Why do we say there were three kings when the Gospel of Matthew says no such thing? We say they are kings because they behaved like kings. That is, they came to pay homage. In the ancient world lesser kings traveled to establish a treaty with a greater king by bringing rich gifts from their lands in homage to their Lord. Why do we call them 'kings' when the text says they were 'astrologers' or 'wise men' or 'sages'? In the ancient Eastern world the ideal king was also a philosopher or even a monastic type spiritual leader. These may have been 'philosopher kings', or even if they were not kings they were probably emissaries from Eastern potentates. In addition to this they are identified as kings because of the readings for the day. Isaiah 60 speaks of the kings who walk by his radiance and Psalm 72 sings of the kings of the gentile lands who will come to pay homage.
So why 'three' when it doesn't say 'three'? Because of the three gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, also because three is a perfect number--a number of completion and wholeness--thus the three kings represent all the Gentile nations who will eventually come to worship the glory and majesty of the infant king.
More from Sandra Miesel here.
2 comments:
Isn't "potentates" a great word?
"Isaiah 60 speaks of the kings.."
Portrayals of the Nativity are thick with Isaiah's prophecies.
Post a Comment