The City of Enoch was a Prototype of Later Wicked Cities
In leaving God’s presence, Cain traveled to Nod, had a son he named Enoch, and built a city named in his honor. The city was a fortification (the Hebrew word for city can mean fortified or fenced), pointing to Cain’s lack of faith in the preserving mark God had provided. Cain felt a need to protect himself.
The city of Enoch thus becomes man’s prototypical city of refuge. It places Cain’s city of refuge in contrast to later Palestinian cities of refuge established by God (Numbers 35:25-32). A point of irony is seen in God’s cities of refuge, which offered safe haven to those who had accidentally killed another person. Cain’s city was built to offer safe haven for him, a deliberate murderer:
The founder of the great city of Enoch – meaning “dedication” or “founding”?, was Cain. Unlike Abel, who looked for the heavenly paradise of the city whose architect and builder was God (Hebrews 11:10), Cain set out to found and build an earthly city, his descendants developing technology suited to creating an earthly paradise.
Cain’s city was located in the east (Genesis 4:16), which would have been watered by the Tigris, the easternmost river of paradise (Genesis 2:14). Founded by a fratricide and living in fear of his life, the city through its community would have afforded a place of security. This city of the Cainite line was apparently unrivaled as the great cosmopolis of antiquity.
Through intermarriage (Genesis 6:2) its citizens subdued the earth to the apostasy of their father Cain, filling the world with violence. Such was the ruin of sin wrought upon God’s creative mandate to subdue and fill the earth by this archetypical city of chaos. The flood of Noah was the overthrow of this first great urban enterprise of fallen man. [1]
Later Wicked Cities & their Contrast to the new Jerusalem
Cain’s unrepentant heart coupled with his reputation for vice, violence and immorality established the pattern for later cities such as Rome, Babylon, Sodom and Gomorrah. Judaic tradition recapitulates numerous features of the city of Enoch with Babylon (and thus Rome), Sodom and Gomorrah.
Though having the appearance of God-ordained cities, these cities were hardly the model of Godly cities of refuge. [2] Rather, these cities provided the illusion of safety to those who were ungodly, violent, and lawless – those attempting to escape judgment. These later cities bear the legacy of Cain as the man of sin. They are the antithesis of the garden environment ordained by God. His true city of refuge is the New Jerusalem:
The new Jerusalem is the symbol of government and those governed; the new temple is the seat of government; the new covenant is the instrument of government; the new Israel reveals those governed and their role; and the new creation is a final comprehensive presentation of both the governed and the Governor. [3]
In the new Jerusalem, there is perfect law, perfect government and true safety from judgment. Within the new Jerusalem, there is no violence, no idolatry, no immorality and no lawlessness. There is true eternal Sabbatical rest. Contrary to fallen man’s way, the new Jerusalem needs no fortification as it is a true place of safety and refuge, a city secured by its protector God. Note the promise of Zechariah:
4 and said to him: “Run, tell that young man, “Jerusalem will be a city without walls because of the great number of people and animals in it. 5 And I myself will be a wall of fire around it,” declares the LORD, “and I will be its glory within.” Zechariah 2
Jerusalem was Intended to Pattern the Heavenly new Jerusalem
If the new Jerusalem is God’s true city of refuge, one could ask if Jerusalem was to represent an earthly model of God’s ultimate city of refuge, especially given the new Jerusalem was an unseen heavenly city. We will denote the new Jerusalem as Jerusalem-that-is-above (Galatians 4:26) to emphasize its heavenly origin and its spiritual reality. Jerusalem in Palestine will be denoted Jerusalem-that-is-below to emphasize its earthly origin and its physical reality, in contrast to the new Jerusalem.
