Israel become Esau

Jesus’ parable of the treasure in the field looks straightforward: It’s about the value of the kingdom (Matthew 13:44). When we probe the behavior of the man in the parable, and the implied behavior of the seller, we find there are more intriguing things going on.

Commentators commonly question the first man’s behavior. They assume that he finds a treasure, and hides it in the same field, then arranges to purchase the field so he can have the treasure. That means he found a treasure in someone else’s field, and instead of informing the owner about the value of his property, buys the field for himself. Clearly, he pays less for the field than he would have if the prior own knew it contained a treasure. He low-balls, and gets the field and treasure.

Some commentators think the purchaser has acted immorally. His purchase is much like that of Jacob, when he bought Esau’s birthright for a bowl of stew, and commentators condemn Jacob as well. I don’t think Jacob did anything wrong; if Esau placed such a low value on his birthright, that is not Jacob’s fault. Jesus’ parable presumes that the seller is responsible to know the value of what he sells, and it’s not the purchaser’s responsibility to explain why the price should be higher.

Introducing these considerations complicates the parable. It’s not simply about the value of the kingdom. The whole implied story-line is the story-line of the kingdom. It’s not only about someone placing a high value on the kingdom; it implies an owner who doesn’t know the value of what he has. It implies that the owner is an Esau. And when we introduce the possibility that this is a parable about Israel (since, in contrast to the pearl story, it is a land-based parable), the parable is about Israel becoming Esau: Gentiles are going to stumble on the treasure that Israel has but doesn’t value, and they are going to give up everything they have in order to gain it, and in the process gain the “field.” This parable foreshadows the parable of the vineyard, where the kingdom is taken from the tenants and given to another.

Perhaps, though, the man finds a treasure in a field, and hides it somewhere else . Then he sells what he has and buys the field. Now, he’s got both the treasure and the field (assuming, of course, that the treasure was not part of the “all he has” that he sells to purchase the field). If he has the treasure already, why buy the field? This seems completely irrational, not to mention immoral; hasn’t he stolen the treasure he found? If we go with this reading of the parable, though, it suggests that the purchaser of the field is not just interested in the treasure, but in the possibility that there are further treasures to come. The field is a field of treasure, and his stumbling across one deposit is a promise of more. The parable would then be not simply about the value of the kingdom but about the expectation that selling all and buying the kingdom will give a yield of thirty, sixty, or a hundred fold. Give up one treasure, one mother, father, house, and the King promises a hundred in return (Mark 10:44-45).