Genesis 3:8 Cool of the Day

After Adam and Eve have sinned, they hear “the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden,” and—gripped by fear—they hide themselves among the trees. Traditionally, this scene is imagined as taking place peacefully “in the cool of the day,” often understood as the evening breeze.¹

Yet this seemingly straightforward phrase conceals a significant translation challenge. The Hebrew expression commonly rendered “in the cool of the day” is far from unambiguous, and its interpretation has substantial implications for how the scene is understood theologically and narratively. The Hebrew phrase in question is לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם (lǝrûaḥ hayyôm).² The first difficulty with translating lǝrûaḥ hayyôm as a reference to a particular time of day is that the phrase occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament. If it were a conventional idiom for a specific portion of the day, one would reasonably expect it to appear more than once.

Moreover, lǝrûaḥ hayyôm is an unusual way to denote time. This helps explain why even translations marketed as “literal” or “formally equivalent” rarely render the phrase word-for-word.³ For a temporal expression to function idiomatically, it must unambiguously mark a particular time, as do standard Hebrew terms such as בֹּקֶר (bōqer), “morning”; צָהֳרַיִם (ṣohŏrayim), “noon”; or חֹם הַיּוֹם (ḥōm hayyôm), “the heat of the day.” Lǝrûaḥ hayyôm does none of this, leaving the temporal reference frustratingly imprecise.⁴

By far the greatest challenge to the traditional translation centers on the word rûaḥ itself. Rûaḥ is nowhere else translated as “cool.” When the term does not mean “spirit” or “breath,” it is most commonly rendered “wind.” Yet nowhere in the Old Testament is rûaḥ associated with coolness or refreshment.⁵ On the contrary, it is frequently linked with heat and intensity. Could it be a contranym? While the point is not that winds in the ancient Near East could not be cool or gentle, nor that such a breeze could not theoretically be described as a rûaḥ, the issue is evidentiary. There is no positive lexical or contextual evidence that an early reader of the Hebrew Bible would understand rûaḥ to mean a cool or gentle breeze apart from strong contextual signals—signals that are entirely absent from Genesis 3:8.

Indeed, when God reveals himself in connection with a rûaḥ elsewhere in Scripture, the wind is consistently stormy or forceful rather than mild or pleasant. This is evident in the poetic retelling of the Red Sea crossing in Exodus 15, the storm-theophany of Psalm 18, and the overwhelming visionary encounter of Ezekiel 1–2, discussed further below. In none of these contexts does rûaḥ evoke the image of a quiet, refreshing wind accompanying a tranquil afternoon walk.⁶

One alternative rendering of lǝrûaḥ hayyôm is suggested by a parallel expression in Song of Solomon, where the phrase “until the day breathes” (עַד שֶׁיָּפוּחַ הַיֹּום; Song 2:17; 4:6) uses the verb yāpûaḥ (“to breathe, blow”) to mark a time of day. Given that rûaḥ can also mean “breath” (e.g., Gen 6:17), Genesis 3:8 may be read as referring to “the breath of the day.”⁷

If rûaḥ hayyôm functions similarly to yāpûaḥ hayyôm, the phrase is best understood as figurative rather than as a fixed temporal marker. On this reading, it likely points not to evening but to morning—the moment when the day “comes alive.”

This interpretation also invites broader canonical connections between Genesis and the Song of Solomon, including shared imagery and rare vocabulary, and frames Genesis 3 as a tragic inversion of later garden imagery, where the lover-king comes to his garden only to find betrayal rather than mutual delight.