With Jerusalem-that-is-above as the true spiritual covenant-community, it is reasonable to expect that Jerusalem-that-is-below would serve as its shadow, patterned after heavenly Jerusalem. [4] Scripture affirms that Abraham knew of the new Jerusalem as he searched for a “city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Hebrews 11:12), a heavenly city (Hebrews 12:22), which John later saw coming down from heaven as the new Jerusalem at the end of the ages (Revelation 21:2). The new Jerusalem then, Jerusalem-that-is-above, represents the new covenant-community and city of God with the coming of the new world order in Christ. It is the city to which all believers aspire.
The implications are profound. Jerusalem-that-is-below represents s shadow and physical model of the true Jerusalem. As such, it is part of the old-world order that is passing away! [5] Jerusalem-that-is-above is the spiritual city of the new creation that has supplanted Jerusalem-that-is-below.
It testifies to what God planned as the ultimate city of refuge and city of righteousness, where God’s people safely dwell together with Him. [6] It also points to the loss of spiritual and religious import of Jerusalem-that-is-below as it could never truly represent a spiritual city of refuge.
For many, such an assertion may seem shocking. But it follows from the new creation. With the reality of new final creation’s coming, the shadows inevitably pass away as Hebrews affirms. It includes the passing away of the temple in Jerusalem and Aaronic priesthood. They are replaced by a new “eschatological” temple (the church) in which church members are also the new priesthood after Melchizedek.
Jerusalem’s History Affirms her Unsuitability Even as Model of the new Jerusalem
A review of Jerusalem’s history shows her inability to properly model the new Jerusalem. Jerusalem experienced its zenith under Solomon, with the building and consecration of the temple. The temple consecration was of particular import, with Yahweh’s presence filling the temple, a manifestation that His dwelling place had become Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:6-13).
Vs 13 reveals that the temple was to be the dwelling place of God “forever”. Solomon’s prayer was that God would keep His promise to David to “never fail to have a successor to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if only your descendants are careful in all they do to walk before me faithfully as you have done” (Emphasis mine). Yahweh’s answer was:
“I have heard the prayer and plea you have made before me; I have consecrated this temple, which you have built, by putting my Name there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there. 4 “As for you, if you walk before me in integrity of heart and uprightness, as David your father did, and do all I command and observe my decrees and laws, 5 I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father when I said, ‘You shall never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.’ 6 “But if you or your sons turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, 7 then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. 8 And though this temple is now imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff and say, ‘Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ 9 People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the Lord their God, who brought their fathers out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why the Lord brought all this disaster on them.’” 1 Kings 9
Solomon’s Idolatry Divides and Weakens the Kingdom
Solomon’s prayer was unfulfilled because he violated God’s covenant, intermarrying princesses of surrounding nations who led him into idolatry (1 Kings 3:1-3; cf. Deuteronomy 17:16; 1 Kings 11:1-6). He eventually built high places “on a hill east of Jerusalem”. [7] God tore the kingdom from Solomon in judgment (1 Kings 11:9-13, 29-39) dividing Israel into the Northern Kingdom under Jeroboam and the Southern Kingdom under Rehoboam.
The Northern Kingdom’s Idolatry and Eventual Destruction
Countless episodes of unfaithfulness followed. The Northern Kingdom quickly fell into idolatry under Jeroboam who set up golden calves in Bethel and Dan for worship (1 Kings 12:28-33). The Northern Kingdom eventually fell to Assyria after a lengthy series of unfaithful kings committed idolatry with the people. [8] The Northern Kingdom, as Yahweh warned, became a byword, never to reemerge. They lost all spiritual and religious relevance.
The Southern Kingdom’s Idolatry and Eventual Destruction
Matters were not appreciably better in Judah and Jerusalem. Under Rehoboam, Judah fell into idolatry (1 kings 14:22-24; 2 Chronicles 12:1-2), including use of male shrine prostitutes similar to the Canaanites. Idolatry would become widespread under a number of the kings who reigned over Judah in Jerusalem. [9]
God preserved Judah and Jerusalem for a time as a lamp for David’s sake (2 Chronicles 21:4-7; cf. 1 Kings 15:1-4), before rejecting their temple (Ezekiel 10) and allowing Judah and Jerusalem to fall to Nebuchadnezzar. Judah’s residents were then sent into exile to Babylon. Judah, and by implication Jerusalem, also became a byword.
