The twenty-second passage of the Sefer Yeshua is based on Mt 13:44, and less so, on Thomas 109:1, 3. It is possible that the original source may have been the Q-Gospel, since it is missing from Mark, and perhaps Luke chose not to use it. However, it has to be noted that the version in Thomas departs radically from the intent and meaning of the version in Matthew. Several commentators remark that Thomas’s version is comparable to contemporary rabbinic stories on a similar theme, and was not taken from Q.
22. 1Yeshua said, ‘The kingdom of God is like a hoard of money hidden in a field. While ploughing, a man found it. 2He immediately covered it up again, and then in his joy he goes and sells every last possession he has in order to buy that field.’
Cultural background
In ancient Galilee and Judea, it would not have been unusual for someone to be ploughing a field that didn’t belong to them. The commonest scenario would have been that of a tenant-farmer, who worked a piece of land that belonged to a much wealthier landowner, on behalf of whom the farmer sowed and harvested the field. The harvests went to the owner of the field; the farmer and his family had to survive on what the landowner condescendingly deigned to leave for them. If the landowner so wanted, they could take the majority of the harvest, leaving the tenant farmer with little or nothing. For such subsistence farmers, who were basically used like slaves, life was hard in ancient Galilee. It is not surprising that the indentured poor eagerly listened to Yeshua’s message.
The man in the parable cannot have been one of these poor tenant-farmers, because such a subsistence farmer would have had nothing worth selling. It was often the case that farmers owned very little – sometimes they didn’t even own the clothes on their backs or the tools they used to farm with. For this reason, the farmer cannot have been abjectly poor, or just any subsistence tenant-farmer.
On the contrary, it is implied that the worker has possessions of his own that can be sold – he must have had something which was his own, that was worth the equivalent value to the asking-price of the field. It is therefore more probable that the man is a farm-worker, a hired hand, who is properly employed by the owner of the field, and is able to support himself adequately off his wages. In Yeshua’s teaching, it is those with means who were encouraged to sell what they had, not the indentured poor.
As for the hoard of money, it was a common practice around the ancient world to bury coins for safekeeping. In times of war and invasion, people would bury their money in a location only they knew about, in the hopes of returning after the war to retrieve their hoard. In many cases, the owner never returned, having been killed in war, or simply died from other causes, and the hoard’s location was lost. Even today we are still finding these ancient hoards.
The parable assumes that the hoard of money was not buried by the current owner of the field, otherwise it would already have been dug up. In most modern countries, the hoard belongs to whoever owns the land at the time the hoard is found. The same was true in Jewish law – in acquiring land, you also acquire anything that is on that land – or indeed, underneath that land (but see my comment on Duncan Derrett’s book below).
We must also assume that the value of the hoard is far greater than the value of the man’s possessions or the field itself – which is the point of the parable; the value of what he ultimately gains is greater than what he has given up. The immense value of the Kingdom of God is by far greater than the value of anything you might give up for the sake of the Kingdom.
Language note
In the Greek, the tense of the verbs switches from the aorist past tense at the beginning, to the present tense in the second half. The same process is accomplished in Aramaic and Hebrew by switching from the imperfect tense with ve- (‘and’) to the perfect form of the verb. I have tried to replicate this in English by switching from the simple past tense to the simple present tense.
Yeshua does this in several parables (e.g. the Parable of the labourers in the vineyard, Mt 20:1-15). The effect appears to be to make the events of the parable seem more immediate, as if you are seeing the events in real time together with the story-teller. Here is an example:
(past tense): She went into the living-room, and caught sight of a huge dog which had sat itself down in the middle of the room. It was trying to eat the food she had prepared for herself, and growled at her menacingly while it scattered food all over her expensive furniture.
(present tense): So she goes into the living-room, and suddenly, she catches sight of a huge dog sitting in the middle of the room; it’s trying to eat the food she’s just prepared for herself, and growls at her menacingly while it scatters food all over her expensive furniture.
When a story-teller tells their story in the present tense, it makes the events of the story more exciting and dramatic than it would if it were told in the past tense. When we tell jokes or short stories to one another, we instinctively use the present tense to hold the interest of our listeners.
The Morality of the Finder’s Actions
Yeshua often used surprising turns of events, or unusual imagery, to grab the attention of his audience and bring home a point. For example, the parable of the leaven in the batch of flour (Mt 13:33, SY 25). In that parable, leaven is used as something positive, whereas it is usually used as a symbol for something negative, because of its exclusion during the Festival of Unleavened Bread.
In this parable, the farmworker finds something that doesn’t belong to him, doesn’t tell the landowner, and in a way, dishonestly acquires the hoard for himself. Yeshua is in no way suggesting that his followers do something dishonest, or that doing something illegal is justified by the ends; in real life, the ends do not justify the means (except to save a life).
Instead, the emphasis is meant to be on the enormous lengths that a person is willing to go to in order to find the Kingdom of God, and not on the illegality or dishonesty of those lengths. Prov 2:1-5 compares seeking for wisdom and the reverent awe of God to seeking hidden treasure.
In his book on Jewish law, ‘Law in the New Testament’, Duncan Derrett says that if the farm-worker had lifted the hoard out of the ground, then the hoard would belong to the owner of the land, but by leaving the hoard in the soil until he buys the field, he legally becomes the owner of the hoard.
