The two situations seem to be unrelated and I don’t see any way Matthew could have conflated one with the other apart from the fact that there may well have been a woman called Rachel present at both events who was grieving over the loss of her children.

But this doesn’t really seem to qualify as a fulfilled prophecy since the circumstances surrounding both grieving mothers are wildly different and surely an OT claim that a woman called Rachel would cry over lost children in Ramah at some unspecified point in the future was pretty well guaranteed to happen at some point during the intervening centuries.

You also seem to be implying (with the phrase “would be fulfilled in ’slaughter of children by Herod’”) that Jeremiah was making a prophecy about Herod’s actions yet Jeremiah makes no mention of it. His prophesy concerns the return of the people captured by the Babylonians.

What we actually have is Matthew claiming what he wrote about was a fulfillment of prophesy. We do not have Jeremiah making the prophesy that Matthew claims he made at all.

Thank you for your question. I believe that even though Jeremiah 31:15 was talking about the captivity of Israelites by Babylonians and consequences of Israel’s wickedness and unbelief, it was also a prophecy that would be fulfilled in ’slaughter of children by Herod’ at the birth of Jesus.

I believe that biblical prophecies were pointed toward both immediate fulfillment and events in future. It is like looking at the mountain tops, but avoiding the valleys between them.

I hope it answers your question.

Thanks.
BibleSEO