Though God allowed His people to return under Cyrus, only a remnant did. They rebuilt the temple but it did not experience an infilling of God’s spirit as Solomon’s temple had. Jerusalem’s struggle to rebuild, together with a future in which she was under the hegemony of other nations, relegated her to a place of decreasing relevance and import.
Jerusalem was subdued and subjugated, unable to take dominion and unable to subdue her enemies. She was largely a failed enterprise awaiting restoration to her golden age through her coming Messiah. That most Jews post-Cyrus remained diapora, testifies to Jerusalem’s loss of religious and political relevance.
Yet her ultimate rejection of Jesus brought desolations again upon the city and temple, desolations from which she would not recover (Daniel 9:26-27; Matthew 23:38-39).Since Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 A.D., she has had no relevance in God’s redemptive plan. Rather, God’s redemptive plan has been carried forward by His church, His new temple and new covenant-community, the new Jerusalem.
And so will it be until the end. With the emergence of Israel as a nation-state in 1948, Jerusalem has gained international notoriety. Many pious religious Rabbis have sought a revival in Judaism, with many desiring a new temple, bringing outsized political and religious attention to Palestine. But God’s redemptive plan continues to be carried by His church, the new Jerusalem.
It is the Gospel message of Jesus Christ that is the true redemptive message, not the traditions and rituals of Judaism. Jerusalem-that-is-below has never, nor can it ever, advance the Gospel message or God’s redemptive plan when she rejects Christ. As part of the old-world order, she represents the community of the firstborn after the flesh, a community with hearts of stone who continue to reject the required transformation to hearts of flesh.
For those who see the political emergence of Israel as proof of renewed relevance in God’s eschatological plan, we would point out that though Israel continues to gain more land and control in Palestine, she lacks rest. [10] Israel is locked in a conflict underpinned by spiritual powers. There is no prospect of true peace or rest in the land or its people, apart from Christ. Nor can there be with Israel’s continued rejection of their Messiah. Jesus said, “Come to me . . . and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). True rest is only found in Christ.
Cain & Israel, The Way of Cain & Jerusalem-that-is-below
Jerusalem failed to model the heavenly city of refuge. Her history parallels the city of Enoch, with each providing a false sense of security for murderers. [11] Her residents parallel those of the city of Enoch, bragging they were secure from judgment for their sins (Jeremiah 7:9-10; Amos 2:5; 6:1, 8; Micah 3:11-12).
Both evidenced sexual immorality/marital covenantal violations (Genesis 4:23; Malachi 2:10-16). Both represent cities of violence and chaos. Citizens of both followed the way of Cain, worshiping God as they saw fit, rather than worshiping in spirit and truth.
What is striking, are the parallels with Scripture and Judaic tradition. That Isaiah calls Israel “rulers of Sodom” and “people of Gomorrah” enhances this view, pointing toward the reality that Jerusalem had become like two of the leading earthly cities that were described as Eden (Genesis 13:10; “garden of the Lord”).
Also noteworthy was Jerusalem’s destruction, in keeping with the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Babylon, Rome and the promise of destruction Mystery Babylon in Revelation. Jerusalem, like these cities of fallen men, sought Edenic community within her walls, but became as unrighteous and debased as them.
As with fallen-man’s debased garden-recreation, so it is with man’s depraved re-creation of God’s city of refuge. Cain’s licentious lifestyle built the city of Enoch and “the way of Cain” seems to have wrought Jerusalem. Rather than simulating God’s model of the city of peace, Jerusalem followed the model of fallen-man’s city of refuge, the city of Enoch and its successor cities Sodom, Gomorrah, Babylon and Rome.
This is the tragic history of the city of Jerusalem that followed the course of the city of Enoch. Like Enoch, Jerusalem housed murderers. Like Enoch, Jerusalem was guilty of murdering God’s elect and His Righteous One, refusing to acknowledge and accept God’s sovereign choice.
