ZION zī’ ən (צִ֫יֹּ֥ון; Σιών, G4994, KJV “SION”, stronghold [?]). The SE hill of Jerusalem; poetically, the entire city.

I. Name.

A. Frequency. The noun Zion occurs over 150 times in the OT. It appears primarily in the Psalms (thirty-eight times), the pictorial personifications of Lamentations (fifteen times), and the prophets, esp. Isaiah (forty-seven times). As G. Vos explains, “Isaiah’s vision of Jehovah’s giory centers in the sanctuary and the city [of Zion], whereas to Amos and Hosea, and even Micah, it rested upon the land,” Israel as a whole (Biblical Theology, p. 316). Within Isaiah the term Zion is distributed almost equally between chs. 1-33 and the so-called Deutero- and Trito-Isaiahs.

B. Etymology. The derivation of Zion remains uncertain, despite numerous proposals; e.g., among Heb. roots are צוה, to erect, and therefore a structure or צוה, צחה, or ציה, to be dry, whence צִיָּ֖ה (Isa 41:18; 53:2, etc.), and צָיֹ֔ון (25:5; 32:2 only), a dry place, Jerusalem’s locale being semi-arid. From the Arab. is ṩahweh, ridge, whence the modern Arab. name for Zion, Sahyūn. From the Hurrian is ṩeya, brook, suggesting the Gihon spring and brook in Jerusalem’s otherwise dry area (IDB, IV: 959). More plausible is derivation from an assumed Sem. root צין, protect (KB, p. 802); cf. the initial reference to Zion in Scripture: the Jebusite מְצֻדַ֣ת צִיֹּ֑ון, stronghold (ASV, fortress) of Zion (2 Sam 5:7).

II. Geographical application.

A. Canaanite citadel. In the aforementioned reference Zion has already become a proper noun, apparently distinguishing the citadel of Jerusalem (q.v., II, B).

B. Jerusalem’s SE hill. Others have suggested that Zion may designate the whole walled town that covered the SE hill of Jerusalem, since the same v. goes on to identify Zion with “the City of David,” q.v., presumably the once Canaanitish city as it existed at the time of its capture by David in 1003 b.c. After Solomon had expanded Jerusalem northward to include Mt. Moriah, the latter king, at his dedication of the Temple on this new site in 958 b.c., is said to have brought up the Ark of the covenant “out of the City of David, which is Zion” (1 Kings 8:1; 2 Chron 5:2). Only in post-Biblical times did the name Zion become erroneously transferred to the south-western hill of Jerusalem (q.v., I, B).

C. Temple hill. The presence of the Ark of Yahweh in the old SE city (cf. 2 Sam 6:17) gave to Zion rich religious connotations (see below, III). It came to signify the city of God, the city of the great King (Pss 46:4; 48:2): a holy hill (Ps 2:6; cf. Joel 2:1; Zech 8:3), the chosen place of God’s abode (Pss 9:11; 132:13) and His sanctuary (20:2), the goal of pilgrimage (84:5, 7), and the place of deliverance and salvation (20:2; 69:35) and of praise and worship (9:14; 65:1). Then with the transfer of the Ark to Moriah, the Temple mount too came to be called Zion (78:68, 69), or more specifically, “Mt. Zion on the far N” (48:2). The Temple and Zion had entered into association (Jer 50:28; 51:10).

D. Jerusalem. It was only a short step until Zion was employed for the whole multi-hilled metropolis, in simple synonymous parallelism with the name Jerusalem (Isa 40:9; Mic 3:12); cf. Psalm 133:3, “the mountains [pl.] of Zion.” Among the later poets and prophets, “Zion” (Zech 1:17) or the “sons” (Lam 4:2) and “‘daughters” (Song of Solomon 3:11; Isa 10:32) of Zion come therefore to connote the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Jer 51:35), whatever their precise geographical hill or quarter. Zion is the whole city, cited in parallel with the other fortified cities of Judah as a place of safety (Jer 4:5, 6; cf. Lam 5:11); and people of other cities are thus said to be brought “to Zion” (Jer 3:14). The phrase “daughter of Zion” may then be used in personification of the entire city, which is like a young woman of beauty (Lam 1:6; “majesty,” ASV; cf. 2:1;) or in need of comfort (1:17).

