Q: In Matthew 2:17-18, Jeremiah 31:15 is used to describe the mourning of the mothers of the slaughtered male infants of Bethlehem. In the context of Jeremiah 31, though, Rachel is representative of women from the southern part of the Northern Kingdom whose children had been killed or taken into exile as/after the Assyrians destroyed Samaria. (Rachel was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin.) So, how is that relevant to what happened in Bethlehem centuries later?
A: Although Matthew only cites part of Jeremiah 31:15, the whole scenario that Jeremiah describes embodies the footprints, so to speak, which the events narrated by Matthew retrace. Jeremiah 31:15 is just the definitive verse, sufficient to bring to mind the larger picture/context in Jeremiah 31.
Matthews idea is not the Jeremiah predicted that the mothers of infant males in Bethlehem would mourn the loss of their children due to Herod. Matthews idea is that the two scenarios share some common elements which indicate Gods modus operandi: (1) despite the mothers sorrow, they would have consolation (as Jeremiah 31:16 and the following material explains). (2) The missing children would someday come again from the land of the enemy -- a thing hoped for literally in Jeremiahs day, and spiritually in Matthews day. (3) Both Jeremiah and Matthew posited a new covenant which would be a consolation to the people -- Jeremiah saw this as something yet to come; Matthew saw it as something established through the Messiah.
As in the case of Mt. 2:15 and Hosea 11:1, were not dealing with a predictive prophecy, but rather the fulfillment of a typological parallel. For a brief review of typological concepts, one could do worse than the essay at
www.pbc.org/dp/smith2/ch9.html .
(In other news: there are a few places in the O.T. named Ramah or Rama. The place mentioned by Jeremiah -- and by Matthew, quoting him -- is probably the Ramah that was about as far north of Jerusalem as Bethlehem was south of Jerusalem.)
(And in yet other news: there might be another typological dimension here -- though it is not explicitly mentioned by Matthew, and so I present this merely as a suggestion. One of Matthews central themes is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of David. There was a time in Davids life when he had to flee from a wicked king and sojourn for a while outside the borders of Israel (in Philistia). As David was running away, he stopped at the tabernacle, which was at Nob. Similarly, there was a time in Jesus life when he had to flee from a wicked king (Herod) and sojourn for a while outside the borders of Israel (in Egypt). And, in both cases, innocents were caught in the middle -- in the case of David, king Saul had the priests at Nob killed (David had traveled to Nob from Naioth in Ramah; see First Samuel 20:1 and 21:1); in the case of Jesus, king Herod had the male children of Bethlehem and its environs killed.)
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Although Matthew only cites part of Jeremiah 31:15, the whole scenario that Jeremiah describes embodies the footprints, so to speak, which the events narrated by Matthew retrace. Jeremiah 31:15 is just the definitive verse, sufficient to bring to mind the larger picture/context in Jeremiah 31.
Matthews idea is not the Jeremiah predicted that the mothers of infant males in Bethlehem would mourn the loss of their children due to Herod. Matthews idea is that the two scenarios share some common elements which indicate Gods modus operandi: (1) despite the mothers sorrow, they would have consolation (as Jeremiah 31:16 and the following material explains). (2) The missing children would someday come again from the land of the enemy -- a thing hoped for literally in Jeremiahs day, and spiritually in Matthews day. (3) Both Jeremiah and Matthew posited a new covenant which would be a consolation to the people -- Jeremiah saw this as something yet to come; Matthew saw it as something established through the Messiah.
As in the case of Mt. 2:15 and Hosea 11:1, were not dealing with a predictive prophecy, but rather the fulfillment of a typological parallel. For a brief review of typological concepts, one could do worse than the essay at
www.pbc.org/dp/smith2/ch9.html .
(In other news: there are a few places in the O.T. named Ramah or Rama. The place mentioned by Jeremiah -- and by Matthew, quoting him -- is probably the Ramah that was about as far north of Jerusalem as Bethlehem was south of Jerusalem.)
(And in yet other news: there might be another typological dimension here -- though it is not explicitly mentioned by Matthew, and so I present this merely as a suggestion. One of Matthews central themes is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of David. There was a time in Davids life when he had to flee from a wicked king and sojourn for a while outside the borders of Israel (in Philistia). As David was running away, he stopped at the tabernacle, which was at Nob. Similarly, there was a time in Jesus life when he had to flee from a wicked king (Herod) and sojourn for a while outside the borders of Israel (in Egypt). And, in both cases, innocents were caught in the middle -- in the case of David, king Saul had the priests at Nob killed (David had traveled to Nob from Naioth in Ramah; see First Samuel 20:1 and 21:1); in the case of Jesus, king Herod had the male children of Bethlehem and its environs killed.)
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