Like the residents of Enoch, Jerusalem would be guilty of sexual immorality and idolatry, worshiping God as they saw fit, denying the truth of God’s word. Like the residents of the city of Enoch, Jerusalem refused to repent despite the passing of generations; and like the city of Enoch, Jerusalem-that-is-below should expect the same judgment at the end of the age.
Relevance for Christians Today
Having Lost Eden, Man Still Deeply Desires it
The theme of man’s desire to recreate Eden has traditionally been uncommon in churches. Yet man’s creation from the ground brings an affinity between he and the land in which he would seek solace. The loss of Eden, and with it the loss of communion with God, would also point to a desire for restored relationship with God. Together, one could envision that mankind would seek restored community in an idealized garden-like environment.
Yet achieving this objective would seem beyond man’s reach given his separation from God and the resulting spiritual blindness. Man’s attempts to realize an idealized blissful community would seem at best debased, subject to his carnal nature. The city of Enoch may well represent mankind’s first attempt at such an idealized, yet debased Edenic community.
If so, the author of Genesis envisions Enoch as an unrighteous community in a failed attempt to secure itself against judgment. Though little detail is available about the conditions within the city, the parallels with later cities viewed as great communities suggest the city of Enoch should be viewed as the archetype of fallen man’s attempts to reestablish Edenic community.
An example may be found in Isaiah 1, dedicated to declaring Israel’s covenantal failures and her wicked behavior. Following a lengthy list of descriptors like “rebelled”, “Israel does not know”, “sinful nation”, ”brood of evildoers”, “children given to corruption”, “spurned the Holy One”, “desolate”, “laid waste” “like Sodom”, “like Gomorrah”, “trampling of my courts”, “evil assemblies”, “hands full of blood”, “harlot”, “murderers”, “rebels”, “thieves”, “bribes”, “ashamed”, “sacred oaks”, God warns of coming judgments designed to purify Jerusalem before declaring, “you will be disgraced because of the gardens that you have chosen”.
Sacred oaks affirm Israel’s idolatry in her grove-shrines, suggesting Israel sought solace, peace, security and God’s favor from the wrong (the false and thus idolatrous) gardens she had made. There is a hint that Israel, like the nations around her, seeks reestablishment of Edenic community. But like the nations, she has adopted their debased view of true Edenic community.
The descriptors certainly reveal that her heart has become like the nations around her, focused upon evil, yet foolishly expecting to simultaneously enjoy Edenic community. One sees the shameful, if not mocking tone of Isaiah. God’s true Edenic garden is dramatically different (Ezekiel 47:1-12, Revelation 22:1-3a). It is not a grove from which man practices idolatry and consequent sexual immorality of cult prostitution. It is a true paradise, with a life-giving river flowing from God’s throne and the life-sustaining tree of life bearing fruit.
John’s Warning to Those Seeking a new Eden
That Jerusalem-that-is-below is never explicitly mentioned in John’s Apocalypse is shocking and unexpected. John’s visions cover things past, present and future (Revelation 1:19), yet his visions are devoid of the very symbol of God’s people.
Rather, John extensively speaks of two cities: Babylon and the new Jerusalem, inviting a contrast between them. That Babylon is equated with Rome (17:9) yet retains the descriptor “Babylon” seems significant as Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and her temple, took the covenant-community captive and later gave legal authorization for Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple and city.
It places great significance on the name “Babylon”, where most ancient Jews rejected return to Jerusalem when authorization was granted, providing the basis for John’s warning of end-time exodus from this final “eschatological” Babylon (18:4). It would seem some ancient Jews believed their Edenic refuge was in Babylon, not Jerusalem.
But Babylon was the enemy of those of faith, having destroyed the temple and God’s covenant-community, carrying the surviving remnant to Babylon. Most did not return to Jerusalem when Cyrus approved it, choosing to remain part of Babylon, rejecting God’s call to return to the land of blessing.
