The Tradition of Zion's Inviolability

Author(s): John H. Hayes

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 82, No. 4 (Dec., 1963), pp. 419-426
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3264697
Accessed: 08-11-2018 00:11 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature

This content downloaded from 203.78.9.149 on Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:11:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE TRADITION OF ZION'S INVIOLABILITY

JOHN H. HAYES
PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

IN HIS recent commentary on Isaiah, Professor Bright discusses the

problem of historicity in II Kings 18 13-20 19 and Isa 36-39. He
postulates two invasions of Sennacherib and declares that "some mar-
vellous deliverance of Jerusalem must be assumed, if only to explain the
later dogma of the inviolability of Zion."' This statement raises the
question of the origin of the belief in Zion's security and the relationship
of this traditional element to the prophet Isaiah.
Martin Noth has pointed out the differences which existed between
the traditions of the city of Jerusalem and those of the general Israelite
amphictyony.2 In the oldest amphictyonic traditions, Jerusalem plays
no part; in fact the name occurs nowhere in the Pentateuch. This is
not surprising, for Jerusalem remained a Jebusite city until taken by
David after he had reigned for more than seven years in Hebron.3 After
being captured by David, Jerusalem remained a royal city and was, for
all practical purposes, outside the amphictyonic tribal system. Its
allegiance was to the king who ruled over the city-state and its in-
habitants. David seems to have continued the Jebusite city-state system
and to have settled only his household, officials, and mercenaries in
the city.4
With the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem by David (II Sam 6), an
attempt was made to create a religious center for the nation by connecting
the city of David with the old northern cultic object around which the
tribes had rallied and worshiped.s In the major central amphictyonic
shrines of Hebron and Shechem (and Shiloh?) the historical traditions of
Israel had collected.6 Whether the northern traditions which had col-

1 John Bright, "Isaiah I," Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 514; and further
Bright's A History of Israel, pp. 282-87, and his contribution to Maqqel shdqedh:
Hommage a Wilhelm Vischer, pp. 20-31. Since it is the contention of this paper that
the origin of the tradition of Zion's inviolability is much older than and unrelated to
Sennacherib's invasion, it is unnecessary to attempt a solution to this historical problem.
For a restatement of the "one invasion theory" with full bibliography see H. H. Rowley,
"Hezekiah's Reform and Rebellion," BJRL, 44 (1961-62), pp. 395-431.
2"Jerusalem und die israelitische Tradition," Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testa-
ment, pp. 172-87, and Oudtestamentische Studien, 8 (1950), pp. 28-46.
3 Judg 1 21 rightly recognizes this while placing Jerusalem within the confines of
the tribe of Benjamin. (Judg 1 8 must be taken as a later, unhistorical account.)
4 A. Alt, "Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palastina," Kleine Schriften, II,
pp. 44-47; Noth, The History of Israel, pp. 189-90.
s Martin Noth, The History of Israel, pp. 91-97, and Das System der zwolf Stdmme
Israels.
6 In Gilgal and Bethel to a lesser degree.
419

This content downloaded from 203.78.9.149 on Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:11:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
420 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

lected around the ark7 were brought to Jerusalem during the united
monarchy is uncertain but doubtful.8
With the founding of Jerusalem as a royal city and the establish-
ment of the Davidic dynasty, two new and special traditions came into
existence, i. e., the election of David and the election of Zion. These
two traditions were taken up immediately at the royal court and pro-
claimed as part of the redemptive Heilsgeschichte and royal ideology.
The legitimization of the Davidic tradition is the subject of the
oldest historical writings in the OT, i. e., the account of David's rise to
power (I Sam 16 14-II Sam 5 12) and the throne succession story (II Sam
6 23-20 26 and I Kings 1-2).9 This divine legitimization of the Davidic
line played an important part in Israelite history. This is evidenced by
the original Nathan oracle (II Sam 1-7, lib, 16) which may have applied
to David but which was continually reinterpreted in the course of
Israelite history. II Sam 7 llc-17 reapplies this oracle to the offspring
of David taken not collectively but personally; at this stage in the throne
succession story, the identity of the seed is undisclosed. In I Chron 17 11
the seed is of David's sons; thus the election oracle is applied to the
Davidic house. Isa 55 3-5 tends to reapply this concept to the whole of
Israel, strongly democratizing the concept.10 This shows how tenacious
and influential this concept and tradition was; yet it was continuously
reoriented theologically.
The connection of this Davidic tradition with the enthronement of
new kings and the royal psalms (especially Pss 18, 89, and 132) is clearly
evident. Further development in this tradition took place when the
royal enthronement declarations concerning the Davidic house were
connected with pre-Israelite material taken over from Jebusite thought
and worship. That the Melchizedek tradition of Ps 110 4 and Gen 14 18-24
is pre-Israelite is indisputable." That Ps 110 is a royal psalm is evidenced
by the declaration of rulership and the concept of sitting at the right hand
of Yahweh. This psalm contains three elements of the royal protocol:

