(

Koinonia as the Basis of New

Testam ,ent Ecclesiology ?"'
PERHAPS the m ost ba sic theo logical problem arising out of our
pre sent ecum en ica l situation is how to reconcile the plurality of
Chris tian Churches with the unit y of the one Church of Chri st. 1
An a ttracti ve a nswe r to thi s burn ing ques tion is sugges ted by
J. Hamcr: tli e pcrma ncn t forrn of tlie unit y of thc Cliurch is
cummunio11.2 Tlie ec¡uation ecr.lesia= comm unio is ba sed on thl ~
expanded version (T) of tl1e old Roman ba ptis11 al crece! (R). 111
this version the phrasc 'srmclorum com mw úonem· sta nd s in appo-
sition 3 to 'sa11ctam Hcclcsiam cath.o licam'.1 Whatevcr thc preci se
rneaning of tlic :1clclecl phr:i,e 11rnv lie ,ií ti!(' cree d impli r itl v affirrns

·•Rcvd Sch uyler Bro wn is Associate Profcsso r of Ncw T cstamcnt at th c

( :cncral Thcological Scminary. Thi s article was prcp arc d as a study for
ARCIC. Th e au th or is a lso involvcd in thc Lutheran / Ro man Catholic
dialogue.
1. The theologi ca l problem of the Church and th e chur chc s arises, of
course , quite apart fr om the ecumenical situation : what is the relationship
betwee n the local ch urche s a nd th e un iversal Church? More clo sely
connec tcd with the ecumen ica l pro blem is the qu estion: what is the rela-
tions hip within th e one (Roman Catholic ) Church of diff ere nt typ oi of
churche s, i .e ., churches of diffe ren t rite s ? Cf. E . La nne, 'Plurali sm and
Unit y: The Possibility of a Vari ety of Typolo gies within the Same Ecclc-
sial Allegiance" , ONE IN CHRIST, 6 (1970 ), pp . 430-51.
2. The Church is a Commun ion (London , 1964) . My summarv stat ement of
Fr H ame r's th esis is tak en from the titl e of his 'C onclusion ' (pp . 209-13).
3. A. Piolanti , 'Gem ein schaft d er Heili ge n', LThK ., vol. 4, col. 652: 'Th c
conce pt of "t h e communicin of th e saints " appears in th e West (without
being a Gallican formulation ) in the cree d , and h ere it can only be in
apposition to " Chur ch " .' ·
4. Cf. F . X. Lawlor, 'Communi on of Saints ', NCE, vol. 4, p . 42 .
5. According to the 'real ' interpr etation , commun io sanctorum or koinonia
ton hagion m eans 'the partaking of holy things' , i.e. the second noun is
taken as neuter. Thi s appears to be th e understanding of the phrase in the
Greek Fath ers. A 'pe rsona l' int erpr etatio n, in whi ch the secon d noun is
taken to be m asculinc, yie ld s twó additional po ssibilities: (1) 'commun ity of
.saints ', i.e., a communi ty consisting of 'the saints ', the New T esta m ent
designation for living Christian s; (2) 'fellowship with the saints', i.e., th e
martyrs and confessors. Here the grammatical question is whether the
ge niti ve is · 10 b e ta ken as subject ivc or partitive. Cf. the art ic 1cs of Piolanti
and La wlo r cited above.
 15B O ne in Chr isl
thc Church to be a con1111u11ion,or c,m1mu11ity,1i uf sorne kind .
But is this equation ccclesia = communia derivcd from an iden-
tihcation in the New Te :;tament between ekklés ia and koinonia?
Does the New Testarnent teach, as thd Apo stles ' Creed implicitly
does that the Church is a koinonia? An affirmative answer to this
ques~ion was givcn man y years ago by C. A. Scott : 'the word
koinonia, or "fellowship", was used ai a self-designat ion by the
early Christian community, and was ih fact the earliest of such
self-de _signations to be adopted'.7 Scott supposes that koinonia
is the Greek translation for the Hebrew haburah and that the
( :1iristia11s c;ill<·d tliem selvcs tlw 'l111/mriil, of J1·s11sof Nazarcth'.H
The refcrencc in Acts 2:4·6 to the Christians 'breaking bread i11
their homes ' (cf. v. 43 : 'the breaking of bread') may suggest the
1