John’s Babylon is a new, false Edenic City of Refuge
It would seem that John envisioned the destruction of God’s covenant-community – the new Jerusalem, at the end of the age (11:7; 13:7). John also saw that many Christians would become subsumed in a new “eschatological” Babylon – Rome, (17:5). If Jerusalem-that-is-below became subsumed in Babylon, it is reasonable to expect that the God’s new, covenant-community will become similarly subsumed in eschatological Babylon.
Babylon, like its forerunners Lamech, Sodom and Gomorrah, and its “daughter” Rome, was an attempt to simulate Edenic refuge. She was an ancient wonder, known for the hanging gardens, her technological prowess, the security of her impenetrable walls, her grand wealth, her advanced market driven international economy and her great culture.
In her heyday, she ruled the world. Yet she was full of evil and fell in one day, without a fight, offering a warning to God’s people. Often western culture is lauded for its technological advancement, its wealth, its market-driven system and its democratic ideals. Many of her cities are celebrated as marvelous achievements of Edenic community. Yet often these same cities are full of violence, bloodshed, injustice, immorality and idolatry. Too often western culture claims its success came from God and God as its protector.
But John contradicts such notions, revealing that the object of Edenic paradise is found only in the new Jerusalem, a heavenly city. It is not a human creation nor has an earthly origin. It is not a physical city but a spiritual city, not a city that is presently seen, but one that is presently unseen.
His warning to “my people” to come out from eschatological Babylon (18:4), shows how seductive our worldly system has become, even for God’s people. What makes eschatological Babylon so dangerous is that it is more than a physical city. It is an evil spirit animated throughout the cities of the world, their markets and democratic institutions. Its powers are thus incredibly delusive. It is seen everywhere, yet its dangerous and destructive spirit is unseen.
The Spirit that is Jerusalem-that-is-below
Jerusalem-that-is-below failed to model herself after God’s heavenly city of refuge, Jerusalem-that-is-above, becoming a city full of blood-violence, injustice, immorality and idolatry. She became like Babylon. John’s vision suggests the God’s new covenant-community will fall victim to the same sins, with all but a remnant subject to this new, more dangerous eschatological Babylon.
Earlier analysis suggested the harlot Oholibah, in her refusal to repent, debased into the harlot Babylon, the mother of harlots. A parallel picture emerges here, in which Jerusalem-that-is-below, in her refusal to repent, debases into eschatological Babylon, a “city-system” within which Christians seek earthly refuge, failing to see the intense evil inherent in its system. [12] With many Christian leaders promoting the narrative that our market-driven, democratic system is from God and its wealth and power are proof of God’s blessing, many may be fooled.
John realizes that Babylon is not reformable and must be destroyed at the end of the age. Nominal Christians resident/captured within it, ostensibly could represent Jerusalem-that-is-below – not the physical city of Jerusalem, but the spirit behind it, outwardly holy and religious but lacking faith in God’s unseen new Jerusalem, a community that must be transformed for presentation to Christ.
In this picture, those in our age must be transformed from Jerusalem-that-is-below to Jerusalem-that-is-above, much like the harlot must be transformed into the Bride of Christ. That transformation can be envisioned as an exodus from the evil systems of the old-world order into the unseen kingdom of God. Prompting that exodus would be trials and tribulations of our world and God’s Spirit urging departure.
Two truths then emerge. First, the physical city of Jerusalem in Palestine is not central to God’s redemptive plan and thus would have little relevance to eschatology, seen schematically in Figure 1. The attempts of pious Jews to reestablish her as their Edenic center of Judaism, are fallen man’s attempts to simulate Eden/an earthly city of refuge. Her residents will not be safe within her walls but will find themselves subject to God’s end-time judgment. The spirit behind Jerusalem-that-is-below makes her unsuitable, as does her earthly physical origins and her rejection of Christ.
