Why Rachel's Tears?

[Beetow]

.
• Matt 2:16 . . When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he
was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity
who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned
from the Magi.

That's actually pretty good evidence that the wise men were not present for Jesus'
birth. Upon their arrival in Jerusalem they didn't inquire as to where the Jews' king
was to be born, but indicated by their question that he was already born; and two
years suggests that he was born quite a bit before even mounting their expedition.

• Matt 2:17-18 . .Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: A
voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her
children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.

Ramah is located north of Jerusalem whereas Bethlehem is south. I suspect we're
given Ramah because Rachel was buried up that way when she died in childbirth.
(Gen 35:16-19)

Rachel's children consisted of two that were her own, and two by her maid, and two
by means of posthumous adoption. The two of her own were Joseph and Benjamin,
the two by her maid were Dan and Naphtali, and the two by posthumous adoption
were Manasseh and Ephraim.

None of those six tribes settled Bethlehem; that was Judah's turf.

However, Ramah belonged to Benjamin's tribe; strongly suggesting to me that
Rachel's weeping was due to Herod's assassins murdering children up that way too
rather than only in and around Bethlehem.

Now, whether Rachel's weeping is meant to be taken literally or poetically I cannot
be certain. It's possibly a figure of speech sort of like saying so and so must be
rolling over in their grave.

If taken literally; it would indicate that a woman who had been deceased for
1,000+ years was conscious when Christ was born. This is not impossible because
Jesus said that the patriarchs, though deceased, live unto God. (Luke 20:37-38)
_

 

[complete]

.
• Matt 2:16 . . When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he
was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity
who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned
from the Magi.

That's actually pretty good evidence that the wise men were not present for Jesus'
birth. Upon their arrival in Jerusalem they didn't inquire as to where the Jews' king
was to be born, but indicated by their question that he was already born; and two
years suggests that he was born quite a bit before even mounting their expedition.

• Matt 2:17-18 . .Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: A
voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her
children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.

Ramah is located north of Jerusalem whereas Bethlehem is south. I suspect we're
given Ramah because Rachel was buried up that way when she died in childbirth.
(Gen 35:16-19)

Rachel's children consisted of two that were her own, and two by her maid, and two
by means of posthumous adoption. The two of her own were Joseph and Benjamin,
the two by her maid were Dan and Naphtali, and the two by posthumous adoption
were Manasseh and Ephraim.

None of those six tribes settled Bethlehem; that was Judah's turf.

However, Ramah belonged to Benjamin's tribe; strongly suggesting to me that
Rachel's weeping was due to Herod's assassins murdering children up that way too
rather than only in and around Bethlehem.

Now, whether Rachel's weeping is meant to be taken literally or poetically I cannot
be certain. It's possibly a figure of speech sort of like saying so and so must be
rolling over in their grave.

If taken literally; it would indicate that a woman who had been deceased for
1,000+ years was conscious when Christ was born. This is not impossible because
Jesus said that the patriarchs, though deceased, live unto God. (Luke 20:37-38)

'Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.'
(Mat 2:17-18)

Hello @Bettow,

I get the feeling that you are enjoying these questions yourself.

Yes, I agree that Rachel weeping for her children is a figure of speech. In a book I have entitled, 'Figures of Speech used in the Bible', I see in relation to the verse in Jeremiah that this was quoted from, 'Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.' (Jer 31:15): that it is a figure of speech called in English, 'Personification', by which things are represented or spoken of as persons; or, by which we attribute intelligence, by words or actions, to inanimate objects or abstract ideas. The figure is employed when the absent are spoken of (or to) as present; when the dead are spoken of as alive; or when anything (eg., a country) is addressed as a person. The quotation in Matthew 2:18, differs from that of Jeremiah 31:15 in regard to the sense, which is accommodated to fit the new circumstances.

Thank you, I have enjoyed thinking about these questions too.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Beetow]

Ironically, Jesus and his family pulled up stakes and migrated to Egypt before
Herod's assassins began searching for him. Thus the death squads were like blind
men in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. (Matt 2:13-14)