E. The land of Judah. Finally, in exile, the whole Israelite nation came to be called, “Zion...who dwell with the daughter of Babylon” (Zech 2:7); and, by the time of the postexilic restoration in 537 b.c., the joyful ex-captives are described as “those that returned to Zion” (Ps 126: la ASV, RSV mg.; cf. Jer 50:5). Whatever may have been their actual villages of settlement in Judah, to be “radiant over the goodness of the Lord” was to “come and sing aloud on the height of Zion” (Jer 31:12). The “daughter of Zion” comes to personify the entire people of Israel (6:23), e.g., “gasping for breath” or “stretching out her hands” and calling forth with words (4:31); and the sons of Zion are used as a parallel, equally national, with the sons of Greece (Zech 9:13).

III. Theological connotations. Particularly in this broader context religious connotations come to the fore.

A. Positive. It was Yahweh who brought back the Zion returness of 537; for from the human viewpoint it seemed unbelievable: they “were like those who dream” (Ps 126:1b). God Himself described redeemed Israel as “My people, who dwell in Zion” (Isa 10:24; cf. 51:16); and the captives were foretold as saying, “Let us go up to Zion, to the Lord our God” (Jer 31:6). The “sons” or “daughters” (Isa 4:4, Zech 9:9) or “children” (Joel 2:23 ASV) of Zion are those who stand in a special relationship to God; and the repeated phrase, “the virgin (the) daughter of Zion” (2 Kings 19:21; Isa 23:12; 37:22; cf. Jer 14:17; 18:13; 31:4, 21; Lam 1:15; or Amos 5:2) signifies the city’s inviolability—or former inviolability (Lam 2:13)—because of divine care (KD, Kings, p. 449). In Isaiah 47:1, the “virgin daughter of Babylon,” connotes a similar protectedness; cf. Jeremiah 46:11, “of Egypt.” Among specific positive characteristics, the “daughters of Judah” possess joy because of God’s providential judgments (Pss 48:11; 97:8); and “Mount Zion, which cannot be moved, but abides for ever” serves as a point of comparison for those who trust in Yahweh (125:1). Even further, the city with its towers, bulwarks, and palaces stood as proof of their eternal reconciliation with God (48:12-14); hence its description as “the perfection of beauty” (50:2), the chosen object of God’s love (78:68), “more than all the [other] dwelling places of Jacob” (87:2). Yahweh is great in Zion (99:2); He blesses His own “from Zion” (128:5; 134:3). Mount Zion thus became a basis of appeal for God’s remembrance (74:2) and for His mercy and pity (102:13) and, when He answered, the place for declaring His name in praise (102:20, 21; 135:21), in song (137:3; 149:2), and at the set feasts (Isa 33:20). At the time of King Ahaz’s death in 726 b.c. Isaiah proclaimed that since Yahweh had founded Zion, His people in their affliction could anticipate refuge within her gates (14:32). Specifically, as the 701 b.c. onslaught of Sennacherib drew near (cf. 64:10), he spoke of God’s defense of Zion (31:4; 33:1-5)—that “the Assyrian shall fall by a sword, not of man” (31:8, 9)—and fearlessly proclaimed the inviolability of Zion (37:22, 32-35). Even the Moabites, whom God is willing graciously to receive as “His outcasts” (16:4), are admonished to flee to Zion, a “refuge...from the Assyrian destroyer” (vv. 1, 4; cf. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah, I:282-284, though contrast E. J. Young, NICOT, Isaiah, I:463). The prophet anticipated the gifts of congratulation that would be sent to Zion by the Cushite rulers of Egypt’s 25th dynasty (18:7); cf. their actual presence under Tirhakah at the time of Sennacherib’s destruction in 701 (37:9; cf. Chronology of the OT, X, B, and the testimony of Herodotus, II, 141, on the miraculous overthrow of the Assyrians). As Isaiah’s own summarization immediately after the event puts it (cf. WTJ, 30 [1967], 56), God “put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory” (46:13; cf. 52:1, 2, 7, 8).

B. Negative. The special relationship to God that was connoted by the term Zion might become one, not of acceptance but of subsequent rejection, because of failure on the part of God’s chosen people (Isa 3:17; 49:14; Jer 6:2; 9:19). Hence come the prophetic statements of woe to Zion (Jer 4:21; 6:23) or the question, “Yahweh no longer in Zion?” (8:19, Jerusalem Bible). Micah in particular seemingly preached the exact opposite of the Isaianic doctrine of the “inviolability of Zion” (above), for Jerusalem’s compounded iniquities necessitated its total overthrow (Mic 3:10-12; cf. Lam 2:4). It could represent only religious perversity when “the daughters of Zion” became characterized by haughtiness and wantonness (Isa 3:16), “at ease in Zion” in their iniquities (Amos 6:1; Lam 4:22). They fell into the category of those who “hate Zion” and so must surely be put to shame (Ps 129:5). As even Isaiah could say, “The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless” (Isa 33:14). For, negatively, God had come to loathe Zion (Jer 14:19; cf. 30:17). Micah’s original 8th-cent. threats were averted by the timely repentance of King Hezekiah (26:19); cf. the fasting and solemn assembly in Zion (Joel 2:15) that had averted God’s wrath (v. 18 ASV) a few years previously. Jeremiah’s 7th-cent. “Temple Sermon” renewed the divine proclamation that assurances of safety, based upon the mere physical existence of the temple on Mt. Moriah, were “lying words” (Jer 7:4, 8; cf. v. 12) and that sin would lead to the ruin of Zion (9:19). This became in fact the result, in 586 b.c. (51:24, 35), when the daughter of Zion went forth out of the city to dwell in the field and came even unto Babylon (Mic 4:10). The exiles could only weep when they remembered Zion (Ps 137:1).