Second, as the residents of the physical city of Jerusalem fell captive to Babylon as a result of their sins, John envisions a similar captivity of a pseudo-covenant-community Jerusalem-that-is-below for her idolatry of the evil system known as Babylon. As God’s purpose for Jerusalem was to purge her of her evil and prepare a righteous remnant for restoration, so it will be in our age. That transformation may be best described in Isaiah 54:
11 “O afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted, I will build you with stones of turquoise, your foundations with sapphires. 12 I will make your battlements of rubies, your gates of sparkling jewels, and all your walls of precious stones. 13 All your sons will be taught by the Lord, and great will be your children’s peace. 14 In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear. Terror will be far removed; it will not come near you. 15 If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing; whoever attacks you will surrender to you.
[1] Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 59-60
[2] For instance, Gage notes that both Sodom and Babel were associated with the east, Babel was built upon one of the rivers of paradise (Euphrates) while Sodom was well watered like the garden of the gods. While giving the appearance of paradise and safety, Babel fails God’s mandate to fill the earth while Sodom fails God’s mandate to be fruitful, showing the true, debased character of sinful attempts to replicate paradise. Each city in fact was full of violence. Gage observes: “These cities of men often have the appearance of paradise, but never the reality. Like Cain in his sacrifice, they may present a form of godliness, but they deny its power. By building high towers and ramparts to surround themselves, the earthly city dwellers seek safety from man and not God. By planting gardens to beautify their cities, the wicked would enjoy the aesthetic without the ethic; by collectivizing themselves the disobedient seek a community without a covenant.” Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 60-61
[3] Beale, Greg K., The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology, presented in Brower, Kent E. & Elliott, Mark W., Eschatology in the Bible & Theology, Downers Grove, Il, Intervarsity Press, 1997, p. 22
[4] The logic follows that of its temple, which was a pattern of the heavenly temple. If Jerusalem’s temple was patterned after the true temple in heaven, there is no reason to expect that Jerusalem-that-is-below wouldn’t be similarly patterned after the true Jerusalem in heaven.
[5] For many, this assertion may seem shocking. Yet an implication of studies on resurrection and redemption of all creation affirm that Jerusalem-that-is-below is part of the current physical creation subject to decay and thus cannot be part of the new-world order. See The Fall’s Curse-Judgments and their Consequences. Also, studies in idolatry revealed that things made from human hands represent idolatry. Jerusalem-that-is-below was built by human hands, making it biblically idolatrous. Its history of idolatry supports the contention. Further, its rejection of Christ was wholly based in the idolatry of Judaism’s teachings of men, another cipher for idolatry. See The Meaning of “Things Made with Human Hands“
[6] That Jerusalem-that-is-below was never one of the Levitical cities of refuge may provide some irony when contrasted with Jerusalem-that-is-above, which is the only city that can rightly be termed a city of refuge.
[7] Idolatry was only one of Solomon’s sins. Another was building a standing army with horses and chariots (1 Kings 4:26; cf. Deuteronomy 17:16).
[8] The Israelite kings that followed in the sins of Jeroboam including Nadab (1 Kings 15:26), Baasha (1 Kings 15:34), Elah (1 Kings 16:12-13), Zimri (1 Kings 16:18-19), Omri (1 Kings 16:25-26), Ahab (1 Kings 16:30-33), Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:52-53), Jehu (2 Kings 10:31), Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:2-3, 6), Jehoash (2 Kings 13:11), Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:24), Zechariah (2 Kings 15:9), Menahem (2 Kings 15:18), Pekahiah (1 Kings 15:28), Hoshea (2 Kings 16:2), whereupon Shalmaneser of Assyria conquered Israel and exiled the people to Assyria (2 Kings 17:3-6).