7 For a discussion of these traditions cf. Noth, (Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch,

pp. 48-66; for their relationship to the cult cf. H. J. Kraus, Gottesdienst in Israel2,
pp. 149-202; for the importance of Hebron cf. Murray Newman, The People of the
Covenant, pp. 67-71.
8 For the complicated problems related to the ark and its history cf. G. von Rad
("Zelt und Lade," Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, pp. 109-29), Newman
(op. cit., pp. 55-63; 65-68), and Kraus (op. cit., pp. 149-52).
9 G. von Rad ("Der Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel," Gesammelte
Studien, pp. 148-88), L. Rost (Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids), and
Martin Noth ("David und Israel in II Samuel 7," Gesammelte Studien, pp. 334-45).
Io Pss 78 70-72, 89 21-38, 132 11-12 are interesting in showing how this tradition was
perpetuated at the temple and court in Jerusalem. Pss 132 17-18 and 78 67-72 illustrate
the connection of the Davidic and Zion traditions.
" A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship, pp. 31-42; H. J. Kraus, Psalmen, II, pp. 755-56.

This content downloaded from 203.78.9.149 on Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:11:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAYES: THE TRADITION OF ZION'S INVIOLABILITY 421

Sit thou at my right hand until I make

thine enemies thy footstool (vs. 1).
Rule thou in the midst of thy enemies (vs. 2).
Thou art a priest forever after the order
of Melchizedek (vs. 4).

These declarations are similar to the one contained in Ps 2 7, and such

proclamations must have been used in practically every coronation of a
Davidic heir.12
It is thus quite clear that the special Davidic tradition concerning
Yahweh's unique election was interspersed with pre-Israelite traditions
regarding a Jebusite king-succession.'3 In a similar manner, I think it
can be shown that the special tradition concerning Zion's election, which
was originally based on Yahweh's presence in Zion symbolized by ark
and temple, incorporated pre-Israelite traditional thought concerning
Zion as a holy place protected by the divine. This is apparent in certain
of the Zion Psalms (46, 48, and 76) and is witnessed to by some of the
Zion speeches in Isaiah.I4
The tradition of Yahweh's election of Zion is, of course, based upon
the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem.'s In the story of II Sam 6, the ark
is brought to Jerusalem and merely placed in a tent.'6 Later the building
of the temple and the housing of the ark are combined. In the Nathan
oracle, there seems to be hostility toward housing the ark in a temple
(II Sam 7 7);I7 yet in the deuteronomistic addition to the speech the
building of the temple is central. Nonetheless, with or without the
temple, the presence of the ark in Jerusalem meant that Yahweh was
now dwelling there and had chosen this place for his abode.
The choice of Zion is a major theme of the cultic hymns:

I2 G. von Rad, "Das judaische K6nigsritual," Gesammelte Studien, pp. 205-13.

'3 This was done early in the monarchial period and perhaps in the time of David
himself. Jebusite influence may also have entered Israelite worship through the pre-
Israelite priesthood and cult in Jerusalem; cf. H. H. Rowley, "Zadok and Nehushtan,"
JBL, 58 (1939), pp. 113-41; "Melchizedek and Zadok," Festschrift Alfred Bertholet,
pp. 461-72; and C. E. Hauer, "Who was Zadok?" JBL, 82 (1963), pp. 89-94.
'4 For the importance of the Zion theology in the work of first Isaiah cf. G. von
Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, II, pp. 166-78.
Is There are many patterns of thought connected with the ark in the OT. It was
originally referred to as the ark of the elohim which is the general usage in the books
of Samuel. It was considered the place where Yahweh was enthroned (Num 10 35-36;
I Sam 4 4; II Sam 6 2). With the ark was connected the idea of Yahweh as leader of
the host. In deuteronomistic thought the ark and the covenant are joined and the ark
contains the tables of the law. In chronistic thought, the cherubim are for the protec-
tion of the law and not for the place where Yahweh sits enthroned.
X6 I Sam 4 1-7 2 and II Sam 6 1-19 appear to be the nucleus of a cycle of stories about
the ark.
'7 The original thrust of the Nathan oracle is that Yahweh will build David a
house, not David one for Yahweh.

