Short Answer
Matthew’s use of Old Testament passages—like Rachel weeping in Ramah—is not about strict geographical or literal fulfillment, but about drawing meaningful connections (or “echoes”) from Israel’s history. These are not always direct prophecies, but literary and theological parallels that highlight deeper truths about Christ. Understanding this requires reading Scripture with awareness of its original cultural and literary context.
The Overview
When Matthew quotes the Old Testament—such as the reference to Rachel weeping in Ramah during the account of Herod killing infants—it can seem confusing, especially from a modern, Western perspective. Geographically, Ramah and Bethlehem are not the same place, which raises questions about accuracy. However, Matthew’s intention is not to provide a literal geographic correlation but to draw a deeper connection rooted in Israel’s history and collective memory.
In the Old Testament, Rachel’s weeping (Jeremiah 31) symbolizes deep national sorrow, particularly during the Babylonian exile. Matthew uses this imagery as a literary and emotional parallel to the grief experienced during Herod’s massacre. This is not a direct, predictive prophecy but what can be called a “second-level” or “typological” fulfillment—an echo of a past event that reflects a similar kind of suffering in a new context.
This highlights an important principle: biblical writers, especially those writing to Jewish audiences, often used familiar stories, symbols, and patterns to communicate meaning. Their readers would have immediately recognized these connections. However, modern readers—especially those with a Western mindset—often expect precise, literal fulfillment, which can lead to confusion when encountering these kinds of passages.
At the same time, it is important to maintain balance in interpretation. While appreciating literary richness and historical context, Scripture still communicates real, objective truth. The central message—such as the need for salvation and Christ’s role as Savior—remains clear and foundational. Understanding both the depth and the clarity of Scripture allows for a fuller and more faithful interpretation.
Key Takeaways
- Not All “Fulfillments” Are Literal Predictions
Some are thematic or typological connections to past events. - Matthew Uses Historical Echoes
Rachel’s weeping represents a broader pattern of sorrow in Israel’s history. - Jewish Readers Understood These Connections
First-century audiences were familiar with these references. - Western Readers May Misinterpret
Modern expectations of literal precision can miss the intended meaning. - Balance Is Essential in Interpretation
Appreciate literary richness while holding to clear biblical truths.
Read Full Raw Transcript
00:00:00
on the line with Mike Fabarz. How can I help? >> Hi, Pastor Mike. I have a question about the discussion when Herod orders the death of the two-year-olds and under in in the the narrative of Matthew of of Jesus because what I’m interested in is Matthew quotes an Old Testament scripture about Rachel and Rama. Um, and I think that that’s interesting just from the standpoint of when I look on the map. Um, I look on the map and uh, Bethlehem is a long ways physically away from Rama and I know the the history of
00:00:35
Rama and and Rachel’s burial and lots of things and it just seems odd to me. It seems like it’s geographically um not it doesn’t fit cleanly in that sense because um for example it would be like if I said oh somebody ordered uh the killing of the babies in Sacramento and um I said you know Rachel was weeping in Aliso VJO. Uh well the in the ancient near east where they didn’t have Twitter and you know social media I guess the question is um geographically would they have known uh and certainly
00:01:14
Herod didn’t miss the the problem and start killing people 30 km away from uh from Bethlehem. So uh help me out with that. >> Yeah. Well, one thing they would know and they wouldn’t need Wikipedia for this is the story of Israel. Now, Matthew, right, Levi, as he was known before he got a new name here, is writing to the Jews. That’s the unique characteristic of Matthew, the gospel, the synoptic gospel. And one thing they do know is about the Babylonian distress and what took place. Jeremiah is writing
00:01:45
this, the weeping prophet, because he’s there at the end in 586 BC writing about the horrible things that are happening, the lamentation, the the bitter weeping. And of course, the other thing they’d know is is the concept of Rachel and and even that figure that is uh given and stated there in in Matthew 2 about uh uh all that went on in the patriarchal period in Genesis. We unfortunately don’t teach our kids the way they taught theirs. And most of the people would be so familiar [snorts] not only with the
00:02:15
patriarch’s wife, but also with the Babylonian captivity and the connections that Matthew makes. We wouldn’t give him an A for hermeneutics if you say, “Well, you’re quoting Jeremiah 31 there, but you know, is that really what that’s about?” Uh, he does this throughout his writings in trying to take illusions that match the concepts and say, “Here is an echo of the same kind of thing, either an emotive echo or a historical echo or something that’s related to what’s going on.” on. He’s already done
00:02:45
it earlier in this chapter regarding bringing out Jesus from uh Egypt, right? And he’s talking about a text that has nothing to do with the Messiah. It’s not a messianic prophecy. So, here’s what I would say. We call a lot of things that Matthew quotes like Jeremiah 31, we call it a messianic prophecy. But as I’m teaching through messianic prophecies, I put them in two categories. I’ve got the category one messianic prophecy. He would not be the Messiah, right, if he did not do these things. And then
00:03:13
there’s the second tier. And I only call those a second tier because the New Testament writers try to show these echoes throughout their writings. And Matthew is the number one person to add those kinds of things to the narrative of of Jesus’s life. And in that sense, I’d say, well, I would never do that in the pulpit. I would never make that connection as a hard messianic prophecy. But under the inspiration of the spirit, God is moving Matthew to try and make all these appeals of not only the the
00:03:42
precise predictive prophecies regarding the Messiah. Whereas if he didn’t fulfill those, he wouldn’t be the Messiah, but also things that in some way relate to their Jewish heritage, their Jewish background. And he’s just showing those things using a word that I think we would have a problem with, play ro, which is the word fulfill. We would say, well, how’s that a fulfillment? Right? That’s was it was it even a prophecy? Right? And in that sense, this is a tier 2 prophecy. There’s [snorts] a
00:04:08
book and I don’t like everything in it, but CS Lewis, you know, he was not a biblical scholar. He was not a theologian, but a very smart man in new literature, right? He was the English literature dawn at Oxford. He wrote about this kind of thing in a little book he wrote called Reflections in the Psalms. And he talked about this two-tiered kind of messianic prophecy. He talked about two-tiered prophecy. And I do think this is something as western uh readers of literature we struggle with. But if even someone like like
00:04:36
Lewis uh with his newfound faith now looking at everything in the Bible can say okay this eastern language has a different way to approach uh the kinds of things it sees as as connections literary connections. And I think he does that well in that little book. I don’t know if you’ve read that but uh it is helpful. It was helpful to me. I read it my first year I became a Christian and it it helped me think about Eastern kinds of of literature particularly as it would appeal to all those people in
00:05:03
the first century and frankly a lot of people today that aren’t in Western culture reading the text and saying okay here’s another point of contact here’s another point of contact here’s another point of contact and this touches on two of them it touches on the Babylonian captivity which was gigantic pain and then Rachel weeping for her children uh back to the patriarchal story So, I I get it. We like to read this as westerners. We need to read a little bit uh with a little bit more grace through
00:05:29
Eastern eyes and to know uh it’s much like listen to pop music and realizing, oh, there’s a lot of analogy here. You know, your wife isn’t as sweet as honey or whatever, but we know what you mean. And and the idea in in literature is the same. And when he uses the word playo, like it’s fulfilled. We’re wanting it to be a a class one messianic prophecy, which I think is what I called it as I’ve taught through a a a or first order messianic prophecy. And this clearly is not as as Matthew is known to do.
00:05:57
Although there are plenty of first order prophecies that I think you can’t get away from. And uh he adds those in his in his writings as well. And I think it’s good to look at that. Now, sometimes the books out there, if you’ve ever read uh like Josh McDow’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict, he’s got a whole chapter, which is a great resource to look at some of the things that we we wonder about. One of them is looking at all the messianic prophecies. I wish you’d put them in two different
00:06:20
chapters, but he he has these prophecies and you can start to read each one of them in context and say, “Okay, this is a first order prophecy. This is not.” And even though the word pluro is fulfilled, it may be used for both. uh we know that in a western sense uh it’s not the kind that that u we would call a fulfillment but it is something that that Jews in the eastern world and certainly in the first century would say yeah I can see that connection and and so the connections are made and it
00:06:49
bolsters an argument for Matthew in the first century and that’s the best I can do with that because I know what you want is what I want you know we grew up with a very different sense of trying to take a newspaper article from you know the Orange County Register or whatever and trying to determine what it means But then we do we do the same thing when we turn to the lyrics of a song that we like and we think, “Oh, okay. This is a different genre.” Well, there’s a kind of a different genre even in Matthew
00:07:14
than there is in John. And they’re very different in their audiences, in their original audiences. And I think part of that is why we have four gospels and not just one. God made sure that we were touching all the bases and how people were going to look to scripture and see how it was fulfilled. Does that help at all, Alan? It does. Can I ask two really quick follow-on questions that you can close close my question with? Okay. Um, one is would it be possible in in your understanding that um, maybe what
00:07:44
Matthew’s trying to do is trying to say that this Jesus who arrived is the fulfillment, if you will, and typologically of the actual return from exile that that the kingdom that he brings is, you know, that uh, be behold the feet of the the messenger who brings good news, that guy uh, kind of thing. And uh one and two is do you think um and not to pick on a a particular hermeneutic but do you think that um there is a particular hermeneutical bent in our modern preaching and culture that basically it um it maybe could benefit
00:08:23
from a little bit more understanding of how the original readers would have read it and what that context was in in not just the context of the scripture which is primary but the socopolitical and and historical context um before they jump to, you know, Jesus lived the perfect life that that that you couldn’t live and died for your sins and that’s what the whole scripture is about, which is true. Um but but do you feel like we maybe miss some some richness of the text and the application because we
00:08:53
because of that hermeneutic and maybe an over oversimplified application of it? Well, yes, and I’ll I’ll try to skate a a careful line between uh those two views because yes, I do believe we miss out on some of the richness of the text as you concluded that question with that phrase. And I think we should see uh kind of our hermeneutic at least being helped by reading the text with eastern eyes as some people have rightly written and there’s some good books out there that I think are commentaries that try
00:09:20
to help us do that and I’ve got those in my library and they’re helpful. There’s a lot of rhetorical commentaries and socio uh socio rhetorical commentaries that help us kind of look and glean the richness of the text and we can see that that my concern is that is you still look at God communicating truth truth itself right what it’s communicating is a correspondence with reality and that reality is a hard reality and truth always has hard edges and I think the issues that you’re bringing up were
00:09:53
really brought to the before with say the new perspective on Paul that you saw men like Don Carson responding to in talking about the fact that the the language of the reformation regarding justification and this was the real touch point that set off a lot of wars about 25 years ago. Uh they they don’t um it we can’t say that uh there were wrong because the truth that really is communicated is a truth that you can’t you can’t move. you may be able to see uh rhetorical issues and socio
00:10:27
rhetorical issues in the text that will lead you to find richness in some uh anti-ypes and metaphors and and typology and that’s good and there’s nothing wrong with that and a lot of books were written like that that I think are are helpful right Christ in the tabernacle by Lewis Talbot or you know Christ in in the in the temple they’re great there’s no New Testament connections to a lot of the uh assertions made in the text but it does enrich our thinking and we think well we’re doing a lot what Matthew was
00:10:53
doing in his gospel. Okay, there’s some richness to that. But what are the hard facts being communicated regarding being made right with God, right? Sin and and and alienation and the need for reconciliation. There’s no getting around those truths that we derive from the text. My concern is becoming more Eastern Orthodox in our hermeneutic to where we’re we’re lost in this and then we’re just saying, you know, we just want to, you know, we want to just emulate Christ and we don’t we’re not
00:11:20
trying to be biblical and, you know, you are Bible idoltors out there in the Western church. I I don’t think that’s proper. I think we I think I would stand with DA Carson in saying we we have to glean from the text the truth that has hard edges and therefore would lead us to the same basic understanding the reformers had 500 years ago and what it means to be justified. And we cannot just by reading the text with eastern eyes lose the truths that are represented in the Bible. And therefore,
