Of magi and kings

We hear the reading each year, and focus most often on the obvious contrast between the reaction of the wise men from the east and that of Herod the king. First, a few things about this story of which scripturally-cognizant Catholics are aware, which our Protestant brethren often think we don't know.

• There is no indication that the wise men were themselves kings; some have concluded as much based on the precious nature of the gifts they present when they find Jesus. 
• There is no indication of how many there were; we associate "three kings" due to the three gifts and a popular Christmas carol, but the number is not specified and this is mere conjecture. 
• There is no evidence that the magi visited Jesus at the manger. The account says that when they found him they entered "the house." It doesn't even state implicitly that they found Jesus in Bethlehem where he was born, though they were clearly directed to go there, and in the absence of any statement to the contrary we can probably safely assume that they found him there. The placing of the magi's visit at the manger is probably due to an amalgamation of St. Matthew's account of the former with St. Luke's of the latter.

That said, there were a couple elements of this story that struck me for the first time. First of all, I'm not so sure how different the initial basic motivations of the magi and Herod were. Though they obviously led them to very diverse responses, could it be that this was primarily because of their respective interests? For a tiny nation, Israel was strategically located with regard to routes between Europe, Asia, and Africa. If a new king was born, there could be good political reason to visit him and court favor with his family. It was reasonable for them to presume that the father would be the current monarch, so that was the first stop on their journey. Yet they were not so familiar with Jewish history as to realize that there hadn't been a true king in Israel for centuries. Still, when it became clear to them that the newborn king for whom they sought was not of Herod's house, they didn't settle for the politically expedient action, but continued on toward their original goal. Herod encouraged them in this, revealing how even evil intentions can work to serve the purposes of God.

Herod's treacherous response, of course, is clearly rooted in politics and fear. The beginning of the monarchy in Israel was marked by the relationship between Saul and David, and that didn't turn out so well for the man who was first king. When the account tells us that Herod was troubled, and all of Jerusalem with him, the latter is no surprise.  Even under occupation, Herod wielded plenty of local power, and his subsequent murder of the Holy Innocents indicates how ruthlessly he guarded it.

None of which is especially pertinent to us. What strikes me as more relevant is the issue of how we respond to Christ's presence. Like the magi, part of us wants to pay homage to the rightful king of our lives.  Yet, like Herod, part of us is dreadfully afraid of what his kingship might mean for us. Will we lose power to rule over our own lives as we desire? Will we have to give up the life we have come to know and love? Might we be undone, bereft of home and family and our personal kingdom by what this rightful King asks of us? We have the benefit and the curse of his life, by which he showed us the cost of his kingship. We know it is loving, but a love that we may not fully embrace without fully yielding to it.

So will we respond with self-interested expediency driven by our fear, or with dogged determination rooted in hope and selfless giving?