The Difficulty
Warned by the magi’s visit, Herod orders the killing of all boys two years and under in and around Bethlehem (Matt 2:16). Two difficulties arise. Historically, no other source — not Josephus, who chronicles Herod’s many atrocities in detail, nor any other Gospel — mentions this massacre. And exegetically, Matthew’s proof-text, “Rachel weeping for her children” (Jer 31:15), comes from a passage actually about exile and hope of return, raising questions about how Matthew handles the Old Testament.
Responses
Plausible but Small-Scale Event
Tradition: Historical / Conservative Summary: Bethlehem was a tiny village; the number of victims would have been small enough to escape the notice of historians cataloguing Herod’s grand crimes.
Estimates put Bethlehem’s population low enough that the boys under two might number a dozen or two — tragic locally but negligible against Herod’s drowning of a high priest, execution of his own sons, and planned mass killing at his death (which Josephus does record). Such a minor provincial act fits Herod’s documented paranoia and would not necessarily reach the sources we have.
Strengths
- Coheres with Herod’s well-attested cruelty and suspicion
- Explains the silence by the event’s small scale
Weaknesses
- Remains an argument from silence either way
- Cannot positively confirm the episode
Further Reading
- R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT, 2007)
- Paul Maier, “Herod and the Infants of Bethlehem,” in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II (Mercer, 1998)
Typological History: A New Moses, A New Exodus
Tradition: Canonical / Literary Summary: Matthew shapes the account to echo Pharaoh’s slaughter of Hebrew infants, presenting Jesus as the new Moses delivered from a murderous king.
The infancy narrative is patterned on Exodus: a tyrant kills baby boys, the child escapes, later “those who sought the child’s life are dead” (Matt 2:20, echoing Exod 4:19). Recognizing the deliberate Moses typology illumines Matthew’s purpose without requiring one to deny a historical core; it shows how Matthew narrates real events to reveal who Jesus is.
Strengths
- Accounts for the strong Exodus patterning of Matthew 2
- Integrates the episode into Matthew’s portrait of Jesus
Weaknesses
- Heavy typology leads some to doubt the historical reference
- The history/theology boundary is hard to draw precisely
Further Reading
- Dale Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Fortress, 1993)
- W. D. Davies & Dale Allison, Matthew 1–7 (ICC, 1988)
Matthew’s Use of Jeremiah: Fulfillment as Pattern
Tradition: Hermeneutical / Theological Summary: Matthew reads Jer 31:15 not as a prediction but as a pattern of grief that recurs — and points, in Jeremiah’s own context, toward eventual hope.
Jeremiah 31 laments exile yet immediately promises return and a new covenant (31:16–17, 31–34). By invoking Rachel’s weeping, Matthew sets the Bethlehem grief within a larger story whose end is restoration — the very hope the Messiah brings. This “fulfillment” is typological correspondence, the normal way Matthew (and other NT writers) read Scripture, not a claim that Jeremiah “predicted” Herod.
Strengths
- Reflects how NT authors actually use the OT
- Recovers the hope embedded in Jeremiah’s wider context
Weaknesses
- Differs from a popular “prediction-fulfillment” expectation
- Requires explaining Matthew’s hermeneutic to many readers
Further Reading
- Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Baylor, 2016)
- G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker, 2007)