table-fellowship (haburii.h) which introduced the Sabbath,9 but

th is d<H'S ll<>t cntitlr· 11s t<> s11¡>p<J s<' that kni11ñ11ia in v. 4·2 is a
tr:111s lati<>11<>f/111/J//.riil,,,-r tli:1t tl1c lirst ( :11ristians c:illcd tlic111sclvcs
thc 'habur ah o[ Jesus'.
Moreover, Scott's conjecture ha s no sup port in other New Te sta -
rnent occurrences of koinonia. Thc koinonia Tésou Christou to
wl1icl1 t!ic. Cori11tl1ia11s lia vc IJcc11 ca llcfd ( l Cor. 1:()) is 1101 'the
halmráh nf Je sus' but 'participation ; in Jesus'.10 'fhe geniti\ ·e
expresses the thing shared . So too in Phi!. 2:1 and 2 Cor. 13:13
the gcnitive is best take n as partiti ve: 'participation in the (holy)
spirit', whereas an ecclesiological interpretation would require a

6. On shee rly grammatical grounds, it would seem pref erable to takc

sanctorum communionem in the creed in the second sense, i.e. , 'a commu-
nity of saints'. For, apart from m etaphor, an abstract noun cannot be
dircctly predicatcd of a concrete noun, and the grammatical relationshíp
oí app osition found in the creed is equivalent to direct predication. In later
Latin communio is used as the equivalent of communitas (cf . C . Du Ca nge,
r.lossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis (Niort, 1883), vol. 2, p. 452).
\Ahth respect to Fr Hamer' s predication , 'the Church is a communio11·,
llw qucstion arises whcthcr thc later, concrete use of 'communion' (see note
11) may not have exercised sorne influence.
7. 'The "fello wship ", or K oinonia', ExpT, 35 (1923/ 24), 567. Cf. Chrii-
tianity according to St. Paul (Ca mbridge, 1927).
8. Tn 'What Happened at Pentecost? ' in ed. B. H. Stree ter, Th,; S_óirit
(New York , 1919), pp. 115-53 , Scott takes a somewhat diff erent positinn ,
maintaining that the koinonia of Acts 2: 42 was the result of Pen tccost
'a ncw name for a new thing'. '
9. F. Hauck, koinos ktl, TDNT, IIT. 803.
10. C:f.J. V. Campbell, 'Koinonia a:1d its C:ógnates in the New Testanlt'n!',
]Bl,, 51 (!93~ ), 380. Thi s articlc und c rscores the fact that th e koi non•
word -grnup's primary nicaning is 'parti cipation' and not 'associa tion'.
 Koinonia as t/11: !3asis of Ncw Tcstament Ecclcsiology? 159
subject ivc genitive: 'a commullity brougbt into cxistence by thc
(holy) sp irit'. In thc New Tcstament koini5nia is used abstractly
('participation' or 'fellowship'), not concretely ('co mmunit y'), and
consequently a direct ide ntificatio n between koinonia and ekklesia
is impossible.11
Not only is koini5nia never equated with ekklesia in the New
Testament, we never find the two words related to each other in
any way.12 But from this it scarcely follows that koinonia tells u s
nothing of th e New Testarnent understanding of thc Church.i:l
1f koi11onia is never attr ibut ecl to th e Churc h as such in th e New
'l'cst..1111c11l
, it is certai 1dy ,1llribut cd to C liristi,u1s ,tml nta y thu s
have at lcast an indirect bearing on ecclesio logy. Howcver, suc h
ecclesiological signi fic2.1tce wi ll he found not in the word koini5nia
or its cognatc s taken b v tliernse lves but in th eir use in context.
'1'111'rt·:1su11f<>rlitis is t' i(•:11·: ilw l.:ui11,111--
word-group docs not, of
itself, signify ,t11ytlti 11g spccificall y Cltristia11, or cvc11 a11ytl1ing
specifica lly religious . Christians may share in the divine nature
(2 Pet. 1:4), but the y also share, with ali othe r humans, in flesh
:111rlbloocl (Hdi. 2:14). Tltrv rna v sltare in trihul :ttion on account
of tite word of Cod ( Rcv. 1:!); d. Hcb. l0:33), but thcy rnay also
sha re in the sins (1 Tim. 5:22; cf. Rev. 18:4) or wickecl work of
others (2 Jn. 11; cf. Eph. 5:l l ).14
The worcl -group is 'especiallv ad,1ptecl to cxpress inner relation -