This content downloaded from 203.78.9.149 on Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:11:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
422 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

But he chose the tribe of Judah,

The Mount Zion which he loved (Ps 78 68).

For the Lord hath chosen Zion;

He hath desired it for his habitation (Ps 132 13).18

Zion is thus the dwelling place of Yahweh (Ps 9 12; 74 2). Zion is Yahweh's
holy mountain (Ps 2 6; 87 1; 99 9), the home of his holy house (Ps 5 7;
27 4; etc.).'9 Yahweh dwells in Jerusalem because the ark and temple
are there.
The Zion tradition which centered around Yahweh's choice of Jeru-
salem as his dwelling place was, like the Davidic election tradition,
joined to and expanded by pre-Israelite traditions. It is in these tradi-
tions rather than in the prophetical work of Isaiah that the origin of
the tradition of Zion's inviolability must be found.
Throughout the OT, Jerusalem's pre-Israelite, Canaanite background
is apparent. A scathing speech in Ezekiel 16 vividly illustrates knowledge
of this non-Israelite background. The prophet denounces Jerusalem for
her abominations and introduces his speech with a recall of her history.
"Thine origin and thy nativity is of the land of the Canaanite; the
Amorite was thy father, and thy mother was a Hittite" (vs. 3). It is
only in vs. 8 that Jerusalem as an Israelite city is discussed and Yahweh's
election mentioned. This speech concerning pre-Israelite Jerusalem comes
from late Hebrew history. Gen 14,2? which appears to be earlier, recalls
a similar stage in Jerusalemite history. We may suppose that this aspect
of Jerusalem's history would have been passed over unless elements in
this Canaanite background remained and fitted into the cultic life of
Israel. Pss 46, 48, and 76 give evidence of such survival.
These psalms emphasize the impregnability of the city protected by
God without basing this upon the special traditions concerning his
election of Zion and the establishment of his temple. The hymns ascribe
praise to God as the one who is their strength and safety (Ps 46 2-4;
76 2-3). The nations are pictured in opposition to the city (46 7; 48 5),
but God acts to protect his possession (46 9-10; 48 6-9; 76 4-10). The
redeeming acts of God solicit faith and response (46 11; 48 1o-15; 76 11-13).

18 On Ps 132 as a cultic re-enactment of the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem, see

Johnson, op. cit., pp. 17-18, and Aage Bentzen, "The Cultic Use of the Story of the
Ark in Samuel," JBL, 66 (1948), pp. 37-53.
I9 H. J. Kraus contends that the central theology of Psalms is given in the state-
ment: "Im Heiligtum von Jerusalem ist Jahweh Zebaoth gegenwartig. Der Zion ist die
Statte der Gegenwart Gottes" (Psalmen, I, p. Ixiv).
20 Noth refuses to assign the chapter to a source (Oberlieferungsgeschichte des
Pentateuch, p. 29 n.). Eissfeldt (Einleitung, p. 251), Bentzen (Introduction, II, pp. 59-60)
and Pfeiffer (Introduction, p. 272) assign the material or portions of it to a late period,
perhaps postexilic. For a treatment of the historical problems cf. F. Cornelius, "Genesis
XIV," ZAW, 72 (1960), pp. 1-7.

This content downloaded from 203.78.9.149 on Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:11:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAYES: THE TRADITION OF ZION S INVIOLABILITY 423

The city is presented as a place divinely protected and un

by any enemy.
The special emphasis on the city's impregnability would h
argumentative strength in itself, but in these three psalms,
numerous phrases which display a non-Israelite background.
there occurs an unusual passage which older commentator
took to be eschatological:
There is a river,' its streams make glad
the city of God
The holy dwelling place of the Most High (l'Y)."

The city of Jerusalem possessed no river as such. Unless t

eschatologically,23 and I see no reason to do so, it must be vie
logically24 or else as having originally belonged to another se
city here is the dwelling place of Elyon, who was perhaps the
divinity worshiped in Jerusalem (Gen 14 18).
In Ps 48, similar elements occur. Zion is described in vs. 3
heights of the north."26 In vss. 8 and 9 we find the idea of
broken by God in sight of the people.
With the east wind
Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish.
As we have heard, so have we seen.

