Matthew 2:18 and Matthew 24:29

[Just a Mirror]

Matthew 2:18

"In Rama was there was a voice heard, lamentation and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, because they are not."

As you know this verse is originally from Jeremiah 31:15, a prophecy fulfilled at the time of Yehoshua's birth.

There is a little talked about story in those verses, and how they relate to the church in the tribulation.

 Let's think on the untold story.

Herod is a puppet ruler, placed by Rome to rule Judea. God knows his heart, like He knew pharohs heart. Herod is a foreshadowing of the Anti-christ.

A false shepherd, one who cares only for himself and pleasing his master. Rome.

God knew that Messiah arriving at this time, would have grave consequences, it was already fortold by Jeremiah.

God knew what would happen, that Herod would slaughter all the children under two, it happened that way because it had to happen that way to get the desired result....

A separation of the herd, the sheep and goats judging themselves as to which herd they belong.

The key factor in this decision on being a sheep or goat, wheat or chaff, is....

Why it happened?

Who is to ultimately to blame for the death of the children?

Then what path will you choose?

You see there are Jews by birth and Jews by religion, God hates lukewarm believers, He cannot work with that mindset.

You must be Hot or Cold, He then will influence your surroundings to acheive the desired results.

This slaughter of the children was allowed to happen that Jews would turn Hot or Cold with the knowledge that God controls everything and especially with His people.

Some would blame Herod.

Some would blame Rome.

Some would blame YHWH.

Some would turn to YHWH and read the scriptures, Jeremiah 31:15 and then read 16, 16 is where the true believers find strength, 

"Refrain thy voice from weeping and thine eyes from tears, for thy work shall be rewarded, and they shall come again from the land of the enemy."

He says, Fear not, Do not Be Sorrowful, They will Live Again!!!

16 is the promise of the Resurrection!!

Return from the land of the enemy, that is a reference to death, that is the enemies domain!

The seeming slaughter of the children for some eternal sorrow, hurt, hate and blame.

For the faithful, a promise of Resurrection and eternal life!!

By this act, the sheep are made known, the goats are uncovered, the wheat and the chaff are separated and the cream rises to the top!

Its a foreshadowing of "The time of Jacobs trouble" The Tribulation.

Look at the names, "Rachel" in Jeremiah 31:15.

"Jacob" in Jeremiah 30:7

I have to cut it short, ill come back and edit if I can find time.

Point is, Herod killing the children seperated the true believers from the go along to get along believers.

Same thing will happen during the tribulation period, Believers true colors will come out when their lives and their families lives are on the line.

All the sudden, the wheat and chaff are obvious for all to see.

If God let children be killed for His son to come into the world and told them not to cry, how much more do you think your worth? Remember, death is not to be feared.

 

 

 

 

[Your closest friendnt]

I am trying to connect to something from the things that you have  posted, I like figurative intrepidation.

Something got my attention, the mentioning of Rachel . 

Rachel was the chosen wife of Jacob. (I said chosen , just let it be for a while).

She was childless, and she looked up to have a blessing from the fertility Gods of her time. 

One time Jacob told her, don't you look at me, I have many children , ask the Lord to bless you with a child. 

She did and gave birth to Joseph. Years pass and she was with a child and she died at child birth, and the child was Benjamin, the last of Jacobs children, Joseph was second to the last. (If I got this right).

Back to the point.

How can you tell the tribe of the children that died that time, in the place of Jesus?

Were the children that died from the tribe of Joseph and Benjamin ? 

If they were not, then they were not the children of Rachel .

Hope by now that you got what I have to say next. 

It is not for this even that this scripture was written. 

Hope that you take a good look at this, for it looks like that you made your inderpidation a short of foundation for a lot of things on this post. 

 

[Just a Mirror]

17 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

I am trying to connect to something from the things that you have  posted, I like figurative intrepidation.

Something got my attention, the mentioning of Rachel . 

Rachel was the chosen wife of Jacob. (I said chosen , just let it be for a while).

She was childless, and she looked up to have a blessing from the fertility Gods of her time. 

One time Jacob told her, don't you look at me, I have many children , ask the Lord to bless you with a child. 

She did and gave birth to Joseph. Years pass and she was with a child and she died at child birth, and the child was Benjamin, the last of Jacobs children, Joseph was second to the last. (If I got this right).

Back to the point.

How can you tell the tribe of the children that died that time, in the place of Jesus?

Were the children that died from the tribe of Joseph and Benjamin ? 

If they were not, then they were not the children of Rachel .

Hope by now that you got what I have to say next. 

It is not for this even that this scripture was written. 

Hope that you take a good look at this, for it looks like that you made your inderpidation a short of foundation for a lot of things on this post. 

 

I see what your saying. Its a logical assumption based on Bethlehem being in the territory mentioned, which is Judah.

But if you go back to Genesis Rachel gave Jacob, Billah also, to have children, when Billah gave birth Rachel praised God as if the children were her own.

Not only that, but Bethlehem is almost on the border of the tribe of Benjamin. Now I dont really know how interwoven border communities are, are they Benjamin on one side of the road and Judah on the other, or are the borders intermingled?

That leads to the timeframe of the order to kill the children, which is two years and under. Now I was in the military and I know how they think, if we do not have an exact location, we spread out.

Thereforeits very possible that they not only hit Bethlehem but also surrounding areas, in order to "be safe".

But like, when the bible says "Rachel weeping" you gotta just assume that God knew there was some Benjamites in the mix.

