Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 5

Troki's assault continues:

Matthew 2:16, 17, 18 , "And Herod sent forth and slew all the children that were born in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet [chapter 31:15], saying, "Rachel [was] weeping for her children, and would not be comforted because they are not."

The construction of these words of the prophet is incompatible with what follows. For we read in the same chapter of Jeremiah, verse 17, "And the children shall return to their boundaries." This cannot mean slain but only captive children. The ten tribes are here alluded to as the captives who are mentioned under the collected name Ephraim, because their first king Jeroboam was of the tribe of Ephraim, the descendant of Rachel. Had Jeremiah's prophecy had any connection with the extermination of the infants of Bethlehem Judah, it would not have been for Rachel to weep, but for Leah, the ancestress of the children of Judah. See chapter 28 of Matthew.

As my commentary on the previous chapter notes: fulfillment does not entail prediction. If this were a debate, that would be all I had to say about this issue, but Troki's misunderstanding of Matthew's use of the Tanakh needs to be further explained. Christian Thinktank has an excellent article on typology, which is Matthew's
view on fulfillment. It also has a long and detailed response to prophecy objections like this one.

A common objection that Troki does not use is to state that since nobody else records such a slaughter, therefore it is unhistorical. For most of our ancient history, we have to rely upon one witness without corroboration. If a lack of multiple accounts was a criterion for dismissing an event as unhistorical, we would have to throw out most of what we know of ancient history.

For Troki's argument. He argues that if this verse had any application to Jesus, it would have been Leah that wept, and not Rachel, since Leah was the mother of Judah. Secondly, he argues that Jeremiah is not applicable to a mass slaughter.

Troki argues that Jeremiah is talking about the Babylonian exile. If so, then it is the people of Judah that are going into exile, with a few stragglers from the 10 lost tribes and from Benjamin. So why is Jeremiah saying that Rachel, rather than Leah, is weeping for the exile of the kingdom of Judah? Also, the Midrash calls the tribe of Manasseh a descendant of Rachel. It also refers to Rachel as the mother of the nation of Judah. The targum also states that Rachel was weeping for Jeremiah as one of her children, even though Jeremiah was from Levi.

Genesis 35:19 records Rachel's burial at Bethlehem, so it is likely that the birth of Jesus and the slaughter of other children in that same location triggered this association in Matthew. In Jewish culture, she was sort of a "patron saint" of Bethlehem.

A. Lukyn Williams writes: "Observe also that in Jeremiah happiness and blessing follow lamentation. So in the mind of the Evangelist the massacre connected with the infancy of Christ was a prelude to His appearance as the Deliverer." So why should this apply to a slaughter rather than just an exile? Think of the mission of Jesus. It was not only to bring forgiveness of sins, but resurrection from the dead. Just as Judah was in exile, and awaits return, the dead await their resurrection which will be brought about by Jesus.