Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem? Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40) No (Joshua 15:63)

Historical and Geographical Overview

Jerusalem sat just south of the boundary between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Joshua 15:8; 18:28). At the time of Joshua’s conquests, it was under the rule of the Jebusites, led by the “king of Jerusalem” (Joshua 10:1). This strategic location, set on high terrain and fortified, was a significant military and cultural center in Canaan. Archaeological studies (such as the City of David excavations) have revealed massive fortifications from periods closely aligned with biblical chronology, suggesting Jerusalem was notably strong and challenging to conquer fully.

The Military Campaign in Joshua 10

In Joshua 10, five Amorite kings, including the king of Jerusalem, formed an alliance against Gibeon. After a lengthy battle, the Israelites triumphed. Scripture states:

“‘So Joshua conquered the whole region—the hill country, the Negev, the foothills, and the slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors and devoted everything that breathed to destruction, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.’” (Joshua 10:40)

This broad summary of victory indicates Joshua’s forces subdued these regions and defeated their opposing kings, including Adoni-Zedek of Jerusalem (Joshua 10:1–3, 23). As was common among ancient records, “capturing” a region often referred to defeating its ruler or army, even if full occupation or continuous control of every stronghold was less immediate.

Apparent Contradiction in Joshua 15

Later in the narrative, the text states:

“‘But the descendants of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem. So to this day, the Jebusites live there with the descendants of Judah in Jerusalem.’” (Joshua 15:63)

At first glance, this creates a seeming contradiction: Joshua 10:23 and 10:40 suggest that Jerusalem’s king was defeated and the territory was conquered, whereas Joshua 15:63 asserts that the Jebusites still dwelled in Jerusalem.

Reconciling the Two Passages

1. Defeating the King vs. Controlling the City

In the ancient Near East, removing a king and his army did not automatically guarantee full control of a city’s population and fortifications. Capturing an enemy king often represented a symbolic victory over a region. However, reclaiming or maintaining the city itself could prove difficult, particularly when local inhabitants rallied to reoccupy or reinforce it.

2. Initial Military Victory with Later Struggles

Joshua’s conquest in chapter 10 references a broader victory within the southwestern theater of Canaan. After defeating key kings, Joshua moved on to other crucial battles. Meanwhile, the Jebusites remaining in Jerusalem had time and opportunity to rebuild or maintain their defensive positions, causing Israel to struggle in driving them out fully—a process confirmed by the eventual need for a later conquest by King David (2 Samuel 5:6–10).

3. Incomplete Occupation in Joshua’s Era

The book of Joshua ends with portions of land that Israel had yet to fully inhabit (Joshua 13:1). Israel’s conquest was partially completed, and subsequent generations carried on the effort. This helps us understand why despite defeating the king of Jerusalem, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin found it challenging to solidify control over the fortress city.

Insight from Judges

The Book of Judges also provides clues:

• Judges 1:8: “Then the men of Judah fought against Jerusalem, captured it…”

• Judges 1:21: “But the Benjamites did not drive out the Jebusites living in Jerusalem…”

This indicates both success and continued difficulty, reflecting an on-and-off struggle: military victories were achieved, but the populace or pockets of strong resistance remained. These passages are consistent with the idea that while Israel could defeat armies and even temporarily occupy parts of the city, they did not manage permanent removal of the Jebusites until David’s reign.

Possible Archaeological Corroborations

Archaeologists studying the City of David and surrounding structures have found evidence of continuous habitation. Layers from the Late Bronze to Iron Age show that local belief in the city’s impregnability aligned closely with the text’s depiction of Jerusalem as a strong stronghold. Although conclusive proof of every biblical detail is elusive, no archaeological discovery has invalidated the possibility that a military victory occurred, followed by a retaking or retention by indigenous groups.

Conclusion

When the biblical record states that Joshua “conquered” the region of Jerusalem in Joshua 10, it refers to his defeat of Jerusalem’s king and army in that major campaign. Yet, the Jebusites continued or quickly reestablished themselves in the city, leading to the statement in Joshua 15:63 that the people of Judah were unable to fully drive them out at that time.

These passages, taken together, illustrate a reality common to ancient warfare: a defeated king did not necessarily mean the city remained under ongoing control without subsequent challenges. Far from a contradiction, the text gives a realistic portrayal of Israel’s incomplete occupation and the subsequent generations’ struggles to secure the land fully.