to all that the LORD had told Moses,” suggesting a decisive, overarching conquest. Yet, within the same biblical narrative, one reads of areas where the Israelites did not achieve immediate victory—Jerusalem being a primary example. Joshua 15:63 states, “But the descendants of Judah were unable to drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem; so the Jebusites dwell with the descendants of Judah in Jerusalem to this day.” Seen in isolation, this seems to conflict with total-conquest language elsewhere in Joshua. However, a close reading of the text and an understanding of ancient authorship reveal there is no real contradiction. The Jebusites in Joshua 15:63 The Jebusites resided in Jerusalem, also known as Jebus in older sources (cf. Judges 19:10-11). This city was perched on a strategic elevated location, making it difficult to besiege. Joshua 15:63 records, “But the descendants of Judah were unable to drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem…” indicating that, while Israel gained substantial footing in the region, they could not completely remove the entrenched Jebusites at that time. Later biblical references confirm that Jebusite control of Jerusalem persisted until King David’s reign (cf. 2 Samuel 5:6-9). At that point, David captured the city and made it the political and spiritual capital. This historical detail underlines that the conquest in Joshua was certainly significant but not concluded in every locale simultaneously. Reconciling “Total Conquest” with Ongoing Resistances From the perspective of ancient warfare narratives, “total conquest” often describes the decisive defeat of the main hostile powers and the assumption of functional control over a territory. It does not always imply that every individual soldier or city was subdued in detail at the very same moment. The statements in Joshua about having “taken the entire land” reflect that the major powers and confederations arrayed against Israel had been subdued (e.g., the coalition in Joshua 10, the northern kings in Joshua 11). 1. Hyperbolic War Language: Ancient Near Eastern texts frequently use hyperbole to describe victories, as seen in inscriptions from neighboring cultures. The biblical authors, likewise, employed sweeping expressions indicating decisive triumph over the land’s principal powers. 2. Subsequent Inhabitation and Gradual Possession: Although the Israelites emerged from Joshua’s campaigns as the dominant force, smaller enclaves still required subjugation or assimilation. The Jebusites are a prime example. The Book of Judges reveals further engagements with Canaanite groups that persisted after Joshua’s generation (Judges 1:27–36). 3. The Role of Covenant Faithfulness: Throughout Scripture, Israel’s ability to displace inhabitants also correlates with Israel’s obedience to God’s covenant. In several instances, incomplete obedience and alliances with local inhabitants (Judges 2) factor into Israel’s incomplete occupation at certain sites. Thus, Joshua sets forth the general boundaries of Israel’s success, while subsequent narratives confirm that some strongholds fell later. Archaeological and Textual Considerations Archaeological work in the area known as the City of David (part of ancient Jerusalem) suggests a robust, fortified city dating to the Late Bronze Age and continuing into Iron Age I. This fortification would have posed steep challenges to early Israelite forces. Textual evidence further supports that Jerusalem was not fully incorporated into Israel’s dominion until David’s capture (2 Samuel 5:6-10). The biblical manuscripts, consistently transmitted in Hebrew and corroborated through ancient translations, maintain a coherent record of a progressive conquest rather than a singular, instantaneous event. Additionally, extra-biblical records, though limited, align with the idea that pockets of Canaanite (and in this case, Jebusite) culture endured into the period of Israel’s monarchy. This continuity of Jebusite influence in Jerusalem, recorded without contradiction in multiple, well-preserved manuscripts, attests to the scriptural reliability concerning incremental rather than uniformly instant conquest. The Larger Theological and Historical Framework Throughout Joshua, the emphasis is on God fulfilling His promise to give the land to Israel (Joshua 21:43-45). The theological focus is the faithfulness of God and the call for covenant commitment among the Israelites. Joshua’s strong statements about total conquest underscore that the major challenge of taking the land was firmly met; the smaller pockets of resistance, like the Jebusites in Jerusalem, did not undermine God’s overarching fulfillment of His word. Instead, they demonstrate that final possession often requires sustained faithfulness and ongoing trust in God’s power. Subsequent books (Judges, Samuel, Kings) show how completing and maintaining the conquest was an extended process, culminating in key events like David’s taking of Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:7) and eventually Solomon building the temple on Mount Moriah. Thus, the statement in Joshua concerning the inability of Judah to dislodge the Jebusites underscores the unfolding nature of God’s plan in real historical contexts. Conclusion Joshua 15:63 and the broader testimonies of Scripture present a consistent narrative: the conquest under Joshua was substantially “total” in its effect on the key powers of Canaan, but it did not instantaneously remove every last Canaanite or Jebusite enclave. The Jebusite presence in Jerusalem is an example of Israel’s partial, yet still significant, progress in occupying the land. The biblical text, corroborated by archaeological findings and cross-checked through manuscript evidence, shows a united message: God’s promises were fulfilled in the major battles, though some locations were subdued later. Joshua 15:63, therefore, aligns with the overarching claims of total conquest by illustrating the normal historical reality of a campaign that decisively won the war while acknowledging that certain specific strongholds required future conquest. |
    |