Musings on the Magi: What Theological Lessons Can Be Drawn from Matthew’s Infancy Narrative?

How to cite this article: Joshua N. Tilton, “Musings on the Magi: What Theological Lessons Can Be Drawn from Matthew’s Infancy Narrative?” Jerusalem Perspective (2026) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/33917/].

In December Jerusalem Perspective published a series of articles on the narrative of the magi in Matthew’s Gospel.^[10] One of the main conclusions I drew from these articles is that the story of the magi is not primarily intended to teach history—let alone astronomy!^[11] —but to convey a theological message through a literary art form I referred to as “narrative theology.”^[12] By this term I meant that the details of Matthew’s magi story, including the characters it mentions and the actions they take, are not primarily driven by historical facts but by the theological message the author of Matthew (or his source) wished to communicate to his readers. This does not mean, however, that Matthew’s magi narrative is pure fantasy. On the contrary, Matthew’s story includes historical figures (namely, Herod and Archelaus, as well as Jesus, Joseph, and Mary), and in his article Ze’ev Safrai went so far as to suggest that even the narrative outlines of Matthew’s magi story were inspired by the details of the more historically reliable account in Luke (e.g., the Star of Bethlehem in Matthew parallels the heavenly host in Luke, and the magi who come to Bethlehem in Matthew parallel the shepherds who come to the manger in Luke).^[13] If so, then there was an historical basis to Matthew’s magi story. Nevertheless, Matthew’s purpose in telling the magi story was not to teach a history lesson but to teach theology through storytelling.

Narrative theology is a technique at least as ancient as the Hebrew Scriptures. The book of Genesis does not open with a philosophical proposition (e.g., “there is a First Cause,” “a Supreme Being,” or the like) but with a story: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). The Creation narrative is not history in the modern sense either, but it does tell a story about God and the universe that is meant to give readers theological insight into human origins and God’s character.

Jesus frequently employed theological narratives in his teachings. We call them parables. Some scholars suggest that some of Jesus’ parables do have an historical basis—the Parable of the Entrusted Funds, for instance, bears a marked similarity to the political career of Herod’s son Archelaus—^[14] nevertheless, the parables were not intended to be a lesson in history but to convey theological concepts to his listeners.

If we allow that such august personages as the author of Genesis and Jesus the parable-teller made use of the technique of narrative theology, it should not be too great a stretch to attribute this method to the author of Matthew with regard to his story about the magi.^[15]

In my December article, “Wise Men or Stooges: Who Were Matthew’s Magi?” I attempted to establish that in his magi account the author of Matthew was, indeed, doing narrative theology in the story of the magi. Here, in time for Epiphany, I want to delve a little more deeply into some of the theological messages that are embedded in his magi story.

The theological lessons of the magi story are complex and nuanced. They require balance and wisdom, and they stretch us beyond what we may feel is practical or reasonable to achieve. But what good is theology if it does not aspire to a vision of a better world?

