GIFTS OF THE MAGI

I recently broke my rule never to open up suspicious e-mails. The message was from “The Exodus Effect” and had the intriguing title “God Says This Illegal Plant Can HEAL You.” Under that was a picture of the magi with the words “How the Three Wise Men Gifts Are Being Used for Sickness.”

Reading a little further, it turns out that a key Hebrew word in a passage in Exodus has been mistranslated for years, but the author of this message has uncovered its true meaning. Naturally he has been opposed by both Bible scholars as well as scientists who are trying to hide this secret of the ages on behalf of the drug companies.

Getting back to reality, what was the significance, if any, of the three gifts brought to honor the child Jesus?

The first thing to note parenthetically is that we have no idea how many wise men there were on this visit. Just because there were three gifts, that says nothing whatsoever as to whether there were two or twenty magi giving them. Secondly, from a practical viewpoint, “The gold paid the cost of the journey [to Egypt], the incense and myrrh, easily carried and fetching very high prices in Egypt, provided for their first needs there.” (Ellison) Beyond those two points, opinions as to the meaning of the gifts differ somewhat depending on which source you are using to get your information.

Many scholars propose symbolic meanings for each gift, often quoting other Scripture passages to back up their claims. Thus, Barbieri says, “Some believe the gifts had...significance by reflection on the character of this Child's life. Gold might represent His deity and purity, incense the fragrance of His life, and myrrh His sacrifice and death (myrrh was used for embalming).”

Regarding Barbieri's last point, Blomberg disagrees: “Because Matthew has not yet introduced the theme of Jesus' death, it is not likely that he is implying it here, even though myrrh was a spice often used in embalming. Rather, all three gifts honor the Christ child as King.”

Picking up on Blomberg's last point, Muller explains in more detail: “The anointing gave the new king the legal right to rule over Israel. It was done from a special vessel, a horn which was kept in the temple (1 Ki.1:39; cf. 1 Sam. 10:1; 16:1,13) using olive oil mixed with spices (myrrh, cinnamon, calamus, etc.), which was poured over the king's head...Through the anointing the king became the bearer of special authority. In Ps. 45:7f the Psalmist sings of the roles of the anointed one, fragrant with myrrh and aloes. Through the anointing, the royal office radiates joy and fragrance.”

“Libanos (frankincense), brought to the infant Jesus (Matt. 2:11), symbolizes both his divinity and his priestly office of intercession (Heb. 7:25). The bringing of frankincense by Gentiles to the messiah was a Jewish expectation (Isa. 60:6). In Rev. 8:3,5 the association of one and the same censer (libanotos) with intercession and judgment shows the potency of Christian prayer in fulfilling God's purposes.” (Hillyer)

Fletcher-Louis states: “In Matthew 2:11 the magi fall down and worship the infant Jesus and give him presents fit for a royal high priest: (gold [Ex 28:5-6,11], frankincense [Ex 30:34; Lev 2:1], myrrh [Ex 30:23]). That is, for Matthew, their prostration fulfills biblical texts that look forward to the nations' pilgrimage to Zion and worship of Israel's God (esp. Ps. 72:10-11; Is 60:6).”

“The Church Fathers and Luther saw in the three gifts given the symbols of Jesus' royalty (gold), divinity (incense), and his Passion and burial (myrrh); but it is probable that the evangelist was simply naming the most common offerings in the ancient East. All the gifts were products of Arabia, but not exclusively so.” (D. Hill)

And France says, “Despite the symbolism traditionally discerned in the gifts of the magi since the time of Irenaeus (gold for royalty, frankincense for divinity, and myrrh for death and burial...) myrrh, too, was primarily used as a luxurious cosmetic fragrance...These are luxury gifts, fit for a king.”

Similarly skeptical of all symbolic interpretations, Albright and Mann make a rather bold statement: “All manner of symbolic meanings have been attached to these offerings, under the influence of Isa lx 6 and Ps lxxii 10,11,15...there is no such connection made by Matthew. Myrrh was certainly suitable for a king, and was used at his anointing (cf. Ps xlv 8). But the gifts were also part of the common stock-in-trade of magi...Regarded as the tools of a trade, offerings of the magi would not be gifts of homage, but a declaration of dissociation from former practices.” This appears to be a highly unlikely interpretation of their actions.

Although Harrison also notes that items such as frankincense “furnished much of the wealth acquired by those traders who followed the ancient spice-routes from S. Arabia to Gaza and Damascus (Is. lx. 6),” he certainly did not use that fact to discount any symbolic value to the gifts. In fact, he noted, “The gift of frankincense presented to Christ by the wise men (Mt. ii 11) has been interpreted as symbolizing His priestly office.”

Arguing in the opposite direction, Hendricksen says that we should not immediately jump to the conclusion that only one symbolic meaning should be assigned to each gift since “in general Scripture assigns more than one use to each of these articles.” But after illustrating this point for each gift, he quotes Origen as stating that the magi brought “gold, as to a king; myrrh, as to one who was mortal; and incense, as to God.” Hendricksen continues: “Does not this representation amount to oversimplification? On the surface it would seem that it does. However, another look at the entire list of passages in which these three items are mentioned proves that, to say the least, there is an important element of truth in Origen's observation.