Question 1

What group is named as living in Jerusalem in Joshua 15:63, and how are they described?

Accepted Answer

The verse identifies “the Jebusites” as “the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” That description does two things in the passage’s logic: it links a specific people group with a specific city, and it frames the issue as a question of settled residence, not just border mapping. In context, Joshua 15 has been listing Judah’s boundaries and towns; this final note highlights that one prominent location within that allotment still had a resident population identified as Jebusite. The focus is not on an event of capture but on who is still living there.

Question 2

What does the verse say Judah was unable to do, and what details are not provided?

Accepted Answer

Joshua 15:63 states that “the children of Judah couldn’t drive them out,” referring to the Jebusites in Jerusalem. The claim is plain and outcome-focused: Judah did not remove the Jebusite population from the city. At the same time, the text does not explain why Judah could not do this. It does not mention military tactics, the city’s fortifications, a treaty, a failed attempt, or any moral evaluation. Those possibilities may be considered when reading the wider narrative, but this verse itself only reports the inability and its result.

Question 3

How does Joshua 15:63 describe the living arrangement that followed Judah’s inability?

Accepted Answer

Instead of describing displacement, the verse says “the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem.” The key point is co-residence: both groups are said to be living in the same city space. The verse does not define whether that arrangement was peaceful, tense, segregated, or integrated; it simply records that the Jebusites remained present and that Judah also had a presence there. The wording emphasizes an ongoing situation rather than a temporary moment during conquest.

Question 4

What does the phrase “to this day” contribute to the meaning of the verse?

Accepted Answer

“To this day” indicates that the mixed residence in Jerusalem continued beyond the initial period of allotment into the time when this report was written. It turns the statement into more than a short-term setback; it is presented as a lasting condition. The phrase also signals that the writer is looking back on the earlier settlement period and noting what was still observable later. While it does not give a precise date, it clearly frames the outcome as enduring rather than immediately resolved.

Question 5

How does Joshua 15:63 function within the larger section of Joshua 15?

Accepted Answer

Joshua 15 largely reads like an administrative or geographic record: borders, districts, and towns assigned to Judah. Verse 63 functions like a concluding footnote that adds realism to the list. It shows that territorial assignment did not automatically equal full possession of every important site, especially a fortified city like Jerusalem. This ending note balances the detailed place-name inventory with a concrete example of incomplete control within Judah’s listed territory, aligning with the book’s broader acknowledgment that some areas remained unconquered.

Question 6

What explicit claims does the verse make about Jerusalem’s status within Judah’s territory list?

Accepted Answer

The verse places Jerusalem within the discussion of Judah’s area by mentioning “the children of Judah” in relation to Jerusalem and by appending this note at the end of Judah’s allotment description. Explicitly, it claims (1) Jerusalem’s inhabitants are Jebusites, (2) Judah did not drive them out, and (3) both groups are dwelling there together, continuing “to this day.” It does not explicitly discuss which tribe administratively “owned” the city beyond this placement, nor does it claim Jerusalem was fully controlled by Judah.

Question 7

What can and can’t be concluded from the wording “dwell with” in this verse?

Accepted Answer

From “dwell with,” it can be concluded that the Jebusites remained in Jerusalem and that Judah also had some form of presence in the city, producing an ongoing shared situation. What cannot be concluded from the verse alone is the quality of that relationship—whether it was cooperative, coerced, hostile, or structured by formal agreements. The wording gives a spatial and social fact (co-residence) but not a narrative of interaction. Any stronger conclusion needs support from surrounding texts rather than this line by itself.

Joshua 15:63

Scripture