Otto Eissfeldt27 and W. F. Albright28 have argued that the Hebrew

Saphon in reference to a mountain is connected with Cassius Mons, a
mountain just north of Ugarit. Albright has contended that Baal Saphon
was a god worshiped by seafarers in several port cities of the ancient
Mediterranean world.
These facts tend to help explain Ps 48, especially when it is re-
membered that Mount Saphan represented the mythological dwelling
place of the gods in the Ugaritic material. In these texts, there are
frequent references to Saphan as the dwelling place of the gods. The
goddess Anath is described as going "unto Baal upon Saphan's summit."29
21 This river is generally taken to mean the Euphrates, but this is not necessary.
2 Accepting the M.T. over against the LXX and Vulgate, which read, "Elyon
sanctified his dwelling place."
23 In Ezekiel and Deutero-Zechariah the stream is eschatological.
24 Johnson, op. cit., p. 9.
2s In the Canaanite Ps 29, God sits enthroned upon the flood. In the Ugaritic texts
El lived "at the source of the (two) rivers, in the midst of the fountains of the two
deeps" (mbk nhrm qrb apq thmtm). Cf. texts 49:1:5-6; 51:IV:21-22; II Aqht VI:47-48.
The deity's dwelling at the sources of a mythological river must have been a common
thought in Syrio-Palestine.
26 Literally, "recesses of $aphon" (liD 'n?'.).
27 Baal-Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer (1932).
28 "Baal Zaphon," Festschrift fiir Alfred Bertholet, pp. 1-14.
29 'm b'l mrym spn (51:V:85). Baal is described in the heights of $aphan (bSrrt
spn ['nt 1:21-22]).

This content downloaded from 203.78.9.149 on Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:11:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
424 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

Saphan is also called the "mount of Baal,"30 the sanctuary, mount of

his possession, the hill possessed by Baal.3' The location of Mount
SaphAn near the coast perhaps explains the reference to the ships of
Tarshish being seen in their destruction. This material in Ps 48 must
have originally been applied to another city and only secondarily to
Zion or else have been purely mythological from the beginning with no
real relationship to a geographical place.
In Ps 76 3 there is a reference to Yahweh's tabernacle in Salem.
Salem occurs only here and in Gen 14 and is used in both places as th
pre-Israelite name of Jerusalem.
From the preceding considerations concerning these Zion psalms, i
may be safely assumed that pre-Israelite material has been interwove
with Yahweh faith regarding Zion. These hymns could have been part
of a Jebusite cult which utilized elements from a common Ugari
Canaanite background that viewed the gods as dwelling upon som
mythological mountain which was thus divinely protected.32
These special Zion elements, as seen in Pss 46, 48, and 76, were util
ized by the prophet Isaiah, who centered his prophetical message in t
Davidic and Zion traditions. Similar structures as noticed in the above
psalms are integral to Isaiah's preaching. The relevant material in
Isaiah is found in 10 5-11, 27b-34; 14 24-27, 28-32; 17 12-13; 28 14-22; 29 1-8;
30 27-33; 31 1-8, 33 20-24. These oracles are not, of course, in chronological
order.33
In an oracle dated in the year of Ahaz' death (715), Isaiah watches
the menace of the Assyrian army:
There cometh a smoke out of the north,
and there is no straggler in his ranks (14 31b).

When the messengers come to demand the city's surrender, the only
answer that can be given is a firm restatement of Yahweh's protection
of his city:

30 r b'l Spn (125:6-7).

3 'nt 111:26-28 and elsewhere.
32 In the account of David's capture of the city of Jerusalem the Jebusites seemed
to have held the city to be invulnerable (II Sam 5 6-8). Unfortunately the text at this
point is highly corrupt and only partially elucidated by the parallel account in
I Chron 11 4-7. The statement of the Jebusites is applied either etiologically to some
later practice in Israel (Lev 21 18?) or else used as a proverbial cliche. For the difficulties
in the text cf. H. P. Smith, Samuel (ICC), pp. 287-89; S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew
Text of the Books of Samuel, pp. 258-61; and H. W. Hertzberg, Die Samuelbiicher (A TD),
pp. 213-16.
33 The passages quoted here and in the remainder of the paper are taken to be
Isaian, at least in essence. Isa 14 12-11 preserves part of the ancient mythological
thought associated with Elyon. The nation (Babylon) is here viewed as attempting to
place herself in the assembly of the gods in the heights of $aphon and to make itself an
equal with the "Most High." The punishment is submission within the recesses of the pit.

This content downloaded from 203.78.9.149 on Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:11:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAYES: THE TRADITION OF ZION'S INVIOLABILITY 425

What then shall we answer the messengers of

the nation?
That the Lord hath founded Zion,
And in her shall the afflicted of his people
take refuge (14 32).

