Shabbat shalom kol beit Yisra'el and Mishpachah and welcome back to this fourth and concluding study about a virtually extinct ancient Christian/Messianic practice, the Agapé Meal or Lovefeast. We have a mystery to solve so let's get to it!

Last week we took a close look at the important text at 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 where the apostle Paul attempts to correct the excesses or perversions of this ancient apostolic institution. Then we looked at some of the history of the Agapé Meal and how it disappeared, and concluded by affirming that it was not modelled on the the first of the seven annual festivals, the Pesach or Passover Meal, but on the seventh divine annual moed or appointment, the Sukkot or Tabernacles Festival that points the Body of Messiah to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, which the apostle John saw in vision and thus describes:

"'Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.' And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones). Then he said to me, 'Write: 'Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!'' And he said to me, 'These are the true sayings of Elohim (God)" (Rev.19:7-10, NKJV).

Which brings us back to where we started in Part 2 when we introduced the Agapé Meal with a reading and discussion of Acts 2:42-47 and to Part 1 where we learned about the phronema or the 'mind of the Messianic Community' and what it was like in those heady days when there was so much New Creation or Resurrection Life present that those first believers could barely be apart from one another in corporate echad or unity, as they shared these transformed and sacramentalised Greco-Roman deípnon or evening meals together on a daily basis, so filled were they with the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) and ahavah- or selfless agapé love for one another.

Though we do need to know something about the different directions Christian traditions took and why, what I am mostly interested in is the divine tavnith (pattern) and what it is that is going to most effectively and deeply connect us to the Master. Was the Master's Supper purely a symbolic meal, as Zwingli taught, with a heavenly connection as Calvin taught, or was there a living presence as Luther and others taught (consubstantiation)? Or were the elements literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the authority of the priest who supposedly 're-sacrificed' the Saviour at every mass as the Roman Catholics taught (transsubstantiation)? Or is there another explanation? How do the different approaches to the Master's Supper affect the spirituality of those who practice these diverse traditions? Why do we need both an annual Pesach (Passover) meal and a regular Agapé Meal together with the Master's Supper itself to have the complete picture? And will having all three parts open spiritual doors of power for the Remnant? Why did Paul say to the Corinthians that those who neglected to 'do' this right were either sick or in some cases had died? And could our attitude to this Meal be in some way an indicator or explanation of our spiritual and physical health?

So, if I may, I would like to give you some clues so that you know where Yahweh has been leading me, before I unfold this even further. First of all, I believe that the Master's Supper is as much rooted in physical reality as it is in the spiritual, in line with what I have been preaching about for months now in regard to the New Creation and the Resurrection. Everything connects together, not just theoretically or intellectually (we're not just here to theologise or philosophise) but in terms of life and living in a physical world. I so much want us to be able to fully reconnect to the phronema of those first spiritually-filled believers.

Yah'shua (Jesus), when He instituted this ordinance, took bread and said that as often as you eat and drink now - today, in the present - you proclaim His death in the past (your historical confession) until He comes in the future (the Second Coming). By this Messiah gave not only meaning to all of time but linked it with life or chayim itself. Time is the canvas on which you present the portrait of your soul; eternity is the keyhole that takes you into the gallery that gives you the whole story. The two men on the road to Emmaus had the whole of history opened to them as Yah'shua (Jesus) expounded the Tanakh (Old Testament) to them but not until Yah'shua (Jesus) broke that bread did their eyes open (Lk.24:13ff). Don't forget the past. History is important. Don't just live for the moment either. Make sure you engage the past and the future too, having emunah (faith) in what Elohim (God) has already done, having emunah (faith) in what Elohim (God) is doing right now, and having emunah (faith) in what Elohim (God) has said He is going to do and what He will absolutely do. All of history is infused with Messiah's meaning because history is ultimately His Story.

The Master's Supper, along with the Agapé Meal and the Pesach (Passover) Meal, when joined together as one or echad, is a kind of 'time gate' where there is a convergence of past, present and future into an eternal moment enabling you to move between them and into the Eternal Realm where Yahweh exists and which is the destined home of the saved and faithful. The Remnant must so learn to move in the freedom that such an existence confers so they can be about the Master's business, without hindrance, in the closing stages of this dispensation of evil. Yahweh's Sacred meals are not just about the perfection of character of the faithful. They're not just about ahavah (love) and worship. They're not just about health and healing. They are not just about echad (unity) between the qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones), though they are definitely about all these things: they are about movement through time and space, through spirit and matter, for whatever purposes Yahweh has ordained us to, so that the firstborn can fulfil the measure of their creation and be the instruments of the Great Work in His hands.

