How does Matthew 2:18 fulfill Jeremiah 31?

Matthew 2:18 (ESV)

18 “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”

In short

Matthew 2:18 fulfills Jeremiah 31:15–16 typologically

because in both passages the mothers of Israel weep over their children, and yet there is future hope; or
because the tears of the mothers of Israel are for their children who go into exile, just as Jesus was exiled into Egypt.

Matthew quotes from the prophet Jeremiah to indicate that the circumstances of Matthew 2:16–17 fulfill what the prophet wrote. How does the killing of all those two years old and younger in the region of Bethlehem fulfill the prophecy of Jeremiah?

This prophecy from Jeremiah 31 is offered as a prophecy of hope. It explains that the people of Judah will be exiled by King Nebuchadnezzar into Babylon which will cause the mothers of Israel, represented by Rachel, to weep (Jer. 31:15). Still, God asks the mothers to calm their weeping because the children will return (Jer. 31:16). Centuries later, the males under two years old are killed at the hands of Herod, and once again the mothers of Israel weep because their children are no more. Still, there is eschatological hope in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Some authors think that the reason Matthew sees a parallel between Jeremiah 31:15 and Matthew 2:16–17 is not the theme of hope but the theme of exile. They think that there is a connection between the mothers of Israel weeping in Jeremiah 31:15 because of the exile, and the infant Jesus and his family being forced into Egypt. They argue that the mothers of Israel weep, both because their children are slain, and because Jesus and his family are exiled. The problem with this interpretation is that there is no evidence from the text to suggest that the mothers of Israel had any idea who Jesus was, or that he and his family fled to Egypt. Further, if Jesus does participate in an exile, this is more likely his experience at Golgotha than his escape as an infant into Egypt.

Matthew perceives that the sorrow and hope of Jeremiah 31 are fulfilled in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ—sorrow because of the wickedness of sinful humans such as Herod, and hope in the reconciliatory work of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Contents

Interpretation 1:
Matthew 2:18 fulfills Jeremiah 31:15–16 typologically because in both passages the mothers of Israel weep over their children and yet there is future hope.
Interpretation 2:
Matthew 2:18 fulfills Jeremiah 31:15–16 because the tears of the mothers of Israel are for their children who go into exile, just as Jesus was exiled into Egypt.

Interpretation 1:

Matthew 2:18 fulfills Jeremiah 31:15–16 typologically because in both passages the mothers of Israel weep over their children and yet there is future hope.

Summary:

Matthew is familiar with Jeremiah 31:1–40 and notices parallels between the prophecy and Herod’s attempt to kill the infant Jesus by massacring the male infants under two in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). Jeremiah notes that the mothers of Israel weep over their children who are killed or exiled into Babylon (Jeremiah 31:15). Still, there is hope because God promises that the children will return (Jeremiah 31:16). Similarly, the mothers of Bethlehem weep for their slain children, but there is ultimate hope in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

There is sorrow, hardship, and suffering in life, sometimes at a rate that is too much to bear. Praise God for the future hope we have due to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. God’s perfect judgment will bring justice, and all those who place their faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of the suffering they have endured, will eventually rejoice in the God of glory.

Advocates:

Craig L. Blomberg
Donald Carson
David Turner

Minor differences:

All our authors agree that Matthew sees theological parallels in Jeremiah 31:1–40.^1,2,3 The mothers of Israel are weeping for their children, and yet there is a future hope. In Jeremiah’s context the sorrow is for the children who are exiled to Babylon (Jeremiah 31:15), and the future hope is the return from exile (Jeremiah 31:16). In Matthew’s context the sorrow is for the male children who have been killed by Herod (Matthew 2:16), and the future hope is in the ministry of Jesus Christ. One difference between our authors is that Carson finds an additional parallel to highlight. He notes that the mothers weep in Jeremiah 31:1–40 because their children are exiled, and he sees the weeping culminate with the mothers of Bethlehem.⁴ Thus, Matthew chooses Jeremiah 31:15 not only because of the parallel themes of hope but also because of the theme of exile. The exile causes the mothers of Israel to weep—even the mothers of Bethlehem in Matthew’s day—but the tears of the exile will end because of the ministry of Jesus Christ.⁵

Arguments

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.

Interpretation 2:
Matthew 2:18 fulfills Jeremiah 31:15–16 because the tears of the mothers of Israel are for their children who go into exile, just as Jesus was exiled into Egypt.

Summary:

When the children of Judah were exiled by Nebuchadnezzar into Babylon the mothers of Israel wept for their children (Jeremiah 31:15). Similarly, when Jesus and his family are forced into Egypt at the threat of King Herod, the mothers of Israel weep for their slain children, and at Jesus’ exile. Matthew chooses this passage from Jeremiah, not only because the mothers of Israel weep for the children who are slain but also because Jesus and his family are exiled into Babylon.

Advocates:

Leon Morris
John Nolland

Minor differences:

Both of our authors think that the reason Matthew chose this passage from Jeremiah is, at least in part, that the mothers of Israel weep because Jesus is exiled into Egypt. Nolland is slightly more explicit than Morris when explaining this interpretation. Morris seems to confuse the reasons for mourning: in one moment he suggests the mourning has to do with Jesus being exiled, and the next he suggests it has to do with the children who have been slain. Morris writes, But certainly Jeremiah speaks as Rachel weeping for her children as the Israelites went off into exile…and relates this to the fact that the infant Jesus went off into exile in Egypt.¹³ Here, Morris seems clear. Rachel weeping in Jeremiah signifies weeping that Jesus has been exiled. Still, a few sentences later he remarks, Nothing can alter the fact of the exile and nothing can alter the fact of the killings at Bethlehem. Thus the grief remains.¹⁴ Now Morris seems to suggest that the weeping has to do with the children being slain.

Nolland is more confident that the weeping of Rachel has to do with Jesus being exiled, even if it also has to do with sorrow due to the wickedness of Herod. Nolland writes, It would be easy…for Matthew to encompass the slaughter of the children and the displacement of Jesus and his family as his intended referent.¹⁵ So, if there is a difference between our authors, it is one of articulation and confidence.

Arguments

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.

Interpretation 1:

Matthew 2:18 fulfills Jeremiah 31:15–16 typologically because in both passages the mothers of Israel weep over their children and yet there is future hope.

Interpretation 2:Matthew 2:18 fulfills Jeremiah 31:15–16 because the tears of the mothers of Israel are for their children who go into exile, just as Jesus was exiled into Egypt.

Interpretation 2:
Matthew 2:18 fulfills Jeremiah 31:15–16 because the tears of the mothers of Israel are for their children who go into exile, just as Jesus was exiled into Egypt.