11. Although koinonia is in origin an abstract noun, it can bccome concrete,

with thc sense of 'community' or 'socicty', derived from thc secondary
scnsc of koinon-, i.e. 'association' . But therc is no evidence that koinonia
in the New Testament is ever used with this concre te meaning. Even in
those rare instances whcre the idea of association seems predominant (Gal.
2 : 9; 1 J n. 1 : 3, 7), the woi-d can best be interpreted as an abstract noun,
i.e. 'fcllowship' . Today wc use thc worcl 'comm union' in a concrete sensc,
meaning 'a bocly of Christians having onc common faith and discipline; as
the Anglican Communion' (Webster). We must be careful not to read this
mcaning of 'communion ' back into koinonia.
12. A possible exception rnay be founcl in Lk. 5: 10. H . Schürrnann (Das
Lukasevangelium (Freiburg , 1969), ad loe.) suggests that Luke's charac-
ti,rization of Jame s ancl J ohn as Simcm's 'b usiness partners' (koinonia) is
intcnded to foreshadow la ter ecclesiastical relationship s.
13. Cf. Fr Hamer's lcgitimate criticism of Scesemann 's 'extremely cate-
i;orical assertion' (p. 160).
_14. Cf. Mt. 23 :30, where the J ews protest hypocritically: 'If we had líved
lll thc days of our father s, we would not have taken ¡,art with them in
sheclclingthe blood of thc prophets.'
 1G() Onc in Chri .1t
ship ' 15 and hence is uniquely ajJt to exprcss religious relationship,
but no religious connotation is suggested vi vocis. To determine
the religious significance of koinonia in ' the New Testament and its
possible ecclesiological relevance it will be necessary to asK in each
case: who is participating in what, anq with whom? 1 6
Whcre koinónia or its cognates app ear in thc New Testament1

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 con tribute to our
undcrstanding of Christian koinónia. Rather, they will have to be
i11tcrpreted with thc liclp of pa ssages \"{he.re the objc ct of koinonia
is explicitated . This is tite case, first o( ali, with the two 'absolute'
uses of koi11011ia: :\cts 2:42 a11d Cal. 2:9. Altliougli Scott's intcr-
¡nctatio11 of the fonncr passage is surely unco11vi11cing,it is not casy
tu say ¡wsiti vely wliat tli<.: word me a 11s licre. Tltis difüculty is
evident in the variety of interpretations offered by the commen-
tators.17 Perhaps a contextual interpretation, based on Acts 2:44
a11<l4:32 is most likelv , so that koinqnia would mean 'common
owncrship of property'.18 The k oinonia of Gal. 2:9 has also bccn
vari ously interpreted_ln Con sequentl y, clespite the significance of