Over the course of the last couple of months, beginning with the series of sermons on the navi (prophet) Jonah, I have gone to great lengths to point out to you that the Book of Jonah and the Acts of the Apostles are 'unfinished works', for a number of reasons. They are not, however, the only two Bible books that abruptly end. There is another, arguably the most important of them all, because it concerns the mystery of the Agapé Meal. I speak of the Gospel of Mark. If you'd like to turn with me to the end of Mark so that you can follow what I am about to tell you. This Gospel abruptly ends at Mark 16:8 which has two different endings which are included in most modern versions:

• 1. A Shorter Ending, usually tacked onto verse 8 which we'll call verse 8b, which reads: "And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterwards Yah'shua (Jesus) Himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. [Amen]" (Mk.16:'8b', NRSV); and/or

• 2. A Longer Ending, most of which appears in our English Bibles, as verses 9-20, which is a truncated resurrection account, which we won't read out now.

The shorter ending, containing verse '8b', is to be found in some of the oldest manuscript (MS)copies we have. Others contain the shorter ending (v.'8b') and then continue with verses 9-20, suggesting that verses 9-20 are indeed a later addition by someone. One thing we can be sure of is that it is most unlikely that the Gospel of Mark suddenly ended at verse 8 which reads:

"So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" (Mk.16:8, NRSV)

But this is not all, for there is:

• 3. A Longer Verse 14 which is rarely found in modern translations, which includes the text: "And they (the talmidim/disciples) excused themselves, saying: 'This age of Torahlessness (lawlessness) and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the emet (truth) and power of Elohim (God) to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal Your righteousness now' - thus they spoke to Messiah. And Messiah replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over the death, that they may return to the emet (truth) and sin no more, that they may inherit the spiritual and imperishable glory of righteousness that is in heaven'" (Mk.16:'14b', NRSV).

Why are there these three versions and why is this important to our study today? Bear in mind that though Mark appears as the second of the four Gospels, it was actually the oldest or first to be written, believed by many scholars to have been penned around AD 65 in Rome (because of the testimony of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria), though some say as early as the 50's around the time Paul was penning his first epistles. Personally, I believe it was the earlier date. A very old tradition, which I believe may well be true, has it that what the Gospel of Mark is, is the preaching material the apostle Peter was in the habit of using. This is what filled his sermons! In other words, Mark (or 'John Mark' to give his full name, a cousin of Barnabas) was Peter's interpreter and wrote it down for him so in reality this might actually be the 'Gospel of Peter' as recorded by John Mark.

You know what's interesting about Marks' writing style? It has what some have called an 'incomparible touch of reality' because it contains all kinds of details not to be found in the other Gospels, as though Mark had spoken with actual eyewitnesses and got his information firsthand. What do I mean by that? Well, little things like when he tells the stories of Yah'shua (Jesus) and the children, only he tells us that the Master took the children "in the crook of His arm ('putting His arms round him' - J.B.Phillips)" (Mk.9:36, Barclay; cp. Mt.18:2; Lk.9:47; Mk.10:16 cp. Mt.19:15; Lk.18:16). In the story of the Gerasene demoniac only Mark tells us that the man was always crying out and bruising himself with stones (Mk.5:5) and in the story of the storm only Mark tells us that Yah'shua (Jesus) was in the stern of the boat sleeping on a rower's cushion (Mk.4:38).

Far more often than any other Gospel, Mark has the habit of giving Yah'shua's (Jesus') words in the original Aramaic (Mk.3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 14:36; 15:22) and so it looks as if Peter, when he told these stories, could not help hearing again the voice of Yah'shua (Jesus) speaking these words, not in Greek, but in his native tongue (Mk.3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 15:22).

Why am I telling you all of this? Well, for very good reason: so that we can get as close to the original phronema of Messiah and the apostles. Of all the Gospels, this one, in my view, enables you to hear, see, touch and smell the original events even more acutely than the other Gospels. It's as simple as simple can get, the very opposite, for example, of the sophisticated craft of the Pauline writings. This is raw Besorah (Gospel), a reason I recommend Mark be read first. But that's not the main reason I am dwelling so much on Mark today. There are three things I want to point out:

• 1. Mark records far fewer teachings of Yah'shua (Jesus) than the other Evangelists yet there is a remarkable emphasis on Yah'shua (Jesus) as a teacher. The words 'teacher', 'teach', or 'teaching', and 'Rabbi' are applied to Yah'shua (Jesus) in Mark 39 times. Why is that Mark's focus? Because, I want to suggest, Mark was, in a special way, a pupil - more about that in a moment;

• 2. Mark, unlike the other Gospels, stresses what I call 'the Messianic secret'. On several occasions Yah'shua (Jesus) warns His talmidim (disciples) or the person for whom He has worked a miracle to 'keep silent' about who He is or what He has done (Mk.1:34,44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36-37; 8:26,30; 9:9). Why would he do that? Because, I suggest, this is was yet another focus of Mark's experience; and

• 3. You see, verses 9-20 of the concluding chapter are not only absent from important early manuscripts, but they display certain peculiarities of vocabularly, style and theological content that are so unlike the rest of Mark that they betray the hand of a later editor. Accordingly there are those who believe, myself included, that his Gospel actually abruptly ended at verse 8: "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid" (Mk.16:8, NIV). Why?

