How does Matthew 2:18 fulfill Jeremiah 31?

Explanation:

In order to understand why Matthew states that Jeremiah 31:15 is fulfilled in Matthew 2:18, we need to understand the context of Jeremiah 31:1–40. There we read a prophecy of hope to the people of Judah. Although Judah is about to be exiled by King Nebuchadnezzar into Babylon, the Lord promises that they shall return from the land and go back into their own country (Jeremiah 31:16).⁶ Rachel is portrayed as the mother of Israel, and she will weep for her children when Judah is exiled. Still, there is hope in God who promises their return, as well as a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31–34).

Matthew recognizes that there is a parallel between the prophecy of Jeremiah and the life and ministry of Jesus. When Herod learns of Jesus’ birth, he orders all males under two years old to be killed in Bethlehem. This causes the mothers of Israel in Bethlehem to mourn for their children, just as the mothers of Israel mourned at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Still, Matthew knows that there is ultimate hope in the ministry of Jesus Christ. Although the mothers weep for their children, Jesus will return from Egypt and his ministry will culminate in the redemptive plan of God for all ages.⁷

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that it asks us to stretch the parallels between Jeremiah 31:15 and Matthew 2:18. We know from Jeremiah’s prophecy that the mothers of Israel mourn because their children are taken into exile. Then the Lord instructs them not to weep, for the exiles will be returned into the land (Jeremiah 31:16). It is hard to see how Matthew could apply the sorrow of the mothers of Israel to the sorrow of the woman of Bethlehem whose children have been killed. In the case of Jeremiah 31:1–40, the mothers’ children will return but in the case of Matthew 2:18 those children will not return.

Response to counterargument:

A couple of points can made against this counterargument. First, Jeremiah 31:15 never states that the mothers of Israel mourn the fact that their children have been taken into exile. Although the passage is found within the context of exile, it states that the reason Rachel (mother of Israel) is weeping is because her children are not. This implies exile but it also implies death. Second, what follows is a promise from God that the exiles will return (Jeremiah 31:16). Since some of the mothers likely wept because their children had died, Matthew sees in Jeremiah a deeper, eschatological promise. God instructs the mothers of Israel not to weep, not only because some of their children would return from Babylon but also because there is eternal hope in the future ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus, Matthew perceives that events of Israel’s history anticipate the life and ministry of Christ.

Explanation:

Ramah was the city where King Nebuchadnezzar stationed the people of Israel before taking them into Babylon (Jeremiah 40:1). Ramah was located north of Jerusalem, on the way to Bethel in the vicinity where Rachel was buried (1 Samuel 10:2).⁸ Jeremiah depicts Rachel crying for her children who are stationed in Ramah and being led into captivity. Interestingly, Genesis notes that Rachel was buried by Jacob on the way to Ephrath, which was Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19).⁹ Later rabbinic tradition emphasized this point by suggesting that in fact Rachel was buried not on the way to Bethlehem but in Bethlehem.^10,11

The parallels of exile, Rachel mourning for her children, and Rachel’s connect to Bethlehem did not go unnoticed for Matthew. He perceived the connection between the mothers of Israel mourning for their children in light of the exile, and the rabbinic notion of Rachel being buried in Bethlehem. That Jesus is born in Bethlehem and exiled into Egypt, and the mothers of Israel mourn over the loss of their children at the hands of Herod, is evidence that history ultimately fulfills God’s redemptive plan.

Counterargument:

Where Rachel was buried according to Jewish tradition is not at stake. The fact is, Rachel is the metaphorical mother of Israel, so when Jeremiah depicts Rachel weeping over the exile into Babylon (Jeremiah 31:15), this has nothing to do with the location of her burial in the vicinity of Ramah.¹² Rather, it has to do with the fact that Rachel represents the mothers of Israel who mourn at this cataclysmic moment in Israel’s history. The reason the complaint sounds in Ramah in Jeremiah 31:15 is because Ramah is the place where the citizens were bound before being led to Babylon (Jeremiah 40:1).

