Matthew 2:16-18

Matthew 2:16-18

[16] Then  Herod,  that  he was mocked  of  the wise men,  was exceeding  wroth,  and  sent forth,  and slew  all  the children  that were in  Bethlehem,  and  in  all  the coasts  thereof,  from  two years old  and  under,  according  to the time  which  he had diligently enquired  of  the wise men.  [17] Then  was fulfilled  that which  Jeremy  the prophet,  saying,  [18] In  Rama  a voice  heard,  and  weeping,  and  great  mourning,  Rachel  weeping  for her  children,  and  would  not  be comforted,  because  not. 

What does Matthew 2:16-18 Mean?

Contextual Meaning

Some critical scholars discounted Matthew"s account of Herod"s slaughter of the Bethlehem children because there is no extrabiblical confirmation of it. However, Bethlehem was small, and many other biblically significant events have no secular confirmation, including Jesus" crucifixion. One writer estimated that this purge would have affected only about20 children. [1] He believed that the total population of Bethlehem at this time was under1 ,000. Compared to some of Herod"s other atrocities this one was minor. [2]
"Emperor Augustus reportedly said it was better to be Herod"s sow than his Song of Solomon , for his sow had a better chance of surviving in a Jewish community. In the Greek language, as in English, there is only one letter difference between the words "sow" (hyos) and "son" (hyios)." [3]
"The selfsame character traits Herod exhibits in chapter2 , the [4] leaders will exhibit later in the story. To enumerate the most obvious of these, Herod shows himself to be "spiritually blind" ( Matthew 2:3), "fearful" ( Matthew 2:3), "conspiratorial" ( Matthew 2:7), "guileful" and "mendacious" ( Matthew 2:8), "murderous" ( Matthew 2:13; Matthew 2:16), "wrathful" ( Matthew 2:16; cf. Matthew 21:15), and "apprehensive of the future" ( Matthew 2:16)." [5]
Matthew again claimed that another event surrounding Jesus" birth fulfilled prophecy ( Matthew 2:17). Matthew is the only New Testament writer who quoted Jeremiah (cf. Matthew 16:14; Matthew 27:9). This quotation is evidently also from the Hebrew text. Incidentally, Matthew only quoted Isaiah and Jeremiah by name of all the prophets he quoted.
"Matthew is not simply meditating on Old Testament texts, but claiming that in what has happened they find fulfillment. If the events are legendary [6], the argument is futile." [7]
It is not clear whether Jeremiah was referring to the deportation of the northern tribes in722 B.C. or to the Babylonian Captivity in586 B.C. Since he dealt primarily with the second of these events in his ministry, he probably did so here too. Poetically he presented Rachel as the idealized mother of the Jews mourning from her grave because her children were going into captivity. Since Rachel"s grave was near Bethlehem, mention of her ties in nicely with the events of Jesus" early childhood near Bethlehem.
"In the original context, Jeremiah is speaking of an event soon to come as the Babylonian Captivity begins. As the Jewish young men were being taken into captivity, they went by the town of Ramah. Not too far from Ramah is where Rachel was buried and she was the symbol of Jewish motherhood. As the young men were marched toward Babylon, the Jewish mothers of Ramah came out weeping for sons they will never see again. Jeremiah pictured the scene as Rachel weeping for her children. This is the literal meaning of Jeremiah 31:15. The New Testament cannot change or reinterpret what this verse means in that context, nor does it try to do so. In this category [8], there is a New Testament event that has one point of similarity with the Old Testament event. The verse is quoted as an application. The one point of similarity between Ramah and Bethlehem is that once again Jewish mothers are weeping for sons they will never see again and so the Old Testament passage is applied to the New Testament event. Otherwise, everything else is different." [9]
Cooper called this "literal prophecy plus an application." [8] Bailey saw three points of comparison between the two situations: in both of them a Gentile king was threatening the future of Israel (cf. Matthew 2:13), children were involved, and the future restoration of Israel was nevertheless secure (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-37). [11]
Matthew evidently used Jeremiah 31:15 because it presented hope to the Israelites that Israel would return to the land even though they wept at the nation"s departure. The context of Jeremiah"s words is hope. Matthew used the Jeremiah passage to give his readers hope that despite the tears of the Bethlehem mothers Messiah had escaped from Herod and would return to reign ultimately. [12]
"Here Jesus does not, as in Matthew 2:15, recapitulate an event from Israel"s history. The Exile sent Israel into captivity and thereby called forth tears. But here the tears are not for him who goes into "exile" but because of the children who stay behind and are slaughtered. Why, then, refer to the Exile at all? Help comes from observing the broader context of both Jeremiah and Matthew. Jeremiah 31:9; Jeremiah 31:20 refers to Israel = Ephraim as God"s dear son and also introduces the new covenant ( Jeremiah 31:31-34) the Lord will make with his people. Therefore the tears associated with Exile ( Jeremiah 31:15) will end. Matthew has already made the Exile a turning point in his thought ( Matthew 1:11-12), for at that time the Davidic line was dethroned. The tears of the Exile are now being "fulfilled"-i.e, the tears begun in Jeremiah"s day are climaxed and ended by the tears of the mothers of Bethlehem. The heir to David"s throne has come, the Exile is over, the true Son of God has arrived, and he will introduce the new covenant ( Matthew 26:28) promised by Jeremiah." [13]