Matthew 2:1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem.
These “wise men,” or, more properly, magi, (υάγοι,) belonged to a numerous and influential order of men. The origin of Magism is involved in obscurity. It is thought to have had its beginning among either the Chaldeans or the Assyrians; more probably among the former. Starting in Chaldea, it would naturally make its way to Assyria, Media, and the adjoining countries. From Media it was brought into Persia, where it exerted a powerful influence in modifying the ancient religious faith of the people. Some profess to trace the Magian doctrines to Abraham, who, it is said, if he did not originate them, at least purified them from the errors of Zabaism. See note on Deuteronomy 4:19 (#189). After Abraham’s time they became corrupted, and were again purified by Zoroaster, who is supposed to have been a descendant of the prophet Daniel.
We find in the Old Testament several references to the Magi. In Jeremiah 39:3,13, Ner-gal-sharezer is said to have been the Rab-mag, that is, the chief of the Magi. His name is supposed to be recorded in the Babylonian inscriptions, where mention is made of Nergal-shar-uzur, who is styled Rabu-emga or Rab mag. The chakamim, or “wise men,” referred to in Jeremiah 50:35, were probably Magi.
In Daniel’s time the Magi were very prominent in Babylon. In Daniel 2:2, “magicians,” “astrologers,” “sorcerers,” and “Chaldeans” are mentioned; while in the twenty-seventh verse of the same chapter “soothsayers” are named. These are represented by five different words in the original, and some writers think that five distinct classes of Magi are here referred to. It is difficult, however, at this late day to specify the difference between them, though the attempt has Sometimes been made.
It has been supposed from Daniel 5:11, compared with 2:48, and 4:9, that Daniel himself was made a member of the Magian order, and its chief; but the expressions there used may only mean that the king regarded him as superior to all the magicians in his dominion, and as having authority over them. In any case, we cannot believe that Daniel embraced any theological notions of the Magi which were in opposition to Hebrew orthodoxy.
An account of the worship practiced by the Magi of Media will give us some idea of the peculiarities of the order. Rawlinson says: “Magism was essentially the worship of the elements, the recognition of fire, air, earth, and water as the only proper objects of human reverence. The Magi held no personal gods, and, therefore, naturally rejected temples, shrines, and images, as tending to encourage the notion that gods existed of a like nature with man; that is, possessing personality—living and intelligent beings. Theirs was a nature worship, but a nature worship of a very peculiar kind. They did not place gods over the different parts of nature, like the Greeks; they did not even personify the powers of nature, like the Hindus; they paid their devotion to the actual material things themselves. Fire, as the most subtle and ethereal principle, and again as the most powerful agent, attracted their highest regards; and on their fire-altars the sacred flame, generally said to have been kindled from heaven, was kept burning uninterrupted from year to year and from age to age by bands of priests, whose special duty it was to see that the sacred spark was never extinguished” (Five Ancient Monarchies, vol. 2, p. 346).
The Magians were a priestly caste, and the office is supposed to have been hereditary. They uttered prophecies, explained omens, interpreted dreams, and practiced rhabdomancy or divination by rods. See note on Hosea 4:12 (#597). Their notion of the peculiar sanctity of the so-called elements led to a singular mode of disposing of the bodies of the dead. See note on Psalm 79:2 (#443).
In Persia they became a powerful body under the guide of Zoroaster, and were divided into three classes: Herbeds, or disciples; Mobeds, or masters; and Destur-mobeds, or perfect masters. After a time the term Magi became more extended in its meaning. As the Magi were men of learning, devoting special attention to astronomy and the natural sciences, it happened that, after the lapse of years, men who became celebrated for learning were called Magi, whether belonging to the priestly order or not. So, as the Magi joined to the pursuits of science the arts of the soothsayer, in process of time mere conjurors who had no scientific knowledge were called Magi. Simon Magus (Acts 8:9) and Bar-Jesus or Elymas (Acts 13:6,8) were men of this sort.
The Magi who came to visit the infant Saviour were no doubt of the better class. The idea, however, that they were kings and three in number is mere imagination, and unsusceptible of proof. They were evidently skilled in astronomical knowledge, and were earnest seekers after the newborn king. Where they came from is a disputed question. Various writers have suggested that they were Babylonians, Arabians, Persians, Bactrians, Parthians, or even Brahmins from India. Matthew says they were from “the East,” which was a geographical term of very elastic meaning.
One of the best dissertations on this subject is a monograph by Dr. Upham, who claims a Persian nationality for these Magi. His opinion is indorsed by some of the best recent biblical critics.