A second possible rendering of lǝrûaḥ hayyôm is suggested by Song of Solomon’s phrase “until the day breathes” (עַד שֶׁיָּפוּחַ הַיֹּום; Song 2:17; 4:6), where the verb yāpûaḥ (“to breathe, blow”) marks a time of day. Since rûaḥ can also mean “breath” (e.g., Gen 6:17), Genesis 3:8 may be read as “the breath of the day.”⁸

Read this way, the phrase functions as figurative, poetic language rather than a precise time reference and likely points to morning—the moment the day comes to life. This reading also opens canonical connections between Genesis and the Song of Solomon and frames Genesis 3 as a tragic reversal of later garden imagery, where the lover-king comes to the garden only to encounter betrayal instead of delight.

aken together, the linguistic and canonical evidence strongly suggests that lǝrûaḥ hayyôm in Genesis 3:8 should not be understood as a reference to a pleasant evening breeze or a specific time of day.⁹ The phrase is unique in the Hebrew Bible, employs rûaḥ in a way unsupported elsewhere as “cool” or “gentle,” and lacks the lexical clarity normally expected of temporal expressions. Moreover, rûaḥ consistently denotes breath, wind, or spirit—often with power and intensity—rather than refreshment.

The most plausible renderings, therefore, understand lǝrûaḥ hayyôm not as clock-time but as a figurative or experiential description. Whether read as “the wind of the day,” “the breath of the day,” or an atmospheric manifestation accompanying God’s approach, the phrase signals the moment when the day is animated and God’s presence becomes perceptible.¹⁰ In light of biblical patterns, this presence is better read as theophanic than pastoral.

Then we have the heat of the Day in Genesis 18:1.

First, the Hebrew word translated “tent” is ’ōhel (אֹהֶל). Beyond its basic meaning, ’ōhel is etymologically associated with radiance or shining. A tent, after all, is supported by beams that radiate outward from a central point to hold up the roof. On this reading, the phrase may be heard not only spatially but symbolically: Abraham is seated at the entrance of his tent as one who is “radiating light.”¹¹

The next phrase is particularly suggestive. Most modern translations render keḥōm hayyôm as “in the heat of the day.” However, the preposition here is not beth (ב), which would normally indicate “in,” “on,” or “within,” but kaph (כ), which is typically rendered “like” or “as.” Grammatically, the phrase may therefore be read as “like the heat of the day,” rather than simply “in the heat of the day.”

“The heat of the day” is a common idiom for midday—the time when the sun is at its brightest and most intense. As one rabbinic interpretation notes, the text may be implying more than a time reference. Abraham himself is portrayed as the heat of the day—like the sun—spreading warmth, illumination, and life. In this reading, Abraham stands at the entrance of his ’ōhel radiating the warmth, love, and enlightenment of God outward to the world.¹²

Abraham famously practiced hospitality. He established what was essentially a roadside “bed and breakfast” along a trade route. He welcomed travelers, fed them, and gave them rest. When they thanked him, Abraham redirected their gratitude to YHWH, saying that it was God who provided food, rest, day, and night. Scripture teaches that through this practice he caused people to call on the name of God.

Abraham sat at the entrance of his dwelling, radiating the light of God, ready to offer kindness, comfort, and truth to anyone who passed by. His love for God naturally overflowed into love for others. This is true evangelism—not coercion or isolation, but hospitality, witness, and shared life.¹³

What do we connect?

Posture Toward God: Hiding vs. Hospitality

The irony is sharp:

• Adam hides in paradise
• Abraham opens his life in the wilderness

Theological Climate: From Theophany to Fellowship

Genesis 3 shows us:

God’s presence is not dangerous in itself—but it becomes unbearable to those who refuse truth.

Genesis 18 shows us:

God’s presence becomes warmth and blessing to those who live open-handedly before Him.

Same God.
Different hearts.
Different “weather.”

Canonical Movement: From Lost Garden to Shared Table

You’re right to hear Song of Songs echoing here.

• Genesis 3: God comes to the garden → no mutual delight
• Song of Songs: the beloved comes to the garden → union
• Genesis 18: God comes to a tent → table fellowship

The biblical story moves:

• From breath that exposes
• To heat that nourishes
• To fire that eventually indwells (Pentecost)

1. Kvam, Kristen E.; Schearing, Linda S.; Ziegler, Valarie H., eds. (1999). “Hebrew Bible Accounts”. Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. pp. 15–40. ↩︎
2.  Tuling, Kari H. (2020). “PART 1: Is God the Creator and Source of All Being—Including Evil?”. In Tuling, Kari H. (ed.). Thinking about God: Jewish Views. JPS Essential Judaism Series. Lincoln and Philadelphia: University of Nebraska Press/Jewish Publication Society. pp. 3–64. ↩︎
3. Leeming, David A. (June 2003). Carey, Lindsay B. (ed.). “Religion and Sexuality: The Perversion of a Natural Marriage”. Journal of Religion and Health. 42 (2). Springer Verlag: 101–109. ↩︎
4. Hart, David Bentley (2018). “The Devil’s March: Creatio ex nihilo, the Problem of Evil, and a Few Dostoyevskian Meditations”. In Anderson, Gary A.; Bockmuehl, Markus (eds.). Creation ex nihilo: Origins, Development, Contemporary Challenges. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. pp. 297–318. ↩︎
5.  Bulgakov, Sergei (2001) [1939]. “Evil”. The Bride of the Lamb. Translated by Jakim, Boris. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. 170. ISBN 9780802839152. ↩︎
6. Ehrman, Bart D. (2005) [2003]. “Christians “In The Know”: The Worlds of Early Christian Gnosticism”. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 113–134. doi:10.1017/s0009640700110273. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1.  ↩︎
7. Hillel, Daniel (2006). The Natural History of the Bible: An Environmental Exploration of the Hebrew Scriptures. Columbia University Press. p. 245. ↩︎
8. Morris Eaves; Robert N. Essick; Joseph Viscomi (eds.). “God Judging Adam, object 1 (Butlin 294) “God Judging Adam””. William Blake Archive.  ↩︎
9. Kugel, James L. (1999). Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ↩︎
10. Beynen, G. Koolemans, Animal Language in the Garden of Eden: Folktale Elements in Genesis in Signifying Animals: Human Meaning in the Natural World, Roy G. Willis, ed., (London: Routledge, 1994), 39–50. ↩︎
11. Tosefta: Berakhot 1:15; Maaser Sheni 5:29; Rosh Hashanah 2:13; Taanit 2:13; Megillah 3:6; Sotah 4:1–6, 12, 5:12, 6:1, 6; Bava Kamma 9:29; Sanhedrin 14:4. Circa 250. In, e.g., The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, with a New Introduction. Translated by Jacob Neusner. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. ↩︎
12. Liana Finck. Let There Be Light: The Real Story of Her Creation, pages 190–208. New York: Random House, 2022. ↩︎
13. Jacob Bacharach. The Doorposts of Your House and on Your Gates. New York: Liveright, 2017. (novel loosely retelling the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac). ↩︎

Recent developments within American political life raise serious theological and pastoral concerns, particularly when Christian language and symbols are invoked to legitimize the exercise of state power. When sectors of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity publicly align themselves with coercive or dehumanizing immigration enforcement practices, such alignment risks distancing Christian witness from the ethic and teachings of Jesus himself (Matt 7:15–20; Luke 4:18–19).

This week, 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an intensive care nurse from Minneapolis, was shot and killed by federal agents during an immigration enforcement operation on January 24, 2026. Pretti was well-known locally as a VA hospital ICU nurse with no serious criminal history. Bystander video analyzed by news outlets appears to show Pretti holding only a phone and not a weapon before being sprayed with a chemical agent, tackled to the ground, and then shot by agents. Footage suggests that one of the agents appears to remove a handgun from the struggle just moments before shots are fired. As many as 10 shots can be heard in the clip that captured the event. Federal officials have said that agents fired in what they described as defensive action after Pretti allegedly approached with a handgun and resisted disarmament; local authorities have confirmed he was a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry. The shooting has sparked protests and intense public scrutiny over the handling of the incident and the actions of federal forces in Minneapolis. The NRA specifically made a statement against the Trump administration.* Perhaps we don’t know all of the story; it is hard to tell if Alex was just being tackled by several government officials or if he was part of the struggle. So far in the footage, we can’t see what was happening up close. But all of this seems excessive and out of line.