15. Hauck, 797. This comes out in the use of koinonia to exp ress 'marriag c'
a nd 'sexual intcrcourse'. Sce H. G. Lid<lell and R. Scott, A Greek-English
Lexicon (Oxfo rd , 1968), p. 970.
16. The association idea is secondary in the koinon - word-gro up (cf. note
I O), so that in many instances no attention may be paid to thc qucstion
'with whom ?'
17. (1) 'the apostles' ... fellowship' (Spitta); (2) explained by 'the breaking
of the bread', which stands in grammatical apposition to koinonia (Holtz-
mann). Cf. the Vulgate: communicatione fractionis panis; (3) an abstract
and spiritual term for the fellowship of ·brotherly concord established
and expressed in thc life of the community ' (Hauck); (4) 'tab le-f ellow ship
and social service ' (Stahlin ) ; (5) 'Christian charity ' (Dupont); (6) 'common
lifr ' (Carr ); (7) 'contribution of money' , cf. Heb. 13: 16 (Campbell); (8)
w mm on owncr ship of propcrty, cf. Acts 2: 44, 4: 32 (Conzelmann) .
18. There is a passage in Iamblichus (V it. Pyth. 30, 168), dealin g with
commu na l owner ship, which is reminisc ent of Acts 2: 42, 44. Here too wc
fin d koina an<l koinonia (but in this order, ju st the reverse of the pas ,ag<'
i1 1 .'\.c ts ), and here koi nonia clcarly mean s 'comn1unal ownership'.
19. (1) 'complete agreement' (Arniot); (2) 'fu II fellowship establishcd by
cnmm on faith in Chr ist' (Ha uck); (3) 'cornrn (,nion between Jews and pa~ar,
co nvert s' (Viard); (4) 'going shares in an cnterprise' (Campbell) . I t is not
~vident whether the koinonia in Gal. 2 :9 comes into existence at thc time
nf th e h a nd shake , or '\vhether th e l1and shak c is l h c e xt e rnal rc co g nitin :~ ,A
an alr eady existing koinoni a.
 J{oi non ia as 1/u: Dasis of /\/cw T csla111c11/ E o:/ csinlor;y ? lGI
Gal. 2 for undcr standing 'ecumenica l relation s' in prim1t1ve Chri s-
tianity,2d nothing very clefinite ca n he concl ucled from the occur-
rence of koinón ia in this chapter.
In Ph . 17 Paul makes hi s 'partnership' with Philemon the basis
for his appeal on behalf of One simu s ('recei ve him as you wou ld
receive me' ). The context sugge sts that koinonos entails more than
a relation ship of friendship (the meani ng of 'co mpani on ' claimecl
for the word by the dictionaries seems to be withou t foundation ),
but the spiritual goocl in whi ch the apost le ancl the adclressee both
participatc is not specified.
\Ve are a little bel.ter off i11 l. J 11. 1:3, (), 7. To lw , un :, th c
koinónia a mong Chri .stians ('that you m ay ha ve fellowsh ip with
us'; 'fellow ship with 011c ano ther ') 1s not explained in il.relf. How-
ever, it is set in clirect relationship to koi11811ia witli God ('ou r
fellowship is wit h tl1c Fatbcr and with bis Son Jc sus Clirist';
'fellowship with him', i.c. Go d). Ju st as a participation in Christ
leads ne cessarily to un ity among Chr istian s,21 so there can be no
true fellow shi p wi th Cocl on th e part of C hr istian, who do not
ha ve fello wship with ec1d1 oth er.
Occa sionall y th e othe rw ise indetermi11;i te cha racter of the
koinón - wo rcl-group is specifiecl by th e context . Wh en Paul, in
2 Cor. 8:23, refers to Titu s a s 'my p::irtner', the character of tlic
partncr ship is cld i1w<I l,y lil e phr;1sc tliat fnll"ws: 'rnv fc-llmv
worker ' .
Grammat ical pur ists maintain that the koinón - word-group
propcrly exprcssed 'having a sharc' and not 'giuing a sh::irc'. But
there can be no doubt th a t Paul uses the word -group in connection
with the material assistance to be renclcrecl to the poor of th e
Jerusalem church . It is,· the refor e, of second a ry importance
whether, in particular cases, th e idea of 'giving' is conta inecl in th e
worcl it self or wheth er it is suggest ed by th e context . Thu s it is not
cr ucial, for our purp oscs, whether or not R om . 12:13 is p 1operh·
trans lat ed by the RSV: 'r:ontrilmtc to the nc ccls of the saint s'.
Even if P aul is directl y urging the R oman s simpl y to 'sha re' i11
the ir need s, there can he no cloubt th at thi s interior syrnp a tl1y is
to express itself in material assista n ce.
Similarl y, th e 'good cleecl' \v:hicl} Paul a cknow leclges in Phi!. 4 :14
is n o t ju st the svmp a thy tl 1at the Phili ppians ex te11cled tn hirn 1)\
\har ing in mv affliction' . V/hcther or not the compnunrl participl c
~O. See p. 8.
~l. See p. 7.
162 Une in Christ
sygkoinosesantes directly expresses the gift that _the ~)hilippiai:s sent
Paul in prison, this material assistance is certamly mclude~- m. the
'good <leed' by the context. The generosity of the Ph1hpