Cecil’s answer about frankincense and myrrh was terrific and, as far as it went, pretty much correct. What he missed was the symbolic meaning of the gifts to Matthew’s first-century audience.
Matthew, a rabbi, wanted to convey to his audience that the smartest people in the world thought of the newborn Jesus as king, priest, and prophet. The gift of gold signified the baby’s royalty; the gift of frankincense symbolized the baby’s priesthood (a strong incense usually used to cover up the stench of charred meat); and the gift of myrrh, “the oil of holy ointment,” symbolized the baby’s status as prophet – myrrh having been used for a thousand years to confirm the status of people like Samuel, Huldah, and Elijah.
The comedian Cathy Ladman did a great comedy routine where, in the role of Mary, she said, “Myrrh.” – pronounced as a rather nasal “muh” – “Thank you for the lovely myrrh. (Let’s not invite the Wisemans again, okay, Joseph?)”
Frankincense and myrrh were thought to be valuable in the first century for two reasons: (1) they were intrinsically valuable. For example, there’s a story in the Bible where, right before Jesus dies, a woman prophet appears and anoints him with a few dabs of myrrh. The other disciples object to the lavishness of her gesture, but Jesus says that she will be remembered forever for her action. (Matthew 26, Mark 14) The myrrh in question was worth 300 denarii – roughly $30,000 in today’s purchasing power. The magi’s gift, a whole containerful rather than a few dabs, was probably worth a whole lot more.
(2) The frankincense and myrrh were also symbolically valuable. In the first century, religion was like football is today – the only thing most people talked about when they met in the first-century equivalent of bars, coffeehouses, and other public meeting places. As I mentioned before, the frankincense symbolized that the baby was the new Great High Priest, and the myrrh symbolized that the baby was a prophet just as important as Elijah or Isaiah, if not more so.
It would be sort of like, if it happened today, Queen Elizabeth, Stephen Hawking, and the Pope going to see the newborn baby to give the baby deeds of ownership to Fort Knox (when it had gold in it), M.I.T., and the Vatican. (And two thousand years from now, folks are saying to each other, “Why did they give the baby an oven mitt?”)
I had understood that the significance of myrrh was not that Jesus was a prophet, but that he was the divine sacrifice. Myrrh, as I understand it, was primarily used in embalming, and so was a reminder of death.
Chronos said, “I had understood that the significance of myrrh was not that Jesus was a prophet, but that he was the divine sacrifice. Myrrh, as I understand it, was primarily used in embalming, and so was a reminder of death.”
Myrrh was used in the anointing of priests to the priesthood (Exodus); in the purification of women after their periods (Esther 12); and as a perfume (Ps. 45, Prov. 7, several canticles). In the Song of Songs, myrrh is a sort of perfumed K-Y jelly. There is no attestation in the Hebrew Scriptures to its ever having been used in embalming, but it’s quite possible. It smells nice, and corpses do not, especially after a few days in that hot desert sun.
In the passages of Matthew and Mark I cited earlier, the gospel writer says that when the disciples complained that $30,000 could be put to a better purpose, Jesus defends the woman prophet by saying, “By pouring this ointment on my body she has prepared me for burial.”
Whether or not you believe that Jesus actually did say what the gospel writer said he said – 35 to 55 years after the Crucifixion and with no first-century instant replays to check (no tape recorders, or electricity, either) – depends a lot on whether you believe in the doctrine of the atonement. I don’t. Matthew and Mark probably did.
The question was, why were frankincense and myrrh considered valuable? My answer was, (a) because they cost a LOT of money, and (b) because they had symbolic meaning in the first century. If we want to debate what that meaning was, we should take this to e-mail.
This is incorrect. Matthew and Luke mention merely “precious ointment,” and Mark and John both specify spike-nard. Also, Matthew, Mark, and John claim much more than “a few dabs”; John says “a pound” (KJV; I don’t know what the Greek text says) and the others say she emptied a box. Luke says she “anointed him,” but doesn’t say with how much. There’s no reason to believe that the Magus’s gift was much larger, although it may have been more valuable, as pure myrrh is more difficult to acquire than an ointment; on the other hand, myrrh is native to Arabia, whereas spikenard grows in East India.
This is incorrect. Matthew and Luke mention merely “precious ointment,” and Mark and John both specify spike-nard. Also, Matthew, Mark, and John claim much more than “a few dabs”; John says “a pound” (KJV; I don’t know what the Greek text says) and the others say she emptied a box. Luke says she “anointed him,” but doesn’t say with how much. There’s no reason to believe that the Magus’s gift was much larger, although it may have been more valuable, as pure myrrh is more difficult to acquire than an ointment; on the other hand, myrrh is native to Arabia, whereas spikenard grows in East India.