I’m have a hard time understanding the Parable of the Pearl. Mat.13:45-46. All of the Pastors I’ve talked to explain it this way; the merchant man is the sinners in the world and the pearl of great price is The One True God, Jesus Christ, so the sinner gave up all he had to get God, Jesus Christ.

So if this is the interpretation, how do we reconcile with all the scriptures that say that Christ, His salvation is a free gift? The parable does use the words “and bought it.” KJV “It” meaning the Pearl.

Of course, the parable is not just talking about money, but if a sinner give all, or anything to receive “The One True God” then it would not be a free gift. So how do we reconcile “and bought it”, with the scriptures; Romans 6:23, Romans 8:32, Romans 5:15, 2 Corinthians 9:15, Ephesians 2:8 and John 4:10?

Now, I have read one commentary on the Book of Matthew, which interprets it differently: The merchant man would be: “The Son of Man,” Jesus Christ, who is the one who seeks the sinner. Christ gave up everything, He died to sell all, in order to buy us, His Church.

This seems to me to align with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but our Senior Pastor at our Church believes in the first interpretation and of course, I want unity in our Church. So, here is two questions:

    1. Can there be two interpretations of the Parable of the Pearl? Mat.13:45-46
    1. If the first interpretation is correct, how does one reconcile the phrase, “and bought it” with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
  • Welcome to SE-C. Please see the Tour and Help as to the purpose and the functioning of the site. I have edited only to adjust the typo and to assist your readership with paragraphing. Please feel free to roll back the edit if you so wish.
    – Nigel J
    Apr 9 at 23:33
  • Thank you Nigel J, I appreciate you helping me out. Apr 10 at 4:09

I’d like to offer a different perspective to cut your pastor some slack. Not because I believe the answers here are all wrong, but because this site functions at its best when multiple perspectives are exchanged—and there are rational people who have read this passage different ways. That doesn’t mean they’re all right—but it doesn’t mean they’re all wrong either.

It’s worth exploring what is meant by “free” and “gift”


We should be careful about decontextualizing what is meant by “free”. Economists are fond of pointing out “there’s no such thing as a free lunch,” because somebody paid for it. In the case of salvation, in an absolute sense it is neither free nor cheap—it cost the blood of Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 9:12).

The gift is freely given, but it certainly was not free (see Romans 8:32).


The Greek word behind the key references in the OP is charis (χάρις). I find the Romans 5:15 translation of the related χάρισμα as “free gift” from KJV, NASB, RSV, etc misleading. More careful (in this case) is the NIV, which omits the word “free”.

Brent Schmidt has written about the use of the word charis in Greco-Roman literature (see here) and the historical context is extraordinarily valuable.

The cliff-notes version: charis does not describe a “free lunch”; in Paul's day it described an asymmetric, reciprocal gift relationship. The giver offers something that the receiver could not hope to earn, but the receiver cannot simply take the gift and run—there are expectations of the recipient. The word charis does not describe a mere transaction, it describes a relationship.

Paul’s use of charis is a very effective description of a covenant. Romans 5:15 then describes a covenant relationship in which God provides the terms of the covenant and gives what could never be earned. The recipients enter into that covenant and take upon themselves sacred obligations—more on that below.

“All that he had”

As Revelation Lad already observed, 1 Corinthians 6:20 points out that we are bought with a price.

Additionally, Jesus’ teachings to the rich young ruler point out what Jesus expects of His followers (see Matt 19:16-22). The man was not asked to donate a particular amount; he was asked to donate what he had.

Paul himself understood well that being fully committed to Christ required great sacrifices (e.g. 2 Cor. 11:23-28, Acts 20:19-24).


In this asymmetric grace relationship what did Jesus give? Everything.

In this asymmetric grace relationship what are we asked to give? Everything.

(Our "everything" is not remotely comparable to Jesus’ "everything")


To build upon comments I shared in another post, if we say that we want God to forgive us but we don’t want Him to change us, we are completely missing the point. The point of Jesus asking everything from the rich young ruler, and asking everything of us, is not to pay for what He’s giving us, but to change us. To put it more poetically:

He is like a refiner’s fire

He wants to change my desire

His commands do not extract payment of a fine

They are given, His people to refine

(see also Malachi 3:3)

The things that are required of us (e.g. Matthew 7:21) do not pay for salvation; their purpose is not transactional, but transformational.

That’s probably about as far as I ought to go on a hermeneutics site. If anyone is interested, my theological thoughts on grace are found cumulatively here and here.


When the parable describes the merchant giving up “all that he had”, it can effectively describe Jesus’ descent from glory to rescue humanity (see John 17:5), and it describes what He has asked of us.