Also, Billahs first child was Dan, which their territory is on the west of Benjamin and north-north west of Judah. Depending on Herods kill radius, Dan could have been hit too. 

Since Rachel considered Dan hers, and also Benjamin, along with integrated borders, we would have good reason to believe Rachel lost some children.

Hope that clarifies it a little.

God bless you.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Just a Mirror
Fat fingers.

[Your closest friendnt]

11 hours ago, Just a Mirror said:

I see what your saying. Its a logical assumption based on Bethlehem being in the territory mentioned, which is Judah.

But if you go back to Genesis Rachel gave Jacob, Billah also, to have children, when Billah gave birth Rachel praised God as if the children were her own.

Not only that, but Bethlehem is almost on the border of the tribe of Benjamin. Now I dont really know how interwoven border communities are, are they Benjamin on one side of the road and Judah on the other, or are the borders intermingled?

That leads to the timeframe of the order to kill the children, which is two years and under. Now I was in the military and I know how they think, if we do not have an exact location, we spread out.

Thereforeits very possible that they not only hit Bethlehem but also surrounding areas, in order to "be safe".

But like, when the bible says "Rachel weeping" you gotta just assume that God knew there was some Benjamites in the mix.

Also, Billahs first child was Dan, which their territory is on the west of Benjamin and north-north west of Judah. Depending on Herods kill radius, Dan could have been hit too. 

Since Rachel considered Dan hers, and also Benjamin, along with integrated borders, we would have good reason to believe Rachel lost some children.

Hope that clarifies it a little.

God bless you.

That's a good replied , is awsome , an excellent strategy , it covers all possible situations, it was interesting.

( In yout senario Rachel, Billah, and Lea, all lost children, and they all must wheep,)

but this scripture is only about  Rachel she is the one who can not be comforted , because a time will come that she will wait to received her children as usual but her children are not showing up and will never show up. 

Also the place is "Rama".

When this event took place , Rachel must have  been in Abraham's Blossom, and there she receives her children immediately upon their death, and she is happy to see them .

Their mothers will be sorrowful but also for a season, because the time will come when they died, then they will be with them again.

I don't see how  this scripture can be apply to this even. 

it describes a future situation and it  must be, it seems it can not be a situation before the descent of Jesus to the bossom of Abraham, but right after when he freed and took those held in the  bossom of Abraham with him to Heaven.

Then we can say that Rachel can not and will never be with her unbelieving children.

About the weeping part , it could be that something will happen in the future to show that the old is put away and God in the new has only children of the faith of Jesus Christ. 

[Just a Mirror]

5 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

That's a good replied , is awsome , an excellent strategy , it covers all possible situations, it was interesting.

( In yout senario Rachel, Billah, and Lea, all lost children, and they all must wheep,)

but this scripture is only about  Rachel she is the one who can not be comforted , because a time will come that she will wait to received her children as usual but her children are not showing up and will never show up. 

Also the place is "Rama".

When this event took place , Rachel must have  been in Abraham's Blossom, and there she receives her children immediately upon their death, and she is happy to see them .

Their mothers will be sorrowful but also for a season, because the time will come when they died, then they will be with them again.

I don't see how  this scripture can be apply to this even. 

it describes a future situation and it  must be, it seems it can not be a situation before the descent of Jesus to the bossom of Abraham, but right after when he freed and took those held in the  bossom of Abraham with him to Heaven.

Then we can say that Rachel can not and will never be with her unbelieving children.

About the weeping part , it could be that something will happen in the future to show that the old is put away and God in the new has only children of the faith of Jesus Christ. 

I'm slightly confused, now there are a couple possibilities for this confusion, my confusion comes from not knowing your motives.

Nevertheless biblically speaking your thesis is incorrect. Now I understand your inherent disbelief if you are a "new" believer, but the fact you are choosing this subject to wrestle with is not a new believer type behavior, unless you have some background in biblical studies in a secular environment. The next thought is that you are an unbeliever looking to use the bible against itself in a sly manner in order to cause doubt on its authenticity. Lastly you could be an adamant believer in the pretrib rapture and without presenting that position that you hold, choose another approach, which is to discredit the author of Matthew, which might I add may not go over well.

Soo, let me show you my biblical reasoning for my post....(emphasis mine)

Herod Slaughters Babies     MATTHEW 2:16-18

      16 Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children WHO WERE IN BETHLEHEM AND ALL ITS VICINITY, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi. 17 THEN WHAT HAD BEEN SPOKEN THROUGH JEREMIAH THE PROPHET WAS FULFILLED:

      18“A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH,
            WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING,
            RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN;
            AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED,
            BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE.”

Soo as we can see from the Author, He believed that the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15-17 was fulfilled by Herod. I really have no extra-biblical sources to back up this stance, though I need none.

Now here is where I give you partial credit, because this is not about picking on anyone.

This is my own belief based on my studies, though I will not elaborate too much. The bible is written in layers and the layers of The Word are revealed to the reader based on perspective. Also, some prophecy I have noticed is echoed through time. That is why we have over the centuries had trouble deciphering certain prophecies accurately, because you can see prophecy in a cold to hot temperature type scale. It also appears that the same prophecy, IN SOME CASES, is fulfilled multiple times.

Now, that said, I'm obviously correct in my assertion that Matthew blatantly stated that Jeremiahs prophecy was fulfilled, yet could it be that the same prophecy could somehow be fulfilled again in the future? Time will tell.

I hope I have clarified the reasoning for my stance.

Peace to you.