---

• ^[1] This is not the only pseudo-citation of Scripture the author of Matthew used in his Gospel. Another occurs in Matt. 27:9-10. ↩
• ^[2] Cf., e.g., t. Men. 13:21; b. Pes. 57a. ↩
• ^[3] Translation according to Shmuel Safrai and Ze’ev Safrai, Haggadah of the Sages (trans. Miriam Schlüsselberg; Jerusalem: Carta, 2009), 211. ↩
• ^[4] Jesus certainly lamented the destruction of Jerusalem that he foretold (Matt. 23:37-39 ∥ Luke 13:34-35). And see also, David Flusser, “The Times of the Gentiles and the Redemption of Jerusalem,” Jerusalem Perspective (2014) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/11517/], especially under the subheading “Solidarity with Israel.” ↩
• ^[5] See David Flusser’s reflections on Pope John XXIII’s response to viewing a film on Auschwitz: “This is the body of Christ” (“Mary and Israel,” trans., Xavier John Seubert, O.F.M., Jerusalem Perspective [2025] [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/31129/], under the subheading “Mary and Jewish Martyrdom”). ↩
• ^[6] See R. Steven Notley, “The Cross and the Jewish People,” Jerusalem Perspective (2004) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/6275/]. ↩
• ^[7] The magi sought a king in a capital city, proving that they did not understand who and what they were searching for. “King of the Jews” was Herod’s title. In the Gospel of Matthew it is applied to Jesus only in the infancy (Matt. 2:2) and passion narratives (Matt. 27:11, 29, 37). It is a title used only by Gentiles, and its use always reveals a misapprehension of Jesus’ intentions. ↩
• ^[8] That the magi were seeking a “King of the Jews” already shows that they did not comprehend who it was that the star really heralded: not a king per se, but a redeemer in the style of Moses. That they sought their king in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish State, only compounds their incomprehension of what Jesus’ actual calling was. It is not clear to me that Jesus ever wanted to be a king or to reign in Jerusalem. The early Christian claim that God chose the crucified and risen Jesus to be the messiah seems to subvert the normal understanding of what a king is. ↩
• ^[9] On “the Kingdom of Heaven” as an anti-Zealot slogan, see David Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (trans. John Glucker; Tel Aviv: MOD Books, 1989), 50-51; idem, Jesus (3d ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 105-108. Cf. Shimon Applebaum, “The Zealots: The Case for Revaluation,” Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971): 155-170, esp. 161. See also David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: The Kingdom of Heaven in the Life of Yeshua,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2014) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/13546/]. ↩
• ^[10] See “A Jerusalem Perspective on the Magi,” Jerusalem Perspective (2025): [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/32975/]. ↩
• ^[11] See Gary C. Asperschlager with JP Staff Writer, “The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomical Perspective,” Jerusalem Perspective (2025): [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/31072/]. ↩
• ^[12] See Joshua N. Tilton, “Wise Men or Stooges: Who Were Matthew’s Magi?” Jerusalem Perspective (2025) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/31038/]. ↩
• ^[13] See Ze’ev Safrai, “The Narrative of the Magi: Some Notes from a Jewish Perspective,” Jerusalem Perspective (2025): [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/31340/]. ↩
• ^[14] See Brian Schultz, “Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27),” Novum Testamentum 49 (2007): 105-127. ↩
• ^[15] It is possible to detect other instances of narrative theology in Matthew’s Gospel. For instance, in contrast to Luke’s account of Jesus’ temptation, which refers to Jesus’ fasting for forty days (Luke 4:2), Matthew’s version says that Jesus fasted forty days and forty nights (Matt. 4:2). This narrative addition was probably intended to draw a parallel to Moses, who fasted forty days and forty nights when he received the Torah on Sinai. See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “Yeshua’s Testing,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2021) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/20454/], Comment to L17-19. Similarly, whereas Matthew has Jesus deliver the Sermon on the Mount on the summit of a mountain, Luke locates his parallel version of the sermon on a plain. The author of Matthew probably located the sermon on a mountaintop to draw a parallel between Moses’ delivering the Torah to Israel from Sinai and Jesus’ expounding the Torah for Israel from a mountaintop. These narrative flourishes are clues that the author of Matthew was more interested in doing narrative theology—teaching theological lessons through storytelling—than in straight-up history.

  A similar attempt to recast an historical figure in the role of one of the heroes of Scripture is found in Josephus’ treatment of Agrippa I. Josephus portrayed Agrippa I as reprising the role of the patriarch Joseph. On which, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Agrippa’s Birthday—From Joseph to Josephus,” Beit Mikra: Journal for the Study of the Bible and Its World 55.1 (2010): 123-128 (in Hebrew). An unofficial English translation of this article appears on WholeStones.org: https://wholestones.org/the-birthday-of-king-agrippa-between-josephus-and-joseph/. ↩