The Parables of the Hidden Treasure and of the Pearl Merchant

By Mark L. Bailey

[Mark L. Bailey is Vice President for Academic Affairs, Academic Dean, and Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.

This is article six in an eight-part series, “The Kingdom in the Parables of Matthew 13.”]

The parables of the hidden treasure and of the pearl merchant are the first two Jesus spoke after He left the crowd and went into a house with His disciples (Matt. 13:36). In both of these parables, as with others in Matthew 13, the introductory formulas are the same: “The kingdom of heaven is like” (vv. 44, 45; cf. vv. 24, 31, 33, 47). Hagner notes that as in the previous two parables (the mustard seed and the leavening process) the imagery of hiddenness and smallness is evident.[1]

The Setting of the Hidden Treasure Parable

After telling the crowd and His disciples four parables (Matt. 13:1–33), Jesus left the crowd and entered a house with His disciples, where He explained the parable of the weeds (vv. 36–43). Then He told them four more parables. Using the word “hidden” (κεκρυμμένῳ) in verse 44, the first of these four parables in the house is linked with verse 35, which quotes Psalm 78:2: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden [κεκρυμμένα] since the foundation of the world.” Fenton has suggested that the entire “in-house” section of verses 34–52 has been recorded as a chiasm:[2]

A Jesus’ speaking in parables as a fulfillment of prophecy (v. 35)

B The explanation of the weeds (vv. 36–43)

C The parable of the treasure (v. 44)

C’ The parable of the pearl (vv. 45–46)

B’ The net and its explanation (vv. 47–50)

A’ Jesus’ saying about the new and the old (vv. 51–52)

The “A” lines emphasize the Old Testament truth and the mysteries being delivered by the new Sage, Jesus. The “B” lines refer to the judgment at the end of the age when the wicked will be separated from the righteous. The “C” lines contain the “couplet” parables, which show the value of the kingdom.

The Narrative Structure and Details of the Hidden Treasure Parable

Blomberg lists the parables of the hidden treasure and of the pearl merchant as “one-point parables,” since each contains only one main character in the narrative. Yet he argues that there are actually two foci to the narrative of each parable.[3] On the other hand Phillips says the parable of the hidden treasure has a threefold structure with a major transformation at the end.[4]

The parables of the hidden treasure and of the pearl merchant are parallel in five ways: a reference to something of value, the finding, the going, the selling all one has, and the buying. They also have some significant differences. The treasure parable speaks of hiding, joy, and the location of the treasure that is found and hidden again in the field. It also contains historic-present tenses (“goes,” “buys,” and “sells”), whereas the pearl merchant parable has all these verbs in the past (“went,” “sold,” and “bought”). In the first the discovery is accidental, while in the second the person was in the business for just such a find. Obviously, then, the parables, while similar, are not the same, as some have suggested.

The Treasure Hidden in the Field

In verse 44 the term “treasure” can mean the place where valuables are kept or the treasure itself. People would bury their treasures to keep them safe from marauders. This was a common practice when people went on a journey or were at war.[5] Josephus referred to the incredible wealth that Jews had buried underground and that the Romans discovered.[6] The tenuous political conditions that prevailed at the time of Christ prompted people to bury their treasures for security. This was also done by the unprofitable servant in another of Jesus’ parables (25:25).

Several interpreters have understood the treasure to be a particular group of people. Trench identified the treasure as Gentiles and the pearl as believing Jews, because, he said, the Jews were looking for the kingdom and the Gentiles were not.[7] Fenton argues against such a notion, saying that the Jews should have been mentioned before the Gentiles.[8] Therefore some interpret the treasure as a symbol of the Jews-either Jewish Christians[9] or the nation Israel.[10] Walvoord says the treasure is Israel whose value is unrecognized by the world.[11] Irenaeus, on the other hand, held that the treasure was Christ, and the field was the Scriptures.[12] Some identify the treasure with Israel because it was found in the field, a subtle reference to the land of Israel. Similarly the pearl, found in the sea, is associated with the Gentiles. However, to suggest further that such references apply to only the believers in Israel or among the Gentiles seems to go beyond the basic thought of something valuable.