If the merchant in the parable is likened unto us, the emphasis is not on “buying” or “selling”—these transactional terms are used to convey cost and sacrifice—the emphasis is on the willingness to commit all that we have.

To borrow a common phrase, we can receive eternal life, but only if we’re willing to prioritize it above everything else. If there is there anything we are not willing to give up—this was the point Jesus made to the rich young ruler—then it is that very thing that stands in our way of fully receiving His gifts.

In that sense we, like the merchant, are expected to be willing to give all that we have. Could that sacrifice mean dying for one’s faith? It certainly did for Peter, Paul, and others. But what if it means living for our faith—are we willing to do that too?


Our repentance, though necessary for salvation, does not earn salvation. Salvation upon mere repentance is a bargain.

The merchant sold all he had to buy the pearl because he knew he was getting a real bargain: the pearl was worth far more than all he had. Likewise, we cannot earn salvation, it is worth far more than we can pay.


My Answer Is the prospective of the different writer's of the books. James for instance mentions 'works' while Paul mentions his prospective of 'faith alone and NOT by works.' Yes, It seems contradictory because Christ used these two individuals through the Holy Spirit to 'ACHIEVE' the 'solution' at the time of writing their own input to the actual acts of the Christ which eventually, having been given the Holy Spirit after his resurrection and ascension. Apostles, by calling on His name (like as my example : a valid vaccine passport vs. an illegal one) were given the power to heal the sick and do everything but raise the dead. That takes prayer. Books of 1st & 2nd Corinthians Paul's & Timothy's testimony. Timothy was Paul's Son.


The text throughout the whole chapter is about God making the move to save man.

““Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭13:45-46‬ ‭

In this case the merchant is God, who gave His Son in order that He might purchase the valuable He was after. And what does God seek? To redeem His creation, men.

The previous parable is the same thing, there is a treasure hidden in the earth, he sells everything to take ownership of that treasure.


1 - No there aren’t two interpretations to this parable there is one

2 - the first interpretation is incorrect so it cannot be reconciled with the gospel.

Men do not sell everything to gain the kingdom, rather the kingdom gave its most precious to gain men. The next parable afterwards speaks of the kingdom fishing for men. It can’t get clearer than that, the merchant cannot be men, if the pearls are likened to men.

“When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭13:48-50‬ ‭

It’s not only logical, contextual to the whole Old Testament message of the gospel but it’s the only interpretation that makes sense.


In his commentary of Mark, D.E. Nineham explains the use of parables:

Parables were constantly used by the rabbis at and after the time of Our Lord, and the very numerous examples of their parables which have been preserved make it clear that they used them for the sole purpose of clarifying and driving home their teaching. When we observe the very close similarity of many of these rabbinic parables to Our Lord's - both in form and subject matter - it seems natural to suppose that he used parables in the same sort of way, and with the the same purpose, as the rabbis. That is to say, his general purpose in using parables was to make the truth as fully understood as possible; he may well have used parables, as the rabbis did, to provoke reflection and so bring his hears to a recognition of the truth.1

The most common interpretation of the parable is as the OP states:

All of the Pastors I’ve talked to explain it this way; the merchant man is the sinners in the world and the pearl of great price is The One True God, Jesus Christ, so the sinner gave up all he had to get God, Jesus Christ.

However, since a parable is only "the putting together of one thing along side of another by way of comparison or illustration," it is simply an analogy2which may have other comparisons. For example, it is possible to view the pearl as representing the sinner:

The familiar parables of the Hid Treasure and of the Pearl of Great Price are sometimes taken to illustrate how precious to the mind of Christ are his people and his Church, for which he gave up the glories of heaven and laid down his own life. This teaching is quite in accord with other Scripture, but it may be wiser to find here illustrations of the fact that one who really understands the Gospel message will be ready to make any possible sacrifice that he himself may become an heir of the Kingdom.3

Erdman correctly notes how it is the believer who has been purchased:

19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6 ESV) [also 1 Corinthians 7:23]

In that case, it is Christ who gave up all that He had (cf. Philippians 2:6-7).

Even if the pearl is the Gospel which the sinner values so much they are willing to give up everything to acquire it, the parable cannot be reduced to a financial transaction. Nowhere is "all that he has" quantified: it could be very little. And yet, as it stands, the parable implies the owner of the pearl is willing to accept whatever the merchant has to offer.

When the pearl represents the Gospel, no one really has enough to pay what it is worth; yet the sinner may acquire it since whatever "all that he has" is, is enough. It is not truly a "financial" transaction, since the owner is willing to accept less than what He paid to acquire it. From a financial perspective it can be said they are literally "giving it away."

1. D.E. Nineham, The Gospel of St. Mark, The Seabury Press, 1963, p. 128
2. Ibid., p. 126
3. Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel of Matthew, The Westminster Press, 1947, p. 108

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.