Theology Today - Vol 44, No.4 - January 1988 - BOOK REVIEW - Zion the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult>

542 - Zion the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult

Zion the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult

By Ben C. Ollenburger
Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. 271 Pp. $33.50 ($14.95 Pb).

The importance of this monograph is two-fold. It makes a major contribution to our understanding of the development of ancient Israel's theological traditions, and it entails a re-assessment of contemporary appropriation of those traditions for Christian social-political praxis.

In some views, Israel arose as a revolt against oppressive creationbased, static, hierarchical societies preoccupied with order legitimized by creator-gods, in favor of a redemption-based, dynamic, egalitarian society committed to justice empowered by Yahweh. Kingship arose in Israel as a return to or compromise with formerly rejected forms of society and theology. Prophetic critique of kingship and its Zion-cult is echoed in contemporary views of the thematics of David and Zion as a negative foil for the liberating potential of the Exodus traditions. If Ollenburger is right, this negative reading of the Zion tradition is in significant part misconceived.

Accepting in principle that Israel's traditions cluster around two major distinctive foci, Exodus-Moses-Sinai and Creation-David-Zion, he investigates the significance of Zion as a symbol within the Jerusalem cult tradition. He concludes that Zion symbolizes the presence of

543 - Zion the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult

Yahweh enthroned on the ark in the temple. Founded in cosmoscreating victory over chaos, Yahweh's kingship entails exclusive prerogatives to provide security and refuge for the community. These prerogatives place a two-fold obligation on the community, to trust absolutely in Yahweh alone for security and to ensure justice among its own members. In this connection, the term "poor" is not only a sociological but also an anthropological and theological category, whose binary opposite is not "rich" but "proud/arrogant." The "poor" in Zion are those who relinquish all attempt at self-protection in favor of Yahweh's promised presence to protect and deliver and who pursue Yahweh's aims for justice. While Zion, therefore, celebrates the security of Yahweh's presence as king, it also entails a principle of judgment: the "proud" are those who seek security through foreign alliances and their own arms, and who oppress the weak and poor. For Hosea and Isaiah, such injustice, foreign alliances, and reliance on arms are idolatry. "The specific ethical dimension of Zion symbolism" lies in the fact that "the availability of security in Zion is made conditional on the posture of the community."

Whence did this Zion tradition arise? Some trace it to pre-Israelite Jerusalem. To others, it arose as a component in the royal ideology, legitimizing the monarchy through its celebration of Yahweh's royal residence in Jerusalem. Ollenburger, however, distinguishes the Zion tradition sharply from the David tradition, tracing the former back to pre-monarchical Shiloh. However it may have been co-opted by the kings, Zion is not merely a creation of royal ideology, and in fact itself stands as a "consistent and radical" critique of royal pretensions and injustice.

Acknowledging the appropriateness of the Exodus tradition as a starting point for liberation theologians under conditions of oppression, Ollenburger proposes the Zion tradition as a more realistic basis for a biblical-theological word concerning "North Americans who enjoy, by and large, positions of wealth, prestige, and, hence, power." Has Zion, however, nothing to say to liberation movements, or the Exodus to North Americans? Some liberation theologians reject "quietism" in favor of divine-human synergism that may include violence in the struggle for liberation. Zion calls for synergism at the point of "caring for the poor and the practice of social justice." The "quietism" pertains to armed violence, that is, arrogance and idolatry (Hosea and Isaiah). As for North America, Zion is indeed germane, but the Exodus is no less relevant once we ask who are the Hebrews and who Pharaoh. In other words, is not the whole canon the proper basis for critique of any concrete situation?

Secondly, is the distinction between Davidic and Zion traditions ("'liberating' and 'oppressing' strands") overdrawn? That the Zion tradition pre-dates monarchy and is not reducible to it ought not to obscure the otherwise close connection between them. Even if Israel arose as a protest against oppressive monarchies and their theologies, monarchy. was not unambiguously rejected, and in several major late streams

544 - Zion the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult

of tradition it contributed to Israel's continuing self-understanding and hope. The question was (is) not simply pro or con, but pro what sort of monarchy. The Deuteronomic history, for example, presents an ideal of kingship consonant with Israel's covenant traditions. Given that history's theological rootage in both Moses-Sinai and David-Zion, the research question is, how much does its transformation of monarchy owe to Sinai and how much to Zion? The contemporary question is whether such an investigation would not shed more adequate light on the self-understanding and practice of the community of Jesus-Messiah.

Ollenburger's work is clear in conception, sound in method, rich in detail, and fertile in implication. It deserves careful study within, the scholarly and theological guilds as well as in the wider religious community, for whom its exegetical clarity and its frequent summarizing sections make it eminently accessible.

J. GERALD JANZEN

Christian Theological Seminary
Indianapolis, Indiana