The background for the phrase “treasure hidden in the field” (θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ) may be found in Proverbs 2:4 and Sirach 20:30. In the first reference wisdom is something to be searched for like a hidden treasure. The verse in Sirach states that it is folly not to possess the hidden treasure. Jesus’ parable is teaching that possessing a treasure such as the kingdom should be of the highest priority for any person interested in living wisely. The fact that the treasure was found “in the field” simply distinguishes the location from a city or village. Blomberg identifies the man in both parables as “anyone who becomes a ‘child of the kingdom,’ that is a disciple of Jesus.”[13]

The Acquisition of the Treasure

Some writers challenge as unethical the man’s keeping what did not belong to him. But others argue that the morality of the parable is beside the point, since the value of what is found is the central truth of the parable.[14] This issue within the economy of the day was debated by the rabbis.[15] “When anyone found treasure like this, the legal position appears to have been that the finder was entitled to keep it.”[16] There is nothing in the parable to hint that anything out of the ordinary took place. As Stein observed, “What is clear is that they [the audience of the parable] believed that the man of the parable could have acquired such treasure by the purchasing of the land in which he found the treasure.”[17] Blomberg dismisses the parable’s details of joy, the hiding, and the ethics of hiding before buying as peripheral to the main issues.[18]

The Re-hiding of the Treasure

The man’s re-hiding of the discovered treasure has been interpreted variously. Thomas said the re-hiding portrays the rejection and postponement of the kingdom. His point is that true believers would not be revealed until at least after Pentecost.[19] He also believes Matthew 11:25 indicates that God has “hidden” certain truths from the wise and has revealed them to babies. The kingdom is among those things God has hidden from those who, because of a lack of humility, cannot understand. For Thomas, the treasure is not the kingdom found by people, but the people of the kingdom found by God.[20] The man’s selling “all he has” is for Thomas a picture of the Savior’s death.[21]

Scott argues that the “finders keepers, losers weepers” mentality of the parable is an “escape from the bonds of the everyday, to a lawless world where we are rewarded for not working.”[22] This can “be a sign of God’s grace working outside the laws of the everyday.”[23]

It seems preferable, however, to interpret the re-hiding as a part of the finder’s desperate effort to own the treasure. Thus the parable seems to state that individuals should let nothing stand in the way of possessing the kingdom as their highest priority.

Darrett has surveyed the talmudic case law with respect to “lifting” (removing treasure after it is discovered) and has concluded that, depending on the specificity of the instructions by the owner, a day laborer may retain what he finds.[24] “That which is found by a laborer [while working for another] belongs to himself. When is that? [It is if] the employer had instructed him, ‘Weed or dig for me to-day.’ But if the employer had instructed him, ‘Work for me to-day’ [without specifying the nature of the work], his findings belong to the employer.”[25] What seems clear in the rabbinic traditions is that if a treasure had a mark of ownership, the finder was required to return the find to the owner. Otherwise the opportunity to buy the property and so possess the treasure was considered legal. Rights of ownership are then tied to the property on which the treasure is discovered.[26] Scott summarizes, “Treasure that can be presumed to have an owner cannot be claimed by the finder.”[27] But here in Jesus’ parable the action of the man was ethical and legal according to rabbinic authorities.[28]

The Selling of Everything

The worker was motivated to sell everything he owned because he recognized the great value of the discovered treasure and he sensed the joy of owning such a treasure. The phrase “from joy over it” (ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτοῦ) shows the finder understood both the value of the treasure and the significance of possessing it. Jesus was not saying that a person can purchase the kingdom. That would fly in the face of God’s grace, the only means of obtaining eternal life and entering the kingdom. (In fact Jesus said, “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom” [Luke 12:32, NIV]). Instead Jesus was saying that “the selling of all he has is rather a way of bringing out the truth that one should count all well lost for the sake of the kingdom.”[29] Charles states, “The selling and the buying in this connection express a man’s willingness to give up, to sacrifice, everything that prevents his making the heavenly treasure his own.”[30]

What the man lost by selling everything was worth it for what he gained. This paradoxical finale drives the parabolic analogy. What was originally thought to be of personal worth becomes insignificant in comparison with what is acquired.