Now we've really got to become sleuths and do some historical detective work for indeed there is strong evidence that there was more after verse 8 but it was not the verses (vv.9-20) which, along with the alternative shorter version (v.'8b'), which we find in our modern Bibles, which replaced a completely different text altogether. How do we know? For one thing, because, as I said earlier, the language and style of these latter verses are not of Mark.

Thanks to Clement we know that what was originally present after verse 8 got into the hands of a Gnostic sect called the Carpocratians who had heard the original sayings, which up to then had been circulated orally, twisted it and rewrote it. When Mark came to write the original, authentic teaching of the apostle Peter, the Carpocratians claimed that Mark had twisted Peter and that their version was the true original! Or something like that. We have the Carpocratian version which has survived, which I am not going to repeat here as I don't want to put into your head undoubted falsehoods mixed in with the emet (truth). What you do need to know is that Clement (who you will remember wrote that letter to the Corinthians when he was the Overseer at Rome and was was a personal talmid (disciple) of John, dying a martyr's death) informs us that there was an authentic secret Gospel of Mark containing, no doubt, some of the deeper things of the Kingdom only shared with the Inner Circle, of which Mark could well have been a trusted member and who unwisely wrote this material down which then fell into the hands of the Carpocration gnostics. The thesis is that he, or a successor, ordered the removal of everything after verse 8 and then substituted in a truncated ending ... two endings, in fact, which contained material so at variance with the Carpocration forgery as well as being uncontroversial that the Carpocratian version lost credibility.

The notion that Yah'shua (Jesus) might have taught things privately to His closest talmidim (disciples) does not rest comfortably with most Christians who believe He was completely open about everything, citing John 18:20, where the Master says:

"I have spoken openly to the world...I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20, NIV).

Of course, there was a context to this reply which was given in response to accusations that the Master was teaching heretical anti-Torah doctrines or being sedicious. But we also know that much was taught by the Master in private which was never recorded (such as the conversation between Yah'shua/Jesus, Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration), or if it was, was hidden or has since become lost. We know, for instance, next to nothing about what He taught during the 40 day post-resurrection appearances before His Ascension. I wrote at length about all this years ago, focussing on one particular topic which isn't germaine to our theme today so I'll not get into that particular one today - you can pursue that yourselves privately in you are interested and if you can bear it by taking a look at the series called, Reconstructing the Johannine Community . The original essays were much longer than they appear now as they contained material that I want to discuss today which I wasn't supposed to talk about back them - I essentially made the same well-intentioned mistake that I believe Mark had made: he made public things he wasn't supposed to...yet.

Suffice to say that there is a strong spiritual link between Mark and John, who were both young when Yah'shua (Jesus) was alive, whose ministries strongly overlapped with the second generation of believers and their leaders long after most of the original witnesses were dead, in their case, from martyrdom, and whom I believe Yah'shua (Jesus) gave special instruction precisely so that could guide and strengthen the second generation. I believe these two men were, in some way, the New Testament equivalents of Caleb and Joshua. What was the material that I cut out of the original teachings? The same kind, I believe, as was included by Mark at the end of his Gospel which he subsequently removed, leaving his book to abruptly end at Mark 16:8 which one or more scribes subsequently added a conclusion to so as to 'round the book off', in the same way that a scribe or an editor added verses 24-25 to the last chapter of the Gospel of John (Jn.21:24-25) as that too was yet another unfinished book, ending with the cryptic words of Yah'shua (Jesus) to Peter about the young John:

"This gave rise to the saying amongst the brothers that this talmid (disciple) would not die. Yet, of course, Yah'shua (Jesus) did not say, 'He will not die', but simply, 'If it is My wish for him to stay until I come, is that your business'" (Jn.21:23, J.B.Phillips).

