Davies and Allison point to numerous links between Matthew 2 and 27: the phrase “king of the Jews” (2:2; 27:11); chief priests (2:4; 27:12, 20); the Christ (2:2; 27:17, 22); “all Jerusalem” and “all the people” (2:3; 27:25); warning to Gentiles in a dream (2:12; 27:19); plot to kill Jesus (2:13-18; 27:15-26); and the suffering of Jewish children on account of Jesus (2:16-18; 27:25).  Rachel weeps for “her children who are not” at the beginning of the gospel, weeps, as the Jeremiah text indicates, for her children departing into exile.  Rachel is still weeping at the end of the gospel, weeping for the children who are condemned by the blood shed by their fathers.

Two points arise from this, one structural and one theological.

The structural point is that Matthew encloses his gospel with references to attempts to kill Jesus that double-back on others.  Herod tries to kill the king of the Jews, but only slaughters his own subjects; the Jewish leaders do kill the king of the Jews, but His blood falls on them and their children.  It’s not the only indication of inclusio.  Mary the mother of Jesus appears in chapters 1-2, then disappears; even her name appears only once outside of the opening chapters (13:55).  As the Jesus Mary bore goes to His tomb, other Marys appear (17:56, 61; 28:1).  Satan calls Jesus “Son of God,” and like him the Jews mock Jesus with the conditional “if you are Son of God” (4:3, 6; 26:63; 27:40, 43).  Finally, the centurion and his crew declare, without irony, that Jesus is Son of God (27:54).

That structural point also raises a theological/hermeneutical point about Matthew’s understanding of the fulfillment of the Scriptures.  Perhaps the “fulfillment formulae” at the beginning of the gospel require completion in the end of the gospel.  We don’t quite know why Rachel weeps for her children in Matthew 2 - that is, we don’t quite know how the quotation of Jeremiah is related to the episode that Matthew records.  When Matthew picks up the theme in chapter 27, though, it’s much more clear.  Jeremiah’s prophecy about destruction and exile is precisely what the Jews are condemned to by accepting the innocent blood of Jesus.

Another example: He shall be called a “Nazarene.”  Famously, Matthew says it is a fulfillment of what the prophets say, yet no prophet says it.  What could it mean?  Many commentators have suggested a link between Nazarene, describing the birthplace of Jesus, and Nazirite, describing Jesus’ dedication to His Father.  That Nazirite theme comes back in chapters 26-27, with Jesus’ vow not to drink of the fruit of the vine (26:29) and then His refusal to receive wine and gall on the cross (27:34).

And another: The quotation from Micah in Matthew 2:6 describes the coming Messiah as a “hegemon” or “governor.”  The word is used again in 10:18, which clearly anticipates Jesus’ standing before the governor.  Yet, the word is concentrated in chapter 27-28 (8x).  Yet, the designation of Pilate as hegemon is overshadowed by the prophecy of Micah.  Who is in fact the governor?  As Matthew makes clear in the trial scene, it’s not the hapless Pilate, pathetically swinging between his knowledge of Jesus’ innocence and his fear of stirring up Jewish anger.

Had one world enough and time, I suspect that all the early fulfillment formulae find an echo later in the book, primarily in the trial and crucifixion passages.  Working out those links might go a long way to discerning both Matthew’s hermeneutical principles and the shape of his gospel.