Jerusalem's connection to the Jebusites surfaces at two key points. First, in the historical narrative of Joshua 24, the Jebusites are listed among the nations that Israel encountered upon entering Canaan—alongside the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, and Hivites. God recounts through Joshua how He drove out these peoples "not with your sword or with your bow," giving Israel cities they did not build and vineyards and olive groves they did not plant. This fits the broader pattern established in Deuteronomy 6, where God promised Israel would inherit large, beautiful cities already constructed by the Canaanite peoples, including presumably the Jebusites. This explains why archaeology finds Canaanite rather than distinctly Israelite artifacts from this early period—Israel simply took over existing Canaanite infrastructure rather than building their own, since a truly Israelite architectural style did not emerge until the time of David and Solomon. The Jebusites appear again explicitly in Deuteronomy 7:1-2, where Moses warns Israel about the seven nations—including the Jebusites—that God would cast out before them, nations described as "greater and mightier" than Israel. God commanded utter destruction of these peoples, forbidding covenants, mercy, or intermarriage with them, precisely because such compromises would turn Israel's hearts away to serve other gods. The second and more theologically significant connection appears in Ezekiel 16:1-3, where God addresses Jerusalem specifically, declaring, "Your birth and your nativity are from the land of Canaan; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite." This passage requires careful interpretation because Jerusalem was, in fact, not originally built by the Israelites but had been captured from the Jebusites, who were themselves Amorites. The Hittites served as overlords of the region and thus also had a hand in the city's founding. Rather than contradicting the biblical narrative of Israel's origins in Abraham, this passage makes a spiritual point about Jerusalem's condition at the time of the Babylonian conquest. The people had strayed so completely from the Old Covenant that their spiritual roots could be traced back not to God's instruction but to the pagan beliefs and practices of the very Amorite-Jebusite-Hittite peoples Israel had once been commanded to destroy. Though Israel failed to fully conquer these nations, allowing them to blend into the population, God now declares He will judge Jerusalem for the same iniquities that brought destruction upon the original Amorites—this time employing the Babylonians as His instrument of judgment.

The Jebusites first appear in the biblical record as the ancient Canaanite inhabitants who held a portion of Jerusalem, retaining possession of it until David finally conquered the entire city from them. Joshua 10:1-4 provides the earliest specific biblical reference to Jerusalem itself, identifying Adoni-zedek as king of Jerusalem, who formed a coalition with neighboring kings to attack Gibeon before being defeated by Joshua. Although some scholars have suggested that "Jebus" was the original name of ancient Jerusalem, archaeological evidence, particularly the Amarna Tablets, demonstrates that Jerusalem, not Jebus, was actually the city's name even before David's conquest. Jebus was instead the family name of the inhabitants themselves. This distinction is confirmed in Joshua 18:28, where some Bible versions render the phrase as "the Jebusite City (which is Jerusalem)" rather than simply "Jebus," precisely because Jebus designated the people rather than the place. The account of David's capture of the city, though somewhat obscure, indicates that the Jebusites relied on the extraordinary natural strength of their fortified position and confidently challenged David, boasting that even the blind and the lame could repel him. Nevertheless, David captured the stronghold of Zion, later called the City of David, apparently through a surprise attack via the water shaft tunnels beneath the city. This victory allowed David to establish Jerusalem as his capital and, by bringing the Ark of the Covenant there, as the seat of divine kingship as well. The Jebusites reappear significantly in connection with Ornan (also called Araunah) the Jebusite, whose threshing floor became a pivotal site in Israel's history. When David sinned by taking a census of Israel and provoked God's anger, a plague struck the nation, and the destroying angel was stayed precisely at the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. This location was subsequently purchased by David and later became the site of Solomon's Temple, as confirmed in II Chronicles 3:1, which places Solomon's Temple on Mount Moriah "at the place that David had prepared on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite." This connects the Jebusite legacy directly to the very ground upon which the temple, and by tradition possibly even the site of Abraham's offering of Isaac, was established, linking the Jebusites inextricably to the sacred history and redemptive symbolism that Jerusalem would come to embody throughout Scripture.

The account of Ornan the Jebusite in I Chronicles 21 provides a powerful contrast to the example of Rapha and his sons in illustrating the theme of godly versus ungodly fatherhood. The Jebusites, descended from Jebus, a son of Canaan, had settled in and around Jerusalem after Israel failed to eradicate them upon entering the Promised Land. They consolidated their power there, considering their city so impregnable that they boasted even their blind and lame could defend it. Yet centuries later, David succeeded in taking Jerusalem from them. Ornan, described by some commentators as a prince, was descended from this Jebusite royal line and may even have been among those who once taunted David's army. Despite this history of enmity between his people and Israel, Ornan is found peacefully threshing wheat with his four sons on land just outside Jerusalem, land that would later become the site of the Temple. When David, following the plague sent by God after his sinful census, was directed by the angel of the Lord to purchase Ornan's threshing floor to build an altar, Ornan's response revealed a remarkable change of heart. Contrary to an earlier mistranslation suggesting Ornan continued threshing wheat even after seeing the angel, the correct rendering from the Hebrew shows that Ornan and his sons stopped their work upon seeing the angel, with the sons hiding in fear. Ornan himself then encountered David, immediately bowing before him in humility and offering not only the threshing floor but also the oxen, wood, and grain needed for the sacrifice. This response shows that Ornan understood the true God of Israel and recognized David as His chosen ruler, even though there is no record that Ornan was formally called or worshipped God in an ongoing sense. The significance of Ornan's example lies in the contrast with his sons' upbringing. Unlike Rapha, who raised his sons—including Goliath—as men of war trained from youth to hate and fight against Israel, leading each of them to die in successive battles despite repeated opportunities to change course, Ornan did not raise his sons to hate or fight Israel. Instead, his sons were given a positive example: submission to God's chosen king and recognition of the true God. Rapha, by contrast, effectively offered his sons as sacrifices to his own false gods by continually pitting them against Israel, refusing to acknowledge the evident power of the God who allowed a mere youth to defeat the giant Goliath. This account of the Jebusite Ornan and his sons, set against the account of Rapha and his sons, serves to illustrate a broader principle: that fathers must not merely teach righteousness verbally but must live it, and that children, upon reaching accountability, must evaluate and choose their own path rather than blaming their upbringing. Ornan's sons, given a righteous example, lived; Rapha's sons, given a violent and godless example, died. This contrast underscores the importance of godly example in fatherhood and ties directly into the larger message of following the perfect examples of God the Father and Jesus Christ.