What was the textual material Mark or a successor subsequently removed and never restored? I believe that it may have included, perhaps along with other things, instructions on the Agapé Meal, the precursor or foreshadower of the 7 day-long Sukkot feasting that lies at the heart of what we call the 'Mystical Marriage of Messiah' (MMM). This Agapé Meal, whose origin is nowhere spoken of elsewhere in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament), is nevertheless taken as a 'given' - as something already authoritatively established - by Jude, Paul (in a letter to the Corinthians), and possibly Peter too (in one of his letters). So where are the original instructions that we might follow them? Were they lost or deliberately hidden? Certainly, which ever way, it happened a very long time ago, shortly after the apostle John died and took that final meal, which the Agapé foreshadowed, with him - the meal representing the flesh and blood of the resurrected Messiah that kept him alive, even when he was unsuccessfully boiled in oil by his enemies (and completely unharmed), until it was his time to 'depart'.

I have prayed long and hard for many hours as to how much to share with you today. The Agapé Meal is only for spiritually regenerated believers who want it - and I mean really, passionately want it. Causual interest, let alone suspicious interest, will not be sufficient. I have been nurturing a desire for this Meal in my heart for the last 20 years after I first became aware of it around 1999. It has been a very strange story indeed that I have shared with virtually no-one. I have been very, very cautious, wanting to test it with great care because I have long been wary - perhaps because of my Protestant upbringing - of the claims made by the likes of the Catholic Church and the New Apostolic Church who claim that there is some mystical power in the physical elements of the Master's Supper, because I know how such superstitions can badly distort the spiritual life of the Besorah (Gospel). My adoption, a few years back, of the Lutheran position of Consubstantiation represents a kind of compromise, as I think it may have been for Martin Luther himself, plus it had not at that time been revealed to me that there were not only two main Sacred Meals in the Annual Festivals but that there were also two types of Master's Supper associated, respectively, with the Pesach (Passover) and Sukkot (Tabernacles) feasts.

This is what I want to present to you to chew over, namely, that there are two Master's Suppers - one symbolic (attached to Pesach ' the Alef/Alpha or 'baby' version) and affecting only the spiritual domain, and one 'supernatural' (attached to Sukkot - the Taw/Omega or 'adult' version) but including the physical domain too, that we as Messianic Evangelicals have long called the 'Johannine Communion'. Those who partake of the first kind die a natural death; those who partake of the second kind never die, but are changed 'in the twinkling of an eye' upon Yah'shua's (Jesus') return. There is so much hidden in the two passages, which are well known to you I am sure, which I am about to read to you - there is such a breadth and height and depth to them. These are words that have baffled so many for so many centuries and led to all kinds of speculation:

"Yah'shua (Jesus) said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the chayim (life). He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives [1] and believes in Me will never die (eis ton aionia = 'into/unto the [Millennial] age [æon] to come'). Do you believe this?'" (John 11:25-26, NIV).

"I tell you the emet (truth), if anyone keeps (watches over, nurtures) My Davar (Word), he will never see death" (John 8:51, NIV).

I want to leave you with the words of Paul again and so bring today's teaching and this series to an end:

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Master in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Master. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognising (discerning) the body of the Master eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep (have died). But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Master, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world" (1 Cor.11:27-32, NIV).

What does "without recognising (discerning) the body of the Master" (v.29) mean? Some manuscripts clarify the word "body" by inserting "the Master's body", which may be a scribal commentary or interpretation, and though it is a not unreasonable interpretation, the "body" also can refer to the 'body of believers'. The same Greek word translated to give "recognising/discerning" is used and translated as "examine" in v.28 which leads me to conclude that what's important here is not just personal or individual 'self-examination' but 'body' or 'corporate examination', 'recognition' or 'discernment'. Thus this instruction could, and almost certainly does, have two levels: the personal (as represented by Pesach/Passover) and the corporate (as represented by Sukkot/Tabernacle). Therefore the 'getting ill' and 'dying' because of carelessness in this examination is a failure of the corporate body as a whole. You daren't mess around with the Sukkot Meal for which the Pesach meal is preparatory, or with all the Agapé meals inbetween.

There was more I wanted to say, and could have said, but I think this will suffice. More than anything else I wanted to alert you to the the fact that there is more going on here than the traditional 'Communion' or 'Eucharist' of the orthodox churches or the annual Passover meal of the messianics, meets the eye - much more. I invite you to search this out further and then, as the Ruach (Spirit) leads, we will return to this subject when it is time to restore the Agapé and sacramentalised seven-day Sukkot Feast. So more on that, hopefully, in the autumn/fall!

May the grace and peace of our Master Yah'shua (Jesus) be with you all. Amen.

Endnotes

[1] There is an unusual word construction in John 11:26 which translated literally reads: "He who is believing in (into) Me, even if he should be dying, shall be living°. And everyone who is living and believing in (into) Me, should by no means be dying for (into) the eon" (Jn.11:26, CLNT). The verb "shall be living" is what linguists call the 'middle voice' and what that means is that the subject both performs and receives the action expressed by the verb, that is to say, the subject acts as both the agent and the receiver.