Regardless of whether Alex was resistant, as an ardent constitutional 2A supporter and owner of an NRA gun range, this has me considering a revolution. I have taught History at many educational levels. The American Revolution emerged from a growing conviction that British authority had become unjust and tyrannical. Colonists faced taxation without representation, loss of local self-governance, standing armies enforcing civil law, economic restrictions, and denial of due process. Influenced by the Enlightenment and biblical ideas of God-given rights, many concluded (right or wrong) that when government violates its covenant to protect liberty, resistance becomes morally justified. Minnesota is getting dangerously close to the similarities of the Boston Massacre, which occurred on March 5, 1770. Could we be six years away from a Civil War revolution?

I recognize how complex these conversations are. Unlike some voices on my side who completely reject any connection to the MAGA movement, I do not. In fact, I can see certain elements of Christian language and symbolism appearing in our government. Yet, these are often eclipsed by hypocrisy and rhetoric that conflict with biblical teaching. I sometimes smile, but the reflection behind it remains sorrowful.

I don’t watch the news much anymore; I have decided it isn’t good for my desire to be completely kingdom-minded. So, when I get too enthralled with discussions like this, I am thankful that my pastoral senses kick in (likely the Holy Spirit) and I remember the Jesus that I am faithfully in covenant with never called for the faithful to start that sort of a revolution. In fact, the political climate of Jeremiah was likely significantly worse, with sons and daughters taken into slavery by the coming empire, and Jeremiah’s words were strikingly calm,

“Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. ⁶ Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”¹

Recently you may have observed that federal recruitment materials have, at times, incorporated Scripture and explicitly religious language. The concern is not merely that biblical texts appear in public discourse, but that such language is deployed by agencies tasked with the use of force. As David Wehner argues, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement frames its mission in theological terms, it implicitly communicates that its actions carry divine sanction. In one regard, isn’t this good? Is the government finally trying to align with the path of the scripture?

One of several example of this can be found in the September 2025, (a now-renamed) U.S. Department of War social media account that posted a video showing military personnel with overlaid Bible text:

“Be strong and of good courage. Do not be afraid, nor dismayed. For the Lord your God is with you, wherever you go.” — Joshua 1:9

In the 1920s and 1930s, elements within the German Evangelical Church aligned themselves with nationalist ideology through the Deutsche Christen (“German Christians”) movement. Christian theology was reshaped to support political aims, including the construction of a “heroic” and racially reimagined Jesus, detached from his Jewish identity and biblical context (Heschel, The Aryan Jesus). While contemporary America is not equivalent to Germany under National Socialism, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s warning remains instructive: when the church confuses loyalty to Christ with loyalty to political power, it ceases to function as the church at all (Ethics; Letters and Papers from Prison).

From a discipleship perspective, the central question is not partisan but Christological: What does faithfulness to Jesus require when power is exercised in ways that harm the vulnerable? The New Testament consistently places the treatment of the stranger, the poor, and the powerless at the center of faithful obedience (Matt 25:31–46; Lev 19:33–34; Heb 13:2).

The Gospels portray Jesus as resisting coercive power, refusing to dehumanize opponents, and explicitly rejecting the use of divine authority to justify domination (Luke 22:25–27; John 18:36). Any policy or practice that undermines human dignity must therefore be assessed not merely by its legality, but by its conformity to the character of Christ (Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom).

At the center of Christian confession stands the claim that God became flesh among the marginalized, the displaced, and the suffering (John 1:14; Luke 2:7). Faithfulness to Christ calls the church not to baptize power, but to bear witness to a kingdom that restores dignity, practices mercy, and speaks truth—even when doing so is costly.

I believe our government has drifted far from the ethics of Jesus. The way power is being exercised in the name of immigration enforcement (as well as other ideals) is not consistent with the character of Christ.

It is not Christlike to use children as instruments of coercion or entrapment. It is not Christlike to publicly humiliate an elderly citizen—forcing him out into freezing conditions in his underwear. It is not Christlike to fire on unarmed protesters at close range. It is not Christlike to detain human beings in degrading, inhumane conditions. It is not Christlike to tear gas a family’s vehicle and send three children, including an infant, to the hospital. And it is not Christlike to terrorize immigrant communities, communities of color, or anyone else, for that matter.²

Make no mistake, America is not a “Christian nation” nor was that ever the intent. Yet the way many Christians behave in public life today resembles something far closer to a distorted form of Christianity than to the faith of Jesus. In many cases, authoritarian power is being legitimized by a misuse of Christian language and symbols.

When Christianity is weaponized for political control, it becomes something other than the gospel. When the name of Jesus is invoked to justify fear, exclusion, or violence, the message of the cross is compromised. And when Christians remain silent—or worse, defend policies that dehumanize and brutalize others—we betray the very gospel we claim to uphold. If you didn’t catch the satire, don’t worry—I’m not starting or joining any militant revolution, no matter how messed up things seem. The only revolution in my future is sharing the joy and peace of following Jesus—you could definitely call that a revolution!

1. Jeremiah 29:5-7 ↩︎
2. @Benjamin Cremer ↩︎

Bibliography

1. Bellah, Robert N. “Civil Religion in America.” Daedalus 96, no. 1 (1967): 1–21.
2. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
3. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison. New York: Touchstone, 1997.
4. Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.
5. Heschel, Susannah. The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
6. The Bible, New Revised Standard Version.
7. Wehner, David. “The MAGA Jesus.” The Atlantic.

NOTES:

*https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvg812n01no

The title of this article is a bit tongue and cheek; I do not believe the War Scroll was aligned with the view of Jesus in any way. I hope you are able to pick up on the hyperbole. The War Scroll, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, is a detailed eschatological text attributed to the Essenes, a Jewish sect living in the area during the Second Temple period. It describes a final, cosmic battle between the “Sons of Light” (the righteous community) and the “Sons of Darkness” (their enemies, including the forces of evil and oppressive nations). The scroll outlines military organization, strategy, and rituals, presenting the war as part of God’s ultimate plan to purify Israel and establish divine rule. Scholars view it as reflecting the Essenes’ apocalyptic worldview and their belief in an imminent, divinely guided victory over evil.

In Matthew 13, Jesus tells a series of parables that He calls “the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.” Through these 7 stories, Jesus reveals how God’s kingdom is at work in the world right now.

The kingdom of heaven is God’s rule and authority breaking into ordinary human life. These parables show how that kingdom has been unfolding since Jesus’ first coming and how it will continue to grow—often quietly, patiently, and unexpectedly—until He returns.

The first four parables in Matthew 13 were spoken publicly by the Sea of Galilee. A large crowd gathered, so Jesus taught from a boat just offshore. These parables were meant for everyone to hear.

But the parable of the treasure hidden in the field begins a second group of teachings. Though given on the same day, these parables were spoken privately, after Jesus and His disciples went back into the house. Matthew tells us they were addressed to the disciples alone—and that detail matters. 4 parables to the public seekers and 3 to his disciples starting with this one; the parable of the hidden treasure, the parable of the pearl of great price, and the parable of the dragnet. 

Together, all seven parables reveal the work of the kingdom, but this shift from public teaching to private instruction reminds us that deeper understanding comes through closeness and commitment to Jesus.

It could be a picture of Israel¹ – Chosen and then buried until the second coming (dispensationalism) – As I see the correlation, I am not sure I see the theology of Jesus actually being the one to intentionally “cover” or bury Israel. Also, the context of the other parables doesn’t seem to match up with this interpretation exactly, it seems like a reach.

Some have recognized the correlation to the 7 churches John writes about in revelation and believe that this story is a precursor to his letter to them years later.²

• Ephesus (Revelation 2:1–7): known for having laboured hard and not fainted, and separating themselves from the wicked; admonished for having forsaken its first love (2:4)
• Smyrna (Revelation 2:8–11): admired for its tribulation and poverty; but for which it is foretold that it will suffer persecution (2:10)
• Pergamon (Revelation 2:12–17): located in a city where ‘Satan’s seat’ is; needs to repent of allowing false teachers. Admonished for eating “food sacrificed to idols” and “sexual immorality”. (2:16)
• Thyatira (Revelation 2:18–29): known for its charity, whose “latter works are greater than the former”; admonished for tolerating the teachings of a false prophetess.
• Sardis (Revelation 3:1–6): admonished for being spiritually dead even though it had a false public reputation of “being alive”. Cautioned to fortify itself and return to God through repentance (3:2–3)
• Philadelphia (called Alaşehir since 1390; Revelation 3:7–13): known as steadfast in faith, keeping God’s word and enduring patiently (3:10)
• Laodicea on the Lycus, near Denizli (see Laodicean Church) (Revelation 3:14–22): called lukewarm and insipid; described as fiscally wealthy but spiritually poor. (3:16)
  

Can you identify which one of these churches lines up with this parable? It is Sardis. Most “Christians” are soiled (dead), but there is a faithful remnant that is alive. 500 years before John’s “revelation of Jesus” letter was written, Sardis was one of the most powerful and richest cities in the region. But it weakened through moral failures and was conquered by both the Persian and Grecian empires because it “fell asleep.” When the invaders were climbing the hill to attack the city they uncovered the red soil. It was said that someone rain into the palace and yelled “RED” and the rulers took no heed thinking they were impenetrable falling back asleep and were overcome by the morning. That is where the soliloquy “CODE RED” emerged from.³

Let’s consider the text a bit more in depth.

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN – The “Kingdom of God” and its equivalent form “Kingdom of Heaven” in the Gospel of Matthew is one of the key elements of the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark indicates that the gospel is the good news about the Kingdom of God. The term pertains to the kingship of Christ over all creation.⁴ 

TREASURE – This to represent the free gift of the gospel. Some struggle here with finding something in a filed. We want to think in modern Western terms. Who owns a found treasure? The government? If you keep it is it stealing? I will remind you that we need to first understand the way the intended audience would have understood this within their culture before you apply it to your world. In the ancient world fields were gleaned by the destitute allowed to “work” the remains of the field. Remember Ruth? Ruth is allowed to glean in the fields as part of the Mosaic Law, which mandated that farmers leave some of their harvest for the poor and sojourners (Leviticus 19:9-10, Deuteronomy 24:19). Many people buried their “wealth” in Bible times as they did not trust it from thieves in their residence when they were away or would leave it as an investment for later. Much of this treasure became lost. The parables reference this and the idea of lost things in other places of scripture such as the prodigal son. Common law dictated that if you found treasure like this you could keep it.⁵ In other words, don’t get hung up in the story with the morality of keeping hidden treasure, give Jesus the benefit of the doubt that there were no questionable ethics going on within the narrative.

The treasure is Jesus and free gift that He has brought from heaven to earth to us, it was intended to remain hidden but to be brought to the lite and shared for the betterment of others. This is a picture of the sort of kingdom prosperity God offers, not established from a worldly perspective or gain, but as an experience to truly experience what is worth from a kingdom perspective.

BUY THE FIELD – This is a harder one. Some have deduced the idea of earthly wealth prosperity thinking here. They use this as an angle to buy and control the world or nations. I don’t think the text suggest that, in fact quite the opposite. That notion seems to actually be very counter to the thrust of the narrative. This act illustrates the joy and dedication required to embrace spiritual wealth over worldly possessions. The parable emphasizes that the Kingdom of Heaven is worth everything, and believers are called to prioritize it above all else. The pursuit of righteousness is costly in some regard and requires strategic stewardship.

JOY – The biblical definition of joy says that joy is a feeling of good pleasure and happiness that is dependent on who Jesus is rather than on who we are or what is happening around us. Joy comes from the Holy Spirit, abiding in God’s presence and from hope in His word.

Biblical joy can be a confusing thing, especially since it’s something that doesn’t come just in the best of times. Because it is dependent on who Jesus is and God’s presence in us as the Holy Spirit, biblical joy is accessible to us even in the worst of times, and it can never be taken away from us. In Jesus’ upside-down kingdom sometimes joy even comes in tribulation.

“So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.” —John 16:22 ESV

The Bible is full of stories of real people’s brokenness and hardships, yet somehow it is also filled with songs of praise to God and stories of incredible hope and joy. A central theme to the kingdom of God is that Jesus came that we might have Joy in abundance.

Today, we can find true, lasting joy in God’s word and by asking the Holy Spirit for help. Because of this, biblical joy is accessible to us even in the worst of times and is found in having a relationship with our Savior, Jesus Christ – THE TREASURE OF LIFE. I pray that you find this treasure, live it out as part of the devoted remnant and bear the fruit of this gift with others in your life.

Feel free to download and use this discussion guide for you small group.

1. https://www.raystedman.org/new-testament/matthew/the-case-of-the-buried-treasure ↩︎
2. Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (JSOT Press, 1989), p. 283 ↩︎
3. Briant, Pierre (January 2002). From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Eisenbrauns. p. 36. ISBN 9781575061207. ↩︎
4. France, R. T. (2005). “Kingdom of God”. In Vanhoozer, Kevin J.; Bartholomew, Craig G.; Treier, Daniel J.; Wright, Nicholas Thomas (eds.). Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. pp. 420–422. ISBN 978-0-8010-2694-2. ↩︎
5. Oras, Ester (2012), “Importance of terms: What is a wealth deposit?”, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 22: 61–82, doi:10.5334/pia.403
   . ↩︎

Navigating Difficult People the Way of Jesus

Big Idea

Biblical peace is not avoidance or passivity.
It is authority under God’s order and control, rooted in God’s presence, shaped by love, and expressed through wise, restrained action.

Jesus shows us how to remain grounded—even when others are hostile, manipulative, or exhausting.

Core Text

John 14:27 –
“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you… Do not let your hearts be troubled.”

Jesus offers a peace that does not remove difficult people but changes how we meet them.

Jesus’ Pattern for Handling Difficult People

Jesus encountered criticism, traps, hostility, and betrayal constantly.
His responses were never reactive—but always intentional.

1. Authority Without Harshness

Jesus never acted from superiority or pride.
He embodied meekness—strength under control.

Sermon on the Mount

• “Blessed are the meek…” (Matt. 5:5)
• “Love your enemies… pray for those who persecute you.” (Matt. 5:44)

Discussion Prompt:
How is meekness different from weakness in real-life conflict?

2. Knowing When to Speak—and When Not To

Jesus did not feel the need to answer every accusation.

• Silence: John 8:6 — Jesus says nothing when pressed to condemn
• Measured rebuke: John 8:47 — “Whoever belongs to God hears God’s words.”

Sermon on the Mount

• “Do not throw your pearls before pigs.” (Matt. 7:6)

Discussion Prompt:
When is silence wise—and when does silence become avoidance?

3. Asking Questions Instead of Taking Bait

Jesus often answered hostility with questions that exposed motives.

• Mark 11:28–29 — Jesus responds to a challenge with a question
• Luke 10:26 — “What is written in the Law?”

Sermon on the Mount

• “Why do you look at the speck… and ignore the plank?” (Matt. 7:3)

Discussion Prompt:
How do good questions slow down reactive conflict?

4. Grounding Conflict in Scripture, Not Emotion

Jesus didn’t argue opinions—He returned people to God’s word.

• Mark 10:2–3 — “What did Moses command you?”
• Matthew 5 — Jesus reframes the Law toward the heart

Discussion Prompt:
How does Scripture reframe conflict beyond “winning”?

5. Inviting Reflection Through Story

Jesus often told stories instead of making accusations.

• Luke 7:40–42 — A parable that invites self-recognition

Sermon on the Mount

• Parables and images that confront without crushing

Discussion Prompt:
Why do stories disarm defensiveness better than direct confrontation?

Bringing It Together

Jesus’ peace does not make us passive.
It makes us anchored.

• Anchored in God’s presence (John 14:23)
• Anchored in love, not ego (Matt. 5–7)
• Anchored enough to respond wisely instead of reactively

Closing Question

Where are you facing a difficult person or situation right now—
and which response of Jesus might God be inviting you to practice?