The Central Truth(s) in Relationship to the Kingdom

The options for the central truth of this parable include the sacrificial work of Christ, the sacrifice (both the demand and the joy) to possess the kingdom, the reward of the righteous in the age to come, and the essential value of the kingdom.

The Work of Christ

The tension that one cannot buy the kingdom of God has led some to identify the person in each of the parables as Jesus Christ.[31] Toussaint says this parable presents a history of the kingdom, as seen in the following analogies.

a. Hidden state: the dark period of Israel from Rehoboam to Christ

b. Discovery: the coming near of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus

c. Hiding the treasure: removal of the kingdom from Israel (Matt. 21:43)

d. Buying the field: the condescension of Jesus through His death.[32]

However, since the period under consideration in Matthew 13 is the period from the ministry of the Son of Man to the judgment at the end of the present age, it is difficult to see the kingdom initially found, appreciated, and then hidden as a reference to kingdom history in the Old Testament. As a mystery of the kingdom the parable points out that what was not previously known in the Old Testament is now revealed in the ministry of Jesus Christ.

The Reward for the Righteous

Fenton argues that the point of the parables of the treasure and of the pearl merchant is to stress the reward for the righteous in the age to come.[33] And Patte writes, “The point of these parables is to show how people should fully devote themselves to the appropriation of this ultimate good.”[34]

The Demand for Sacrifice

A number of scholars believe that the point of this parable is the sacrifice required for possession of, or participation in the kingdom. Songer argues that the central truth is that sacrifice of oneself and one’s possessions is a requirement for discipleship.[35] Stein gives three reasons why sacrifice is the central point of the analogy.[36] First, the value of the kingdom would have been an “obvious given” for Jesus’ audience. Second, the end stress of the parable lies with the sacrificial action of the main characters of both parables. Third, the shift from the aorist tense at the beginning of the parable of the treasure to the present tense at the end draws attention to the end, where the cost is emphasized. He summarizes, “It is evident, therefore, that Jesus in these parables meant to portray the decision to possess the kingdom of God as a ‘joyous sacrifice.’ ”[37]

Blomberg says that the major difference between the parables of the treasure and of the pearl merchant is significant. In the first, a man found a treasure without looking for it, while the merchant in the second spent much time and travel looking for pearls. “Jesus may therefore be calling both the individual who is diligently searching for spiritual riches as well as the person who is entirely apathetic toward God to give up whatever stands between them and the kingdom.”[38] “They must be willing to risk all, if the priorities of the kingdom threaten the security of their earthly existence.”[39]

The Joy of Possession

Beasley-Murray argues that the willingness to sacrifice is more important than the act of sacrifice itself. “The point is that the worth of what has come to the finders is so great that they are happy to pay whatever price is necessary to get it.”[40] Regarding the relationship between the value and the cost, Jüngel affirms, “The joy on the part of the finder corresponds to the superior worth of the treasure; as joy in the greater over the less, it self-evidently (not sacrificially!) makes renunciation, if that which is of greater worth can be gained.”[41] Bruner also sees the joy of the gospel as the “leading point” of the parables of the treasure and the pearl merchant.[42] Bruner argues against the idea of sacrifice in favor of joy: “Because of the treasure, selling was not sacrifice; it was smart. It was a joy!”[43] In neither parable was the act of selling seen as a sacrifice.

Both Joy and Demand

Some writers find in these two parables a balance between joy and demand. Bruner states, “The two great and complementary lessons of the gem parables-the joy of the gospel and the demand of the gospel-should be the interpreter’s emphases.”[44] Bonnard writes, “The evangelical stripping [dépouillment, self-sacrifice] is not the means of acceding to the kingdom, but [it is] the consequence of the discovery. Yet on the other hand, the treasure once discovered requires and permits [enables?] this stripping.”[45] This is also the position of both Dodd and Linnemann.[46] More specifically, Linnemann thinks the central point of the two parables is the risk factor.[47] While joy and demand do find their place in the narrative, they are understood only against the backdrop of the value of the kingdom which, when found, produces joy and demands sacrifice.