A similar confidence in the city's safety is found in 33 20-22, which em-

phasizes some of the ship and river mythology.
Yahweh protects the city against the onslaught of marauding armies
and keeps her secure. In one oracle the advance of the foreign armies is
shown approaching the city step by step (10 27b-31) until the enemy
shakes his fist at Zion (vs. 32). Then comes the promise that the trees
shall be lopped off and the mighty hewn down (33-34). The people are
admonished not to fear, for a little while and the anger of Yahweh will
destroy the Assyrian (10 24-25).
The people are in a state of uproar, with nations on the move, but
Yahweh will drive them away as the wind blows the dust. In the evening
their terror abounds against Zion, but "before the morning they are not."
"This is the portion of them that spoil us, and the lost of them that
rob us" (17 14).
Yahweh protects Zion as a lion guards his prey or as birds hover
over a nest. In time of trouble the Lord descends "to fight upon Mount
Zion, and upon the hill thereof." The Lord protects the city, delivering
it from its enemies, and rescues it like the bird flying over its nest to
chase away intruders. The battle is won "with a sword, not of men"
but by the Lord "whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem"
(31 4-9).
In the light of these oracles it seems safe to assume that Isaiah used
the common Zion tradition of the city's invulnerability to support the
people and to proclaim the message of Yahweh. But Isaiah radically
alters this tradition of the invulnerability in two ways.34 The prophet
called for faith in Yahweh as a condition of salvation and protection.
The word of Yahweh to Ahaz in Isa 7 9 is characteristic of this demand.
In the midst of the Zion speech (31 4-9) there appears the imperative
call to turn unto Yahweh; to return is joined with the promise of
Yahweh's victory. Trusting in the Egyptians is opposite to looking
unto Yahweh (31 1):

In turning and resting you shall be saved,

And in quietness and confidence shall be your
strength (30 15).

34 Micah, a younger contemporary of Isaiah, and the later prophet Jeremiah, both
harshly denounce the people's confidence in the security and inviolability of Zion
(Mic 3 9-12; Jer 7 13-15; 26 4-6). In this regard their break with the older traditions is
much more radical.

This content downloaded from 203.78.9.149 on Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:11:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
426 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

This attitude consists in regarding and accepting the acts and work of
Yahweh who alone defends the city (5 12, 19); it means surrendering all
faith and trust in human armaments (31 i). This call for faith and reli-
ance upon Yahweh reflects the summons in the holy war which sought
to assign every successful victory to the divine.35
The second way in which Isaiah radically changed the old Zion
tradition was by placing the onslaught and attacks of the enemies within
the arena of God's activity and work. This perhaps occurred during the
Assyrian onslaught and oppression of Jerusalem.
0 Asshur, the rod of mine anger,
In whose hand as a staff is mine indignation!
I do send him against an ungodly nation,
And against the people of my wrath do I give
him a charge,
To take the spoil, and to take the prey,
And to tread them down like the mire of the
streets (10 5-6).

Yahweh is here proclaimed as using Assyria as a rod to punish the

nation and city for their infidelity and sin. Destruction wrought against
the people is brought within the arena of God's operation as an evidence
of his judgment.36
In the Ariel oracle (29 i-s), the destruction is directly assigned to
Yahweh. "I will distress, I will encamp, I will lay siege," all describe
the work of Yahweh. Such thoughts must have horrified the hearers of
Isaiah and those who believed in the city's security.
This hiddenness of God when he seems to fight against himself and
his chosen can only be described by Isaiah as a foreign work:
For the Lord will rise up as in Mount Perazim,
He will be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon;
That he may do his work, strange is his work;
That he may do his act, alien is his deed (28 21).

This study has shown how the tradition of Zion's election, associated
with the bringing of the ark to the city and the building of the temple,
was connected with pre-Davidic or non-Israelite traditions concerning
the invulnerability of Jerusalem. As we have seen, Isaiah utilizes these
old traditions in his preaching and in his dialogue with them proclaims
Yahweh's word to his people.

35 G. von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im Alten Israel, pp. 56-62.

36 Isaiah nowhere seems to have preached the annihilation of the city; his oracles,
however, are a clear challenge to any overconfidence in inevitable protection. In light
of this, the origin of a belief in Zion's inviolability can certainly not be placed during
the period of his ministry.

This content downloaded from 203.78.9.149 on Thu, 08 Nov 2018 00:11:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms