This week is pretty much all about circumcision. (Fun, right?!) For modern readers, we struggle to grasp the (massive) significance of this discussion in the early church—whether or not Gentile (non-Jewish) Christians needed to be circumcised. Its significance shouldn't be underestimated. In Galatians 2, Paul tells the Galatian church plants of his "private meeting" with the leaders of the Jerusalem church on this very issue. If you stick with it, there are some important points of contact for us. Like the "false brothers" (who pushed the circumcision issue), we, too, tend to include our own "Christian identity markers," and as a result, are in danger of promoting a "false gospel."

the restoration project. Joshua James. 10 September 2017

Small Group Study Questions:

(1) Using Richard Hays' language, we have been describing the book of Galatians as an "angry and passionate letter" by the apostle Paul. What is Paul so angry about? What is being challenged in the churches of Galatia and by whom?

(2) In Galatians 2, Paul and Barnabas travel to Jerusalem to meet privately with the leaders. In vs. 1, Paul casually mentions that Titus came along with them. This has been described as a "deliberately provocative move" (Hays). Why? What's the big deal about Titus?

(3) James Dunn writes, "We should not underestimate how astonishing a decision was here made: that Jews, leaders of a movement focused on Messiah Jesus … should agree in considered and formal terms that circumcision need no longer be required of Gentiles wishing to be counted full members of what was still a sect of second Temple Judaism — and that despite the plainest possible teaching of scripture!”

What is the "plain teaching of Scripture" on circumcision in the OT? (See Genesis 17)

(4) If the "plain reading of Scripture in the OT" is that Israelites should be circumcised, can you sympathize with the Jewish-Christian missionaries in Galatia and the "false brothers" seeking to discredit Paul's "just Jesus" gospel?

(5) Circumcision was an "identity marker" for certain Jewish Christians. It marked out who's in and who's out. What are *our identity markers? (These aren't usually positive traits.) What are the things/beliefs/practices that we use to determine "who's in" and "who's out"?

In week two of our sermon series on Galatians, Paul is continuing to build a case that the gospel he preached to the Galatian church was not dependent on human tradition, or the Jerusalem church (the authoritative body of the early church), or Peter or James or any other apostle ... rather, it was revealed to him by God. As a result, he wasn't diminishing or relaxing its standards in order to "please people." He was preaching the true (and inclusive) gospel to non-Jewish people: they don't have to be circumcised or "become Jewish" to get in; they just needed to follow Jesus.

the restoration project. Joshua James. 3 September 2017

In this week's introductory teaching on the book of Galatians, Josh tries to set the context for Paul's letter to the churches of Galatia—why he was writing, what he was addressing, why he was so ticked, what we learn about the gospel. The teaching concludes with some pointed questions about our (mis)understanding and (mis)application of the gospel.

the restoration project. Joshua James. 27 August 2017

We are in between sermon series at TRP, so we took some time to provide a brief "state of the church" (while also linking it to some past teachings from Ruth). Listen in and be encouraged.

the restoration project. Joshua James. 6 July 2017

In this final week of our teaching series on the book of Ruth, Josh discusses the theological depth of genealogies ... you know, those really boring lists of names. Yeah, those. They often have a deep theological significance. And that's how Ruth ends.

the restoration project. Joshua James. 30 July 2017

We are coming to the end of our study of this beautiful story. Only one more week! In this teaching, Boaz calls a meeting of the town elders in order to redeem Elimelech's land and Ruth the Moabite. There's only one problem ... someone else is "ahead of him in line." (In this culture, the closer relative has the first right of refusal.) As a result, he calls "Mr. So-and-so" before the elders to ask whether or not he wants to redeem the land ... and Ruth.

the restoration project. Joshua James. 23 July 2017

The book of Ruth is *not a story of the romance between Ruth and Boaz, but things in chapter three get a little steamy (or at least, a little suggestive). Josh attempts to put the story in its ancient Near Eastern context to help us see, yet again, how God works through Ruth (and Naomi and Boaz). This is a story of commitment, and it is demonstrated here in a beautiful, if risky, way.

the restoration project. Joshua James. 16 July 2017

In this week's teaching, Josh attempts to draw some thematic strands together. Boaz cares for Ruth the Moabite. He gives her special gleaning privileges in his fields. He invites her to the table to eat until she is filled. He gives her grain to share with Naomi. In other words, Boaz models commitment and grace and concern—what the ancient Israelites called hesed. What can we learn from this example?

the restoration project. Joshua James. 9 July 2017

In this week's teaching, we talk about two things: (1) gleaning laws in the Pentateuch and how they inform our understanding of Ruth's work in the fields and (2) what Ruth was (really) asking to do in the fields and how that (may) affect our view of Ruth.

the restoration project. Joshua James. 25 June 2017

According to Phyllis Trible, Ruth's choice to commit herself to Naomi (an old widow), adopt a people that could have viewed her as a perpetual outsider, and follow a God who she had no real reason to trust, "made no sense." And Trible is right. In this week's teaching, Josh explores some of the things that it *could have cost Ruth when she left her home in Moab to follow Naomi back to Bethlehem and how her story reminds us of our inclusion in God's story.

the restoration project. Joshua James. 18 June 2017