The Value of the Kingdom

What best explains the actions and emotions of the man who found the treasure is the value of the kingdom. That the concept of value is the supreme point of the parable can be seen by the fact that in neither parable was the sacrifice viewed as a loss. Rather, both men end up with treasures far beyond their net worth before they acquired the treasures.[48] In Matthew, selling is a condition for possessing the treasure, not for finding it.[49] “It may not appear to be riches from the world’s point of view, but membership in the kingdom has superlative value.”[50] Wendland agrees that the major picture is “the incomparable worth of the kingdom which surpasses all earthly things, for which everything must be offered up.”[51] Among others, Hagner argues that the value of the kingdom justifies the cost. He sees in these two parables “the glorious character of the kingdom brought by Jesus, which justifies the cost of absolute discipleship.”[52] The point is that the kingdom is worth everything. “Rigorous, self-denying discipleship is in view.. .. This parable, like its following companion, is about the reality of the kingdom and its absolute worth in terms of personal sacrifice.”[53] Addressing the balance between value and sacrifice, Young says, “However, both aspects are complimentary, for the cost of discipleship describes the value of the kingdom and the value of the kingdom is commensurate with the commitment required of a disciple.”[54]

The Conclusion

The central truth of this parable of the hidden treasure is the value of the kingdom of heaven. The joy in finding it, its potential possession, and the need for sacrifice support the fact that value is the dominant theme. Also sacrifice is involved. “The kingdom of God is so valuable that it is worth sacrificing anything to gain it.”[55] Sider has rightly articulated these points of value and sacrifice in slightly different words. “In this parable Jesus evidently wished to say at least two things about the kingdom. First, it comes of God’s grace, not of our ability; this requires that the purchase be a notable bargain. Second, the kingdom demands total commitment; this requires that the man pay with everything he has.”[56]

Because of the inherent value of the kingdom and the joy that comes to those who possess it, no sacrifice is too great to make for such a treasure as the kingdom of God.

The Intended Appeal for the Audience of the Hidden Treasure Parable

Because Jesus spoke these two parables to the disciples only, the primary application relates to believers. The parable of the treasure portrays the value of the kingdom and affirms that it is to be the highest priority in one’s life. “When we find it (read, ‘fully grasp its infinite worth’) we will joyfully let go of all competing claims upon our lives and make it our one great possession.”[57] Paterson’s catalog of the values of the kingdom makes all else shrink by comparison.

The chief of these-if they may be described by the modern categories-are the religious values of the forgiveness of sins and filial communion with the heavenly Father; the moral values of the change of heart, the practice of true righteousness, and the call to the service of God and man; the intellectual values of the knowledge of the Father and the mysteries of the Kingdom; the social values of the fellowship of the Christian society; and the affective values of the peace and the joy which the world can neither give nor take away. The Kingdom might even be said to include economic values, since the disciples were assured of a providential care by which the hairs of their head were all numbered, and were promised that if they made it their concern to seek the Kingdom of God the Father in heaven would make it His concern to provide for their earthly necessities (Mt 6:33).[58]

This parable thus serves to motivate believers to be faithful and to be on guard against worldliness. “Worldliness consists, not in possessing the goods of this world, but in valuing them as ends in themselves, or in using them for selfish or sordid ends.”[59]

The inherent value of the kingdom also motivates Jesus’ disciples to evangelize others. Disciples who have “found” the kingdom ought to communicate its message as the treasure others should possess. “It is first by telling people of God’s treasure that people make the sellings that are necessary in following God.”60 Fenton describes the evangelistic appeal within the overall eschatological message of the kingdom: “God is about to rule; and when He takes over, there will be no place for private empires. The only way to survive the coming cataclysm is to change from a life of sin and selfishness and pride, to the life that is for God. Those who ‘buy’ this will be ensuring their future safety and prosperity; and the cost of it is total abandonment, in faith.”[61] Joy is a major motivation for both discipleship and evangelism. “The basic motif of discipleship, for all its difficulties, is certainly joy-joy in the discovery of the reality of Jesus and in the thoughtfulness of His commands.”[62] Bengel adds, “Spiritual joy is an incentive to deny the world.”[63]