The immediacy of the reward
The Kingdom of God is not just something that will only come in the distant future, but is present around us and within us, as we have learned in the last two S.Y. passages. For most people, this will be a profound and life-changing realisation.
Nevertheless, there are some people who insist that the Kingdom of God is only in the future. Yet this parable, and the one that follows it (about the pearl of great value), show that the blessings of the Kingdom are not only something in the distant future; they can be obtained in the present, if we are willing to follow and live out the values of God’s Kingdom. The blessings of the Kingdom are most certainly obtainable in this life, not just the next. When you make Kingdom-living a high priority, you reap its rewards and blessings.
Interpretation
The hoard of money symbolises not only the Kingdom of God, but also knowledge and understanding. When you finally reach a state of mind where you understand what the Kingdom of God truly is, you happily do whatever you can to realign your priorities, and so embark on a new life-path. In the parable, the man who discovers the hoard sells everything out of joy. That is, he has no regrets in selling his possessions – he does it willingly and eagerly. His joy represents enthusiastic and willing commitment to the Kingdom.
The situation of the farmworker presents us with the question: How far am I willing to go to serve God’s Kingdom? You can either be wise and responsible in what you decide to do, or you can be reckless and negligent in your actions. God’s Kingdom does not require us to be reckless or selfish.
In portraying the Kingdom, several commentators I’ve read seem to present a scenario of absolute, unquestioning allegiance to the detriment of everything and everyone else (“You must be willing to give up everything for Jesus”). However, this smacks of saying that being a follower of Jesus means becoming a blind disciple of a cult-leader. This in turn enables preachers to ask for blind allegiance from those who wish to follow ‘Jesus Christ’. Anyone who asks you to act irresponsibly, and make your church-leader the centre of your universe, is basically asking you to join a cult. Yeshua’s family of followers was never meant to be or become a cult, and Yeshua was not a cult-leader.
This is an abuse of the act of commitment. Our God would never ask any of us to become an unquestioning member of a cult.
Not everyone is required to sell all their possessions
The parable reminds us of when Yeshua says to the rich young man, “Sell what you possess and give to the poor, for then you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Mt 19:21).
However, this kind of life is not for everyone; not all followers of Yeshua can be required to sell all their possessions and leave everything behind. This is only for those who would be spiritually improved by selling everything (as in the case of the rich young man), and for those who are called to God’s direct service, to propagate God’s Message, regardless of the personal cost (as was the case with the apostles). When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose, and you are free to serve God.
On the other hand, some followers can use their wealth in the service of good. There were many women who supported Yeshua and his followers out of their own means. When you can use your wealth for good – for example, by helping the poor, and those in need or difficulty – then being wealthy is not evil. Only those who refuse to use their wealth to help others serve mammon.
Many people have a responsibility to their spouse and their children, and abandoning them would leave them in desperate straits. If some of Yeshua’s apostles did indeed leave their families, like Peter and Andrew, the structure of the extended family was such that in those days, the rest of the family would take them in and support them. Most of us would not be able to do that nowadays, so selling everything you have and leaving your family destitute is not an option for most of us.
God does not require us to become irresponsible and cause others to suffer; selling your possessions in the modern world is only for those who are in a situation where the selling would not cause others to suffer. In order for selling one’s possessions to be a positive action, it needs to be done if it will improve your spiritual and ethical life, and will not lead to the suffering of others because of what you have done.
A personal Experience
In my mid-twenties, things got very difficult in the shared flat where I was living. I don’t want to go into exactly what happened, but suffice it to say, things were so bad that I saw no alternative but there and then, to abandon where I was living and become homeless. I sold the few possessions I had, and stepped out into the unknown. As I walked out the front door for the last time, I gave myself up unreservedly into God’s care.
Thanks to the providence of YHVH, blessed be the Holy One, I was only without a place to stay for just a day. A kind friend let me stay in their spare room until I was able to find a room to rent elsewhere. I eventually found a place where I lived very simply, with extremely basic facilities, until I was able to get a proper job.
During those months when I literally had nothing except a few clothes, and some basic toiletries, I felt like all my troubles and woes had been lifted from me, and I was able to focus on what really mattered in life. I was able to sort myself out. It helped me take myself to a state of mind where I was able to find a comfortable place to live, and acquire a decent job.
During the time I had nothing, when I lived very simply, I remember it as a time of spiritual liberation. I had nothing to tie me to any place, anyone or anything, and I was able to get more involved in religious and social projects (at the time, I was involved with the Unitarian church). At the back of my mind was always the thought, “I’m free, I can do anything for God now, there’s nothing holding me back!”
I came to understand what it meant for Yeshua’s followers to give up everything and leave it behind. I would think to myself, ‘No one and nothing is in danger because of what I do; there’s only myself, and I can risk everything for God’s Message’. I feel that this was one of the possible effects of Yeshua asking his apostles to give up everything. During the time I had nothing, I became a Unitarian lay preacher, I studied how to write and preach sermons, and I was able to spend time at various libraries to study biblical history. In hindsight, I needed that time to build up what I am now giving back to all of you in what I have learned, both academically and spiritually.