HIDDEN TREASURE: PART 2 (MATTHEW 13:44)

We have already discussed the main teaching of this short parable, but what classes it as a problem parable? Obviously it is the fact that the man didn't tell the owner of the field that he had a buried treasure on it.

A rabbinical teaching of unknown date said that a workman uncovering and lifting up a treasure found 

in the course of his work had to turn it over to his master. But in this case, he didn't actually lift it up 

until he became the owner. So he didn't break any laws; only he did defraud the owner of the land by 

not telling him about it. (C. Brown) There are other rabbinical teachings giving elaborate guidelines on 

what is and is not permissible to do when finding a hidden treasure. One of these rules states that any 

hoard greater in value than three gold coins must be handed over to the owner. (France)

 

Kistemaker: “Because we lack the necessary details of ownership laws in Jesus' day, we need not call 

the man's morality into question. The parable does not stress the ethical conduct of the man who found 

the treasure.” 

 

Hill: “Attention is not being drawn to the morality of the man's hiding the treasure until he can buy it.” 

 

Blomberg: “One should not worry about the man's ethics in hiding the treasure. We need neither justify 

his behavior nor imitate it. This is simply part of the story line that helps make sense of the plot."

 

This parable must have bothered the author of the later Gospel of Thomas since it records another 

version of this parable in which neither the original owner, his son who inherited the land, or the man 

who bought the field from the son knows about the treasure. The new owner comes about it by 

accident while plowing. Thus, this version avoids the ethical question entirely. But the typical Gnostic 

moral of this version is the importance of having true knowledge because you can use it to your 

advantage since the man then “began to lend money at interest to whomever he pleased.” This last 

detail betrays the story as being a much later version since Jews were not allowed to charge interest to 

fellow Jews.