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument is reasonable. It is fair to hold that because Rachel represents the mothers of Israel we do not need to push the notion that her burial site was connected with Bethlehem. The connection between Rachel's grieving and the exile is enough for Matthew to see parallels in Jeremiah with the life and ministry of Jesus. Still, while the connection with Bethlehem is not necessary because of the universality of Rachel as the mother of Israel, it is still possible.

Possible weaknesses:

The only problem with this view is that it might be see more parallels between Jeremiah and the birth of Jesus than are warranted. While it is true that Jeremiah 31:1–40 is a hopeful prophecy, Matthew makes no mention of this hope. Rather, he points out that the woman mourns because of the atrocities of Herod, just as the mothers of Israel must have mourned when their children were taken into exile. The fact is, when Judah was exiled by Babylon, this marked a significantly sorrowful moment in Israelite history because it seemed as though the exodus, wilderness wandering, sacrificial system, settling in the land, and monarchies were all for naught. Thus, the parallel from Matthew might simply be that when Herod murdered the children under two years old in Bethlehem, such sorrow had not been seen since the time of Jeremiah.

Explanation:

The exile was as foundational to Jewish life as the exodus.¹⁶ Thus, since Jesus’ life and ministry is the culmination of the history of Israel, Matthew perceives that when Jesus and his family are forced into Egypt, this is a sort of exile. When Matthew quotes from Jeremiah 31:15, his purpose is twofold. In the first place, he recognizes that the mothers of Israel mourn over the loss of their children at the hands of Herod. In the second place, they mourn because Jesus and his family are exiled into Egypt, just as the Israelites were exiled into Babylon. For Matthew, the recapitulation of the life of the nation in the life of Jesus demonstrates God’s purpose in Jesus.¹⁷

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is twofold. First, it imports meaning that runs counter to the immediate context. In Matthew 2:13–15 we encounter the notion that Jesus and his family must flee to Egypt because Herod seeks to destroy the child. If Jesus being forced into Egypt is supposed to mimic the exile, this would be Matthew’s opportunity to reference Jeremiah 31:15. Instead, he references Hosea 11:1, pointing out that Jesus will return from Egypt just as the Israelites escaped during the exodus. Of course, the exodus happens centuries before the exile, so it is hard to see why Matthew would conflate these events.

Next, Matthew explains that Herod brutally murdered all the firstborn males under two years old in Bethlehem. Matthew then points out that this event fulfills what was spoken by Jeremiah. Rachel weeps for her children, but she refuses to be consoled because they are no more (Matthew 2:18). The exile is a paradigmatic moment of deep sorrow for the mothers of Israel, and a similar moment of sorrow was initiated by Herod’s wickedness. Thus, the immediate context suggest that Matthew refers to the sorrow of the mothers over their children being killed. It says nothing about the notion that those mothers knew that Jesus was the Messiah, or that he had to flee to Egypt, or that they felt any special empathy toward him and his family.

Finally, if one is looking for parallels between Jesus’ life and ministry and the exile, his being forsaken by God at the cross of Golgotha is the place to look. Israel was exiled because they sinned against God, so he turned away from them. Although Jesus himself did not sin, he took on the sins of the people such that God turned away from Jesus. Golgotha is the place of the exile. This episode from Matthew is the place of the exodus (Matthew 2:15).

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it finds meaning by importing themes from the broad literary context that run counter to the immediate context. It is a principle of interpretation that a passage makes sense as it relates to the natural meaning in the immediate context. This interpretation takes themes from Jeremiah 31:1–40 that fall outside Jeremiah 31:15 and applies them to Matthew 2:18. Such a procedure is fine but the immediate context of Matthew 2:18 has the greatest influence and controls the range of meaning. The notion that the mothers of Israel weep because Jesus is forced into Egypt is foreign to the text.