Why Rachel's Tears?

[Webers_Home]

.
• 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)
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
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)
_

 

[VictoryinJesus]

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.

thank you for your post. This morning I’ve been reading over the plagues of Egypt, then I saw your thread. Interesting is your topic of Rachel’s weeping. First) it makes me think of
‘And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.’

second) is considering the firstborn. The reason I looked up plagues this morning is because I’m confused over who killed all the firstborn. God said He would go through Egypt and all the firstborn would be killed. But it also says the “angel of death” will smite all the firstborn. The reason it matters to me is for “and the wicked one touches him not”. for “he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.” Acts 13:7 “For I come not to destroy but that they may have Life” John 10:9-14 a hireling flees, because he is an hireling, and cares not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

third) why Rachel’s tears…there will be loud wailing? From google “Death of firstborn: Ex. 11:1–12:36 This is what the LORD says: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again." (Makes me think of great tribulation worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.)

— Exodus 11:4–6”

 

[Randy Kluth]

.
• 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)
_

Very astute of you, and I found your post interesting. My own thought is that ultimately, what became known as Judea was by Jesus' time an amalgamation of all 12 tribes, including the actual descendants of Rachel. Regardless all of Jacob's children were in a sense her children.

There are those who claim that after the restoration from the Babylonian Captivity, only the tribe of Judah was involved. After all, the restoration was concerned with the restoration of worship, which was in the southern part of Israel called "Judah." And for this reason they were called 'Jews." Furthermore, the area came to be called "Judea."

It was likely that the lion's share of those returning were from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin. However, the purpose of God never was to preserve 12 tribes as "tribes." Rather, they were to evolve not into two nations, but only into a single nation.

And so, the tribes ultimately mixed after years of remaining somewhat separated. Clearly, the tribe of Levi had to remain set apart to be priests. But there were cross-marriages from tribe to tribe, and from Israel to other nations, as well. Interracial marriage was not proscribed unless the marriage was a mix with paganism.

There is strong evidence that those in the northern kingdom of Israel who wanted to follow the Law carefully moved south into Judah over time. At that point, the southern kingdom began to represent all 12 tribes of Israel, particularly those who continued to worship God in Jerusalem. The northern kingdom faded away, together with its idolatry and refusal to worship God in Jerusalem.

All this to say that when Jewish babies were killed at the time of Jesus' birth, the "Jews" who died there would've been viewed as representative of all 12 tribes, and not just of the tribe of Judah. There are biblical references to the Restoration representing all 12 tribes of Israel.

Ezra 6.17 For the dedication of this house of God they offered a hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred male lambs and, as a sin offering for all Israel, twelve male goats, one for each of the tribes of Israel.

Eze 47.13 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: “These are the boundaries of the land that you will divide among the twelve tribes of Israel as their inheritance, with two portions for Joseph."