156 One in Christ "My Hoty "ts, and Blood, partake’ This food. supply, or us dems, Lest we should die, let we should die; and the reconstitution of the structures of apostolic authority ‘What thou hast pledged to pas aust come, ‘Thou stale ‘repair the breach? of ol, ‘The ‘other sheep’ with those of Rome, Shail eanstivate one only fold. This pledge recall when hosts appall, Lest we should fal, lest we shoul fll Veni Crestor Spirits! i Yale Unive Connecticut. MAN ic ES IS SS RES SES SS RE SES RES eae eat | Koinonia as the Basis of New Testament Ecclesiology? Pernars the most basic theological problem arising out of our present ecumenical situation is how to reconcile the plurality of Christian Churches with the unity of the one Church of Christ.t ‘An attractive answer to this burning question is suggested by J, Hamer: the permanent form of the unity of the Church is communion? ‘The equation ecclesia=communio is based on the expanded version (I') of the old) Reman baptisn al creed (R). In this version the phrase ‘sanctorum coramunionem” stands in appo- sition? to ‘sanctam Ieelesiam catholicam’¢ Whatever the precise x of the added phrase may bes the ereed implicitly affirms Revd Schuyler Brown i& Associate Professor of New Testament at the General Theological Semmnsiry. ‘This article was. prepared as a study for ARCIC. The author is also involved ia the Lutheran/Roman Catholic ialogue L'The theological problem of the Church and the churches arises, of course, quite apart ftom the ecumenical situation : what is the relationship Detween the local churches and the universal Church? More closely connected with the ecumenical problem is the question what is the rela- tioaship within the one (Roman Catholic) Church of differert typoi of Churches, ie. churches of diferent sites? Cf. E. Lanne, ‘Pluralism and Unity: ‘The Possibility of a Variety of Typologies within the Sime Eccle~ fal Allegiance”, ot 38 cuzust, 6 (1970), pp. 430-51 2. The Church is a Communion (London, 1964). My summary statement of Pr Hamer’ thesis is taken from the title of hie “Conelution" (pp. 209-13) 5, A, Piolanth “Gemeinschafe der Heiligen', LTRK., vol. 4, col. 652: ‘Tho ‘concept of "the commenion of the saint” appears in the West (without ‘being @ Callican formulation) in the creed, and here it ean only be in spposition to "Church"! #CE, F. X, Lawlor, ‘Communion of Saints’, NCE, vol. 4, p. 42 5, According to the “real” interpretation, communto zonctorum or Koinonia ton hagion means ‘the partaking of holy thingy’, ic. the second noun is taken as neuter. This appears to be che understanding of the phrase in the Gresk Fathers. A “persona” interpretation, im which the secord noun is taken to be masculine, yields two additional poss (1) ‘community of ‘Sine, ‘ey a community coniedng of the seines, the New ‘Testusnent Gesignation for living Christians: (2) llowship with the saint’, ie. the martyrs and confessors. Here the grammatica] question is whether the {genitive fr 10 be taken se tubjective ar partiive, Cf, the article of Piolanti and Lawlor cited above. ©158 One in Christ the Church to be a communion, or community, of some kind, But is this equation ecclesia=communio derived from an iden- tification in che New ‘Testament between ekklésia and koindnia? Does the New Testament teach, as thé Apostles’ Creed implicitly does, that the Church iz « koindnia? An affirmative answer to this question was given many years ago by C, A. Scott: ‘the word Koindnia, or “fellowship”, was used ab a seli-designation by the early Christian community, and was in fact the earliest of such self-designations to be adopted’.7 Scott supposes that koindnia is the Greek translation for the Hebrew haburah and that the Christians called themselves the ‘habural of Jesus of Nazaveth'® The reference in Acts 2:46 to the Christians ‘breaking bread in their homes’ (of. v, 43: ‘the breaking of bread’) may suggest the table-fellowship (haburit) which introduced the Sabbath? but this does ner entitle ws to suppose that koiudnia inv. 42 isa translation af haburdh or that dhe first Christians called dhemselves the ‘haburdk of Jesus. Moreover, Seatt’s conjecture has no support in other New Testa ment occurrences of koindnia, The koindnia Tésou Christow to whieh the Corinthians have been calléd (1 Gor, 1:9) is not ‘the haburih of Jesus’ but ‘participation in Jesus.30 ‘The genitive espresees the thing shared, So too in Phil. 2:1 and 2 Cor. 13:13 the genitive 's best taken as partitive: ‘participation ix the (holy) spivit, whereas an ecclesiological interpretation would require @ 6. On sheesly grammatical grounds, it would seem preferable to take Janctorum communionem in the creed in the second sens, ie. ‘a comm: nity of saints’ For, apart from metaphor, an abstract noun cannot be Jieectly predicated of a concrete noun, and the grammatical relationship fo apposition found in the ereed is equivalent to direct predication. In later Latin commrnio is wed a8 the equivalent of communites (ef. C, Du Cange, Glowertum mediae et infimas Lotinitatis (Niort, 1883), vol. 2, p. 452). With respect 0 Fe Hamer’ predication, "the Church is a communion’, lhe question aries whether the later, concrete ue of *communion’ (see note 11) may not have exercised some influence 7. ‘The “fellowship”, of Koinonia, ExpT, 33 (1928/24), 367. Cf. Chri tianity accordieg to St. Paul (Cambridge, 1927), 8 Tn ‘What Happened at Pentecost?” in ed. B. H. Streeter, The Spivit (New York, 1819}, pp. 115-53, Scott takes a somewhat different position paintainine that the koinonig’of Acte 2:42 war the result of Pentecost, ‘a new name for a new thing 5. F, Hauck, Roinoe Re, TNT, TIT, 803. 10. CF, J. Y. Campbell, Koinonia and its Cognates in the New Testament JBL, 3i (1988), 380. This article underscores the fact that the Roinon ‘word-geoup’s primary meaning. is ‘participation’ and nat ‘atociation iS AIS ETI i LE 3 EE SE TTT LL NIE TO IE TE I | Koinonia as the Basis of New Testament Ecclesiology? 199 ‘a community brought into existence by the he New ‘Testament Koindnia is used abstractly jowship’), tot concretely (‘community’), and dentifcation between koindnia and ekklésia subjective genitive (holy) spirit, In th (‘participation’ or ‘felk consequently a direct i is impossible? Not only is Koindnia never equated with ekklésia in the New ‘Testament, we never find the two words related to each other in any way! But from this it scarcely follows that koinénia tells us nothing of the New Testament understanding of the Church.1% Tf koindnia is never attributed to the Church as such in the New estament, it is certainly attributed to Chhrstiaus and may thus have at least an indirect hearing on ecclesiology. However, such ceclesiological significence will he found not in the word koindnia for its cognates taken by themselves but in their use in context. ‘he reason far dis is clear; the koindne wordsgroup does not, of itself, signify anything spocilically Christian, or even anything specifically religious, Christians may share in the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:1), but they also share, with all other humans, in fesh nivd blood (Heb, 2:14). They may share in tribulation on account ff the word of God (Rev. 1:9; ef. Heb, 10:83), but they may also share in the sins (1 Tim. 5:22; cf. Rev. 18:4) or wicked work of others (2 Jn. 113 ef. Eph, 5:11). “The word-group is “especially adapted to express inner relation- 11, Although koinonia is in origin an abstract noun, it can become concrete ‘with the sense of ‘community’ or “wodety, derived from the secondary Sense of Roinon-, ie, ‘aesociation’. Bue there is no evidence tha: Koinonia in the New Testament is ever used with this concrete meaning. Even in those rare instances where the idea of astociation seems predominant (Gal 2:5; 1 Ja. 13, 7), the word can best be interpreted as an abstact noun, jie fellowship, Today we use-the word ‘communion’ in a concrete sense, hneaning ‘a body of Christians having one common faith and discipline; as the Anglican Communion’ (Webster). We must be careful not to read this easing of "communion" back into koinonia. 12. A possible exception may be found in Lk. 5:10, H. Schiimann (Das Lakarevangelivm (Freiburg, 1969), ad loc) suggests that Luke's charac ‘isiation cf James and Jobn ag Simon's "business partners” (koinoni) is lmonded. to foreshadow Inter ecclesiastical relaionshins. 3 Ch. Fr Hamers legitimate criticism of Seesemann’s ‘extremely cate- sovieal anertion' (p. 160) UE. CE. Me, 28:90, where the Jews protest hypocritcally: “If we had lived ‘i the days of out fathers, we wowlt nor have eaten ert with them 19 shedding the blood of the prophets”160 One in Christ ship't3 and Lence is uniquely apt to express religious relationship, but no religious connotation is suggested vi vocis. To determine the religious significance of koindnia in the New Testament and its possible ecclesiological relevance it will be necessary to ask in each case : who is participating in what, and with whom?16 Where hoivdnia or its cognates appear in the New Testament without any further determination, we may be able to infer from the context that participation in something of a religious nature is meant, but such uses of the word-group will not contribute to our understanding