The Parable of the Pearl Merchant

Glombitza lists five differences between the parables of the treasure and of the pearl merchant: (1) The former likens the kingdom to a treasure; the latter to a merchant. (2) The treasure is intentionally concealed; the latter involves the merchant’s effort to find the pearl in its natural setting. (3) The treasure was accidentally found; the pearl was intentionally sought. (4) The verbs in the former parable are in the present tense; in the latter they are generally in the past tense. (5) The character of the selling is different between the two: the dayworker sold his possessions, while the merchant was accustomed to buying and selling as part of his normal activity.[64]

The first two parables of Matthew 13 (the sower and the weeds) were interpreted by the Lord. The next two (the mustard seed and the leavening process) have Old Testament backgrounds. But the parables of the treasure and of the pearl merchant stand by themselves without interpretation. These two have similar characteristics: the introductory formula is the same; the structure of both is similar; and their central truths are similar.

The association of pearls with other precious stones in Revelation 17:4; 18:12, 16; 21:21 indicates their value in the ancient Greco-Roman culture. The link between pearls and a merchant is also found in Revelation 18:11–12, no doubt reflecting a typical cultural connection. Jesus said, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine” (Matt. 7:6). Each of the gates of the New Jerusalem seen by the apostle John was a single pearl (Rev. 21:21). Thus the pearl was an object of great value. Pearls were mostly found in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean.

The Narrative Structure and Details of the Pearl Merchant Parable

The structure of this parable parallels that of the hidden treasure parable. Both refer to something valuable; both record the finding of those valuables; and both mention an intentional action of going, selling everything, and buying the object of value.

The word “merchant” (ἔμπορος) comes from the word πόρος “journey.” The idea is that of a traveling wholesaler, not that of a more stationary retailer.65 The merchant was looking for “fine pearls” (13:45). “Fine” (καλός) can mean beautiful as well as what is good. Μαργαρίτης, the word for pearl, is found three times in Matthew, once in 1 Timothy, and five times in Revelation. It does not appear at all in the Septuagint. Pearls were often classified with gold as especially valuable items.66 The pearl found by the merchant is said to have been “of great value” (Matt. 13:46). This word πολύτιμος is used of the costly ointment that Mary poured on Jesus in anticipation of His death and burial (John 12:3) and of the believer’s faith under trial, which is more precious than gold (1 Pet. 1:7). Jeremias says the phrase “one precious pearl” (ἕνα πολύτιμον μαργαρίτην) is an Aramaism that should be translated “a specially valuable pearl.”[67]

Walvoord says the pearl represents the church, noting that “there is a sense in which the church was formed out of the wounds of Christ.”[68] Carson criticizes this view, saying, “This does not take us much beyond patristic allegorizing.”[69] He says Jesus was “saying that the person whose whole life has been bound up with ‘pearls’—the entire religious heritage of the Jews?—will, on comprehending the true value of the kingdom as Jesus presents it, gladly exchange all else to follow him.”[70] However, how much allegorizing is Carson guilty of in identifying other pearls as the heritage of the Jews as opposed to other items of value or interests in this life? Pentecost identifies the man in the parable as Christ and the pearl as the Gentiles.[71] However, this author has difficulty seeing any distinction of nationality in the two parables of the treasure and the pearl merchant.

In the parable of the treasure the verb “sells” is πωλέω, whereas the verb “sold” (perfect tense) in the pearl merchant parable is from πιπράσκω. Morris feels the change is merely stylistic.[72] He adds, “The sacrifice of all that a man has is not too much. But in this second parable there is the further point that, whereas the man with the treasure could sell part of it and still be wealthy, the man with the pearl must retain it; his delight was in possessing it, not in the profit he could make from it.”[73] Whether part of the treasure could be sold and part of it kept is beyond the statements in the parable. Finding a valuable pearl, the merchant sold everything he owned (just as the man did in the previous parable), picturing total commitment.

