Were they kings, and, if so, how many?

January 6, 2008 -- The Epiphany of the Lord

By Fr. Mike Stubbs

	Fr. Mike Stubbs

Sometimes, instead of giving a present as an individual, I will chip in and contribute to a group gift. That way, we can come up with a better gift.

There is even the possibility that something like that happened with the very first Christmas presents, the gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, the gifts of the magi. We hear that story in Sunday's Gospel reading, Matthew 2:1-12.

We often assume that since there were three gifts, there were three magi. However, the Gospel never specifies the number of the magi. While the story does not suggest a large group, a small group of five, six, seven, sounds just as plausible as three. Perhaps they went together for the presents, instead of going separately. The story does not tell.

We also frequently identify the magi as kings. Once again, such an identification goes beyond the text of the story itself, which refers to them only as magi. The element of kingship derives from the prophecy of Isaiah, "Nations shall walk by your light, and kings by your shining radiance. ... All from Sheba shall come bearing gold and frankincense" (Isaiah 60:1-6). Rather than viewing this prophecy in general terms, some have interpreted it as a detailed prediction of the magi's visit. That results in identifying the magi as kings.

In other words, instead of the Three Kings sung in Christmas carols, Matthew's Gospel presents us with a small group of magi of undetermined number, who give the newborn Jesus gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. We frequently assign symbolic meanings to those gifts. Thus, one gift recognizes Jesus as king: "Gold I bring to crown him again." The gift of frankincense recognizes his divinity: "Incense owns a deity nigh." The gift of myrrh looks forward to his painful death on the cross: "Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume breathes a life of gathering gloom."

These symbolic meanings appropriately reflect our beliefs about the newborn child. At the same time, we should remember that they go beyond the text itself. Gold would have appeared as a welcome gift for any poor family, not only as a gift worthy of royalty. Since banks did not exist, families often would convert any excess wealth into jewelry. The women of the family would wear their savings.

On the other hand, the gifts of frankincense and myrrh would have puzzled Joseph and Mary. They would not have shown any immediate practical use.

In pointing out the ways in which the popular understanding of the story of the magi departs from the actual text of Matthew's Gospel, I am not trying to become the Grinch that stole Epiphany. By extending the story recounted by Matthew's Gospel, Christian tradition has elaborated the theological points which form the focus of that story. That is altogether appropriate. On the other hand, it is important to draw a dividing line between the story itself and the interpretation of a story, however valid that interpretation may be.

Otherwise, we risk canonizing the interpretation, which is human and subject to error, and raising it to the level of Sacred Scripture itself. And that can lead to problems.

(Fr. Stubbs, a priest of the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kan., has a master's degree in theology from Harvard.)