of Christian koindnia, Rather, they will have to be interpreted with the help of passages where the object of koindnia is explicitated, This is the case, first of all, with the two ‘absolute! wes of kuindnia: Acts 242 and Gal, 2:9, Although Scott's inter~ pretation of the former passage is surely unconvincing, itis not easy to say positively what the word means here. ‘This difficulty is evident in tke variety of interpretations offered by the commen tators7 Perhaps a contextual interpretation, based on Acts 2:44 and 4:32 is most likely, so that oindnia would mean ‘common ‘ownership of property’18 The koindnia of Gal. 2:9 has also been y interpreted.19 Consequently, despite the significance of 15, Hauck, 791, ‘This comes out in the use of hoinonia to express ‘marriage’ inl ‘sexual intercourse’. Sec H, G. Liddell and R. Seott, A Greek-Englsh Lexicon (Oxford, 1968), p. 970 1. The association idea is secondary in the koinon- word-aroup (cf. note 10), 9 that in many instances no attention may be paid to the question ‘with whom?" 17. (1) "the apostle’... fellowship’ (pitta); 2) explained by ‘the breaking of the bread’ which ‘stands in grammatical apportion #0 Koinonia (Hele mann). Cf. the Vulgate: communications fractionis pais; (@) an abstract And spiritant term for the fellowship of brotherly concord established And expressed in the life of the community’ (Hauel); (4) “able-ellowsh ‘and social service’ (Stahlin); (5) ‘Christian charity’ (Dupont); (6) ‘common lite (Care); () ‘contribution of money, ef. Heb, 13:16 (Campbell); (8) common ownerhip of property, ef. Acts 2:44, 4:32 (Conzelmann). 18. There is a pasage in Tamblichus (Vst. Pyth, 30, 168), dealing with communal ownership, which ie reminizoent of Acty 2:42, 44. Here too we Sine foina and Koinonia (but in thie order, just the reverse of the paste liv Acts) and. here koinonia clearly means ‘comminal owmership’ 19, (1) ‘complete agreement’ (Amiot); (2) ‘full fellowship established by common faleh in Christ (Hauck); (3) “communion between Jews and Bags converts (Viard); (H) ‘going shares in an enterprise’ (Campbell). It is not tvident whether the komania in Gal. 229 cemes into existence at the tine of the handshake, of whether the handshake is the external recognition of an already existing koinonia, Koinonia as the Basis of New Testament Eeclesiology Gal, 2 for understanding ‘ecumenical relations’ in primiti Clanity,20 nothing very definite can be concluded from the accur- fence of Koindnia in this chapter Tie Ph. 17 Paul makes his ‘partnership’ with Philemon the basis for his appeal on behalf of Onesimus (‘receive him as you would recive me). The context suggests that kindnos entail ore than wtlationship of friendship (the meaning of ‘companion’ claimed srnsemt do acta seams co be without foundation), Te Bee Stu good in which the apostle and the adiresee both participate is not specified. We are a little beter olf in 1 fu, £3, 6, 7. To be swe, the koindnia among Christians (‘hat you may have fellowssip with avy Mellowship with one another) is not explained in itself. How: ever, it act in divect relationship to kainénia with God Cour fellgwahip is. with the Father and with is Son Jesus Chris's {fellowship with him, ie, God). Just as a participation in Christ leads necessarily to unity among Christians21 so there can be no tue fellowship with God on the pare of Christians who do not have fellowship with each ot Gceasionally the otherwise indeterminate character of the koindn- word-group is specified by the contest. When Paul, in 2 Gor, 8:23, relers to Titus as ‘my partner’, the character of the partnership is defined! hy the plirase iat! follows ‘ny fellow worker ‘Grammatical purists maintain that the Koindn- word-group properly expresed ‘Taving a share’ and not ‘giving a share. But there ean be no doubt that Paul uses the word-group in connection with the material assistance to be rendered to the poor of the Jerusalem church, Tt is, therefore, of secondary importance ‘Whether, in particular cases, the idea of ‘giving’ is contained in the Wword itself or whether itis suggested by the context. Thus it is not Grucial, for our purposes, whether ar not Rom. 2:13 is properly translated by the RSV? ‘contribute to the needs of the saint Even if Paul is directly urging the Romans simply to ‘share’ in their needs, there can he no doubt that this interior sympathy ix to express itself in material assistance Similarly, the "good deed? which Paul acknowledges in Phil. 4:14 is not just the sympathy ‘sharing in my affliction’. WI the Philippians extended tn him by ether or nat the compound participle 20. See p. 8 2 See p. 7