Having yesterday looked at the repetition of this parable with several earlier ones, we now have a problem. What does the seventh parable teach that has not already been taught by the second? That is, why (in view of the earlier parable) is this one included? It is true, as we have indicated, that the others also involve repetition. But each, nevertheless, adds something new. The first two speak of sowing, but the first focuses on the kind of soil into which the seed falls, whereas the second focuses on the devil’s work in sowing harmful seed. Similarly, the devil is described as active in parables two, three, and four, but in each case he is doing something different. Is there anything new in this last parable? Is there anything we would lose if it were not included?
In the second century before Christ, the great rival to Roman power in the Mediterranean world was Carthage, the Phoenician city-state located on the north African coast. It had been founded in 822 B.C. and had become so powerful that for years it threatened the supremacy of Rome. What was to be done about Carthage? One Roman senator, Marcus Porcius Cato the elder, thought he knew—Carthage should be overthrown. From the time he arrived at that conclusion, it is said he never made a speech before the Roman Senate on any topic that did not end with the warning: Carthago delenda est (“Carthage must be destroyed”). At last the warnings got through, and as the outcome of the third Punic War, Carthage was annihilated.
Cato’s technique in dealing with the threat of Carthage is not the only time in history a point has been won by repetition. We think of Hitler repeating his lies against the Jews until seemingly the whole of Germany believed them; or in quite a different way, of Winston Churchill telling the boys at the public school where he had been educated, “Never give up! Never, never, never give up!”
Having recognized the value of their discovery and having sold everything in their desire to have it, the man who discovered the treasure and the merchant who discovered the pearl then made their purchase. They acquired that on which their desires had been set.
As we noted in yesterday’s study there are significant similarities in looking at the actions of the two men in these parables after the gospel treasure was put before them. First, they recognized the value of what they had found. Second, they determined to have it. That brings us to the third point of similarity between the two individuals. Having recognized the value of their find and having determined to have it, they next sold all they had to make the purchase. I have already said that nothing in the stories is to be construed as teaching that salvation can be bought, except in the sense of Isaiah 55:1. “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.” What, then, is the point of the man and the merchant selling their goods? Clearly, it is a picture of renouncing everything that might be a hindrance to attaining that great prize. Martin Luther’s hymn has it right: “Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also.” Luther did not think for a moment that salvation could be purchased by the renunciation of those or any other valued possessions, but he was determined that nothing, not even life itself, should keep him from God’s kingdom.
In the pursuit of the prize is where the main lessons of the two parables are to be found, for although the man and the merchant were different up to the point at which the gospel treasure was before them, from then on their thoughts and actions were identical. What did they do? First, they recognized the value of what they had found. Second, they determined to have it. Third, they sold everything in order to make their purchase. Fourth, they acquired the treasure.