C. Eschatological. Neither 586 b.c. nor a.d. 70 mark the end of Biblical Zion: the city, with all its prophetic associations assumes a prominent place in Biblical eschatology. As early as 1000 b.c. David had anticipated that era when Yahweh would send forth His Son His anointed מְשִׁיחֹֽו, His Messiah (Ps 2:2, 7, 12), and thus set His King upon His holy hill of Zion (v. 6), who should rule in the midst of His enemies (110:2). He prayed for the day when salvation would come out of Zion and Yahweh would restore prosperity and joy to His people (14:7; 53:6; cf. Zeph 3:14). Thus Isaiah foretold both the security of those who would believe in Christ at His first coming, fulfilling God’s promise that He would “[lay] in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tested stone” (Isa 28:16; cf. J. A. Alexander, Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, I:454, and J. H. Raven, The History of the Religion of Israel, p. 411), and the joyful shouts of the inhabitants of Zion when the Holy One of Israel will appear in their midst at His Second Coming (12:6; 59:20) and sorrow and weeping will be no more (30:19; 35:10). Yahweh will roar as a lion from Zion (Joel 3:17) and regather His ransomed people (Isa 35:9, 10). Then at last the remnant of Zion will attain true holiness through God’s cleansing Spirit (4:3, 4) and be overspread with glory (v. 5). The appearing of this divine glory in Zion will lead all nations, first, to a futile attack upon the city (29:7, 8; cf. Zech 12:2, 3; 14:1, 2), part of “the Battle of Armageddon” (Rev 16:16). God’s actual purpose, however, is to demonstrate His deliverance for the faithful (Joel 2:32; Obad 17) and to achieve His “day of vengeance, and a year of recompense for the cause of Zion” (Isa 34:8; cf. Joel 3:16, 17). It will lead them, in the second place, to a fear (reverence) for the name of Yahweh (Ps 105:15, 16). The former enemies will come to this “mountain of the house of the Lord” seeking His word and His law (Isa 2:2, 3; 60:14; Mic 4:2); for here His kingdom will have its center (Mic 4:8) in vindication (Isa 62:1, 11) and in joy (61:3). The God of Zion will, moreover, reign forever (Ps 146:10; Mic 4:7), in His city which will never be removed (Isa 33:20). Zion has here received its final association, with that ultimate kingdom of God’s new heaven and new earth: the “new Jerusalem” appears after the close of the “many days” of the earthly millennial kingdom and after the final judgment (“punishment,” 24:22, ASVmg., RSV); and its glory marks the termination of history’s whole present cycle of sun and moon, day and night (v. 23; cf. Rev 20:11-21:5; 22:5).

D. Universalistic. But since Zion is thus “the joy of all the earth” (Ps 48:2; cf. Isa 18:7), it became synonymous with redemption as occurring in any nation; accordingly, to know God and to be written in His book is equated in the Psalms with being “born in Zion” (Ps 87:4-6). It suggests Isaiah’s description of the elect of God as “every one who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem” (Isa 4:3; cf. E. J. Young, NICOT, Isaiah, I:180, 181).

E. NT. In apostolic usage Mt. Zion (Sion, KJV) comes to represent “the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22). Yet Zion may also refer to the people of Israel (primarily in quotations from the OT, as Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6) and of Jerusalem (Matt 21:5; John 12:15); or it may identify that literal mountain on which Christ and His followers will stand in triumph at His Second Coming (Rev 14:1; cf. Obad 21) and from which He will go forth to rule forever (Rom 11:26; cf. Ps 132:13, 14).

Bibliography G. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament (1883), 509-521; G. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus, the Christ (1948), III:32-63; BDT, 296, 297; J. B. Payne, Theology of the Older Testament (1962), 482-504; IDB, IV:959, 960.