The Central Truth(s) in Relationship to the Kingdom

Because this parable is so closely related to the previous one, it is not necessary to repeat all the options proposed for the parable’s central truth. Bruner states, “Few places in the New Testament as perfectly spell out the two main foci of the gospel (grace and demand), and place them in their proper sequence, as do these two gem parables: first the jewels and then the selling; but without the selling there is no possession of the jewels.”[74] This parable, like the previous one, has been interpreted as emphasizing the value of the kingdom,[75] the necessary sacrifice for the kingdom,[76] or the compelling power of God’s grace.[77]

Why did Jesus tell two parables with such a similar structure and emphasis? If they are intended as a strict couplet, the purpose would be to deepen the lessons of value and sacrifice. Paterson lists two possible reasons why they should not be viewed as a couplet, teaching the same lessons: to appeal through the characters in the narrative to peasant folks as well as city dwellers; and to address two classes of disciples-those finding the kingdom while not looking, and those looking for the Messiah with great expectation of the kingdom. Matthew would be an example of the former and Peter and Andrew would be typical of the latter.[78] However, Jeremias says the differences between the parables are irrelevant. “In both parables the discovery was a surprise, the doubling of the parable is not concerned with the manner of discovery but with the contrast of the poor and the rich.”[79]

The Intended Appeal for the Audience of the Pearl Merchant Parable

Together with the previous parable this one stresses the priority of the kingdom based on its inherent value. “People must always be willing to abandon anything that might stand in the way of wholehearted allegiance to Christ and the cause of the kingdom.”[80] “Again we see that it is well to take decisive action while the opportunity is there, and that no cost is too great when it is a matter of gaining the kingdom.”[81] Therefore all that one has is never too much to give in exchange for absolute dedication to the Lord’s rule. Of course neither parable is teaching that a person’s efforts or sacrifices will gain him or her salvation. Instead the parables are emphasizing the need for complete allegiance to Jesus and His cause, regardless of the personal cost.

For Hagner, the fifth and sixth parables of Matthew 13 “have as their focus the glorious character of the kingdom brought by Jesus which justifies the cost of absolute discipleship.”[82] He states further, “But in the case of the kingdom, wonderful beyond price, the analogous action of the disciple in full and unreserved commitment is more than justified.”[83] The value of the kingdom is worth sacrificing all one has. When a follower of Jesus makes such a sacrifice, paradoxically he or she gains. Like the treasure, the kingdom is the source of highest joy, and, as seen in the pearl, the kingdom should be deemed as the most precious possession.

Notes

1. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 396.
2. John C. Fenton, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl (Matt. 13:44–46),” Expository Times 77 (March 1966): 178.
3. Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 278–79.
4. Gary Allen Phillips, “Enunciation and the Kingdom of Heaven” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1981), 444.
5. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 359.
6. Josephus, Jewish War 7.5.2.
7. Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1948), 112–13.
8. Fenton, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl (Matt. 13:44–46),” 179.
9. W. H. Griffith Thomas, Outline Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, 202.
10. J. Dwight Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 60–61.
11. John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 104–5.
12. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.26.1.
13. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 279.
14. Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, trans. S. H. Hooke, 2d ed. (New York: Scribner & Sons, 1954), 99; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949), 196; Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 359; and Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew, trans. David Green (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1975), 312. Blomberg notes that “Jesus frequently told parables in which unscrupulous characters nevertheless display some virtue from which Christians can learn (cf. esp. Luke 16:1–8; 18:1–8)” (Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman, 1992], 223).
15. Cf. m.BabaBatra 4:8; y.BabaMeṣiʿa 2:5, 8c; also see the extended discussion in Bernard B. Scott, Hear Then the Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 398–401.
16. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 359. Morris argues that the reason the man hid the treasure he discovered was that in working for the owner, he would be an agent of the owner and the discovery would belong to the one for whom he worked.
17. Robert H. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 100.
18. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 280.
19. Thomas, Outline Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, 202.
20. Ibid., 203.
21. Ibid., 202.
22. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 402.
23. Ibid.
24. J. Duncan M. Darrett, Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1970), 6, 7, 13.
25. b.BabaMeṣiʿa 118a.
26. m.BabaMeṣiʿa 2:1. For a detailed discussion of what constituted legal marks of ownership, see y. BabaMeṣiʿa 2.3-10.
27. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 399.
28. m. BabaMeṣiʿa 2:1.
29. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360 (italics his).
30. R. H. Charles, “Two Parables: A Study,” Expository Times 35 (March 1924): 266.
31. Jeffrey A. Gibbs, “Parables of Atonement and Assurance: Matthew 13:44–46, ” Concordia Theological Quarterly 51 (January 1987): 19-43; and Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus, 60–61.
32. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold Your King (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980), 183–84.
33. “It will be like gaining possession of a treasure, or of a pearl of very special value; no sacrifice in this age will be too great for that” (Fenton, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl (Matt. 13:44–46),” 178.
34. Daniel Patte, The Gospel according to Matthew: A Structural Commentary (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 198.
35. Harold Songer, “Jesus’ Use of Parables: Matthew 13, ” Review and Expositor 59 (October 1962): 499.
36. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables, 102–3.
37. Ibid., 104.
38. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 281.
39. Ibid., 280; cf. Otto Glombitza, “Der Perlenkaufmann,” New Testament Studies 7 (January 1961): 153-61; and Pheme Perkins, Hearing the Parables of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1991), 28.
40. George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 111.
41. Eberhard Jüngel, Paulus and Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zur Präzisierung der Frage nach dem Aufsprung der Christologie (Tübingen: Mohr, 1962), 143.
42. Frederick Dall Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1990), 2:511.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., 513.
45. Pierre Bonnard, L’évangile selon saint Matthieu (Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1963), 207.
46. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 112; and Eta Linnemann, Jesus of the Parables, trans. John Sturdy (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 99.
47. Linnemann, Jesus of the Parables, 170.
48. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 140; and Adolf Jülicher, DieGleichnisreden Jesu (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, 1963), 2:583.
49. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2:512.
50. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360.
51. Heinz D. Wendland, Die Eschatologie des Reiches Gottes bei Jesus: Eine Studie über den Zusammenhang von Eschatologie, Ethik und Kirchenproblem (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1931), 35; so also Floyd V. Filson, The Gospel according to Matthew, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 164.
52. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 396.
53. Ibid., 397; cf. Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), 207.
54. Brad Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (New York: Paulist, 1989), 213; cf. John P. Maier, Matthew (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1980), 152.
55. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, 279; cf. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction Criticism (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1969), 115–16; and Stein, An Introduction to the Parables, 103. Dodd (The Parables of the Kingdom, 112) and Linnemann (The Parables of Jesus, 99) emphasize sacrifice more than value.
56. John W. Sider, “Interpreting the Hid Treasure,” Christian Scholar’s Review 13 (1984): 371.
57. Robert Mounce, Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 135.
58. W. P. Paterson, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl,” Expository Times 38 (April 1927): 296.
59. Ibid., 298.
60. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2:511.
61. Fenton, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl (Matt. 13:44–45),” 180.
62. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2:512.
63. J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament (reprint, Edinburgh: Clark, 1866), 1:191.
64. Glombitza, “Der Perlenkaufmann,” 157.
65. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 491.
66. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360, n. 109.
67. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 199–200.
68. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, 105.
69. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:329.
70. Ibid.
71. Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus, 60. He also suggests the treasure might represent the remnant from among Israel who will have their part in the kingdom.
72. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360. While the perfect is often used in much the same way as the aorist, Carson explains that the perfect tense was chosen because there is no aorist form for the verb πιπράσκω (“Matthew,” 329). Hagner too believes the shift in tenses is insignificant (Matthew 1–13, 396).
73. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360.
74. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2:513.
75. For examples see Paterson, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl,” 295–96; R. H. Charles, Eschatology, 2d ed. (London: Adam and Black, 1913), 265; George E. Ladd, “The Life-Setting of the Parables of the Kingdom,” Journal of Bible and Religion 31 (January 1963): 198; and Henry B. Swete, The Parables of the Kingdom, 51.
76. For examples see Patte, The Gospel according to Matthew, 198; Songer, “Jesus’ Use of Parables: Matthew 13, ” 499; and Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 122–40.
77. James M. Reese, “The Parables in Matthew’s Gospel,” The Bible Today 19 (1981): 30-34.
78. Paterson, “The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl,” 263–64.
79. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 200. For him the call for surrender is not valid either; the major point is the joy of the finder.
80. Blomberg, Matthew, 224.
81. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 360.
82. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 396. Since Jesus was speaking in a house to His disciples, the parable relates more to discipleship commitment than kingdom entrance.
83. Ibid., 397.