My older sister wrote an interesting article about this subject many years ago, I’m just wondering what all of you think.
Why do you think a group of Magi (singular: mage, meaning magician/astrologer) were looking for Jesus via the Eastern Star?
IMHO the passage is theology in the form of a story - but this does not make it any less true or valuable than it has been deemed to be these last 2,000 years; there is a change in how it is understood as true, but not in its truth.
Which is not to deny that it is composed of elements, which taken separately rather than altogether (as in Matt 1-2) may be based on historical realities: the star is not likely to have “stood over” where Jesus was born so as to show where - that would have burnt the place & the surrounding area. Details such as this do not favour taking the whole thing as historical - to do so, makes needless difficulties.
The passage about the Magi gives us (for instance):
- Psalm 72
- Numbers 24.17
- Matthew’s model of Jesus as Davidic King - there are other models for Jesus too
The presentation of Jesus as King is fundamental to this Gospel - & it begins here, as those two passages imply.
The passage cannot really be taken in isolation from the Baptism & the Temptation. The latter continues the Exodus theme begun in 2, where Jesus is identified as Moses & Israel. The various models for Jesus in this gospel are organically inter-related; no one of them can be
taken in isolation.
The influence of the Messianic Secret: Jesus is recognised by non-Jews, & rejected by His own People. The people one would imagine must know Who He is, don’t - whereas He is made known to Gentiles, women, sinners, & the like. The lack of recognition is maybe a function of Jesus as
hidden,or
unknown,** Messiah**. (Cf. the child in Rev. 12).
Which suggests: Jesus is recognised by the Magi, who have read the stars (a practice denounced in the Tanakh) - whereas those possessed the Tanakh, did not recognize their King when He came. This last detail tallies with St. Paul’ s words in Rom. 2.
There is also a parallel between Herod & the Pharaoh “who knew not Joseph” - both are kingly, both murderous, both fail in their purpose: just like the great red dragon in Rev. 12 (Revelation reminds me of Matthew a good deal); which is a reminder that the gospels are strongly predestinarian - nothing can hinder God’s purpose, & attempts to hinder it, only serve to forward it. The birth of Augustus was called “good news”, which is remarkable: the euangelion of Jesus is confronted by the euangelion of the man in whose reign Jesus was born. This is very relevant to what sort of literature a euangelion is - it hints (though it does no more than hint) that the Euangelion, written or preached is of its very nature about the King of Kings.
The theme of the MS is of great importance - especially when joined with the Kingship of God: AFAICS, the NT is shot through with a fusion of the two themes: so Jesus is presented as a royal figure: His Father is King, therefore Jesus is Heir to the Kingdom, which is why He is the Davidic King. Isaiah 6 is of great importance here - it is quoted in Mark. 4.11-12, & is a passage about God as King.
Psalm 89 may be important - if the Servant passage in Isaiah 52-53.12 is read in the light of it, the function of Jesus as King, therefore as sin-bearer is suggested. This would make the Death of Jesus a conquest of death (which is a royal action), & therefore more intelligible Parts of Ps. 89 would fit the sufferings of Jesus rather well.
The riding on a donkey gains in meaning when one remembers that Solomon (Psalm 72.1) rode to his crowning on one (1 Kings 1.34). It is hard to believe that the Evangelists missed that passage - & as Matt. 6 shows Jesus as “something more than Solomon”, it is not easy to believe Matthew would overlook the passage in Kings; it would imply the status of Jesus, for those with eyes to see it, without insisting on it.
All this is scratching the surface - hope it helps anyway