00:11:50
um, we we were right in making the kinds of hard assertions that we make in saying, “Hey, Christianity is this and and and Mormon theology is that and and we make hard distinctions.” And I’m afraid that if we go too far in the direction of saying, “Well, let’s look more with a new set of glasses on here and find what we want to find.” And it’s not what we want to find. I know that’s an oversimplification, a straw man. And I don’t mean to put it that way, but I I
00:12:16
just think there’s a there’s a there’s a road in the middle of this that says, yes, let’s get the richness of the text by having a little bit more of an eastern set of eyes in in appreciating what they appreciated, but let’s not lose the facts that are being presented. And the facts that are being presented at the core of it is I need to be right with a with a with a holy God. I’m not. What did Christ come to do? The new perspective of Paul changed all that. justification was changed and and and
00:12:42
men like, you know, Piper and and and uh and Carson and others were trying to say, “Let’s restore this. We can’t have uh kind of just a a uh [snorts] for lack of a better word, a more fuzzy view on how we’re made right with God. It’s not become a sociological issue.” And there are there are men, right, as you know, I assume you know, guys like NT Wright, who um make that the reality. And then it’s becomes watch what their Christianity does. You can read their theology, but when you read their
00:13:11
pastoral works, it’s all about kind of making get having us get along now. You know, let’s just make sure Jews and Gentiles get along. Let’s make sure you and I and you and the man who’s begging for money at the on-ramp get along. And let’s get into social justice. And it’s about the here and now. And Norm Wright wrote a book, After You Believe, which I think was a good uh cotification of how he views sanctification and the Christian life. and and he’ll he’ll gnar
00:13:36
on the idea of looking beyond the horizon of this life. He says, “You Christians, you’re you’re too much about getting saved for the next life, you know, getting right getting your name written in the lamb’s book of life.” And I would respond to that as I think others rightly have and saying, “No, no, that that’s huge. That’s I can’t get around how the truth, no matter how I read the text of the New Testament, leads me to say my mind’s got to be set on things above and I’m storing up
00:14:00
treasure in heaven. And justification will be realized at the end of this life, not in this life. I’m saved, yes, but only forensically. I will be saved then literally. And I think even the word forensic people sometimes struggle with. If I were sitting here talking to someone from the Eastern Orthodox Church, they would really struggle with that. But I’m saying, no, no, no. that that is what the Bible teaches because the Bible’s got to teach something and truth always is supposed to uh
00:14:24
correspond with reality. So that’s that’s my basic answer to that in in a in a sound bite on a radio program, Allan. But I do think there’s a middle ground to say yes and no. And yes, let’s appreciate some readings we we don’t quite appreciate like we should and we we get rid of them because our mind wants to get to the facts and we don’t read the text maybe as we should. But let’s look at what the text is really representing and what it’s saying and the truth in it. And I do think we can
00:14:52
say to ourselves, not just what is intended by this text. And you can see a whole new hermeneutic in this. Let’s just see. Let’s figure out what’s intended by the text. Now, I care about what’s intended in terms of application, but I care about what it means. And the text does mean something, right? And even in the context of what Matthew is trying to present to us regarding the birth of Christ, there’s a meaning here. What’s the meaning of this rhetorical section of scripture? Now, let’s
00:15:15
principalize it, which some people say you shouldn’t do. And now, let’s apply from the principle. And I do think that is an approach to hermeneutics. It’s an approach to pastoral ministry that most guys haven’t even thought of these days, but need to because we need to treat the the Bible as a book that’s presenting truth. And truth always is anchored in something immovable. Even though language can be enriched with a lot of different genres that give us appreciation for things like a voice is
00:15:41
heard in Rama that is like, what is that all about? Well, there is a there is something sweet about the connection to the pain and yet it’s not something that I’m going to hold them to the kind of formulaic, [snorts] you know, mathematical thinking of, you know, an MIT grad who who who can’t even listen to pop radio all if you know what I’m saying. Does that help at all, Alan? >> It it does. And I appreciate the the the the middle ground approach. I guess I I have maybe tried poorly to articulate
00:16:11
that middle ground approach is, you know, buckets are useful for carrying water, but they’re poor places to live in. Correct. Um, and I don’t know if that captures captures that middle ground kind of approach. Um, but I appreciate your your thought. >> Yeah. Well, if you haven’t, I mean, have you read any Don Carson at all? Do you know what I’m talking about there? DA Carson used to be at Trinity Evangelical. >> I’m going to go read some more. Um, I I’m not uh strong enough in my Carson
00:16:34
reading uh to to to you’ve given me some some options and some things to go look at. So, I’m going to pick up some Lewis and some Carson and some Piper and uh we’re going to go check out some cool stuff. Thank you. >> That’s good. Okay, Alan, thanks for the call. Appreciate that.