[9] The kings who reigned in Jerusalem often led the people into idolatry of the Canaanites as evidenced in Rehoboam’s son, Abijah (1 Kings 15:1-4), Jehoram (2 Kings 8:18; 2 Chronicles 21:6), Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 22:3-4), Ahaz (2 Kings 16:2-4; 2 Chronicles 28:1-4), Manasseh (2 Kings 21:2-11; 2 Chronicles 33:2-9), Amon (2 Kings 21:20-22; 2 Chronicles 33:22-23), Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:32), Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:37), Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:9), Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:19; 2 Chronicles 36:12-14). Despite the frequent idolatry, there were kings in Judah and Jerusalem that brought revival and righteousness such as Asa (1 Kings 15:11-14; 2 chronicles 14:2-4), Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 24:43-44; 2 Chronicles 17:3-6; 20:32), Joash (2 Kings 12:2; 2 Chronicles 24:2), Amaziah (2 Kings 14:3; 2 Chronicles 25:2), Azariah (2 Kings 15:3 2 Chronicles 26:4-5), Jotham (2 Kings 15:34; 2 Chronicles 27:2), Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:3-6; 2 Chronicles 29:2), Josiah (2 Kings 22:2; 2 Chronicles 34:2). Even among these kings, there were instances where the high places were not removed including Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:43; 2 Chronicles 20:33), Joash (2 Kings 12:3; 2 Chronicles 24:18-19), Amaziah (2 Kings 14:4; 2 Chronicles 25:2), Azariah (2 Kings 15:4; 2 Chronicles 26:16-20) and Jotham (2 Kings 15:35; 2 Chronicles 27:2). There were also instances where the people continued to practice idolatry despite a revival driven by the king (e.g. Jotham, 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and Manasseh 2 Chronicles 33:12-17; Josiah, Jeremiah 3:6:10). This list is provided to show the totality of failures of the Israelites, their kings and their capital city Jerusalem.
[10] Though the Jewish people deeply seek to make Jerusalem their city of refuge from an increasingly antisemitic world, there is nothing more emblematic of their failure than the project to surround greater Jerusalem with a “separation barrier”. It is manifest proof that their efforts are those of fallen man’s attempts to restore Edenic community. Israel appears to be putting her confidence in her fortifications and armaments rather than in God (Deuteronomy 20:4; Psalm 20:7; Isaiah 31:1).
[11] Jerusalem’s deliberate bloodshed was particularly emblematic of her failure as a city of refuge, and the focus of the prophets (Isaiah 59:3, 7; Jeremiah 7:6; 19:4; 22:3, 17; Lamentations 4:13; Ezekiel 7:23; 22:2-4, 6, 9, 12, 27; 24:6-9; 33:25; Micah 3:10; 7:2; Habakkuk 2:12). Like the city of Enoch, Jerusalem’s residents, though guilty of intense bloodshed, foolishly thought themselves safe through her fortifications and their birth-relationship with God. They would not listen to His prophets and repent (Haggai 2:12-14; Zechariah 1:2-6; 3:9; 5:6-11; 7:4-14; 8:14-17; 10:2-3; 11:4-17; 13:1-6; Malachi 1:1-2, 6-14; 2:1-17; 3:5-15; 4:1), choosing instead to continue to persecute and murder God’s prophets (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34) and ultimately rejecting and murdering the greatest prophet Jesus (Matthew 26:2; Mark 10:33; Luke 22:15). Their rejection and murder of Christ would return judgment upon Jerusalem, with her residents scattered and driven into exile for a time far greater than the prior seventy-year exile (Matthew 24:16-18; Mark 13:14-16; Luke 19:43-44). This judgment was fitting given her behavior. Her deliberate and frequent bloodshed of the righteous climaxing in Christ, demonstrated that she feared no future judgment!
[12] The language used to describe Jerusalem-that-is-below is strikingly similar to that used in Revelation 17:1-6 to describe the harlot Babylon. A parallel is also seen in the events surrounding Cain and Abel, and those of the harlot Babylon of Revelation 17:1-6 and the persecuted woman of Revelation 12:1-6. It would appear that John’s vision pictures the harlot Babylon as the prophetic outcome of the way of Cain while the prophetic outcome of Abel is the believing remnant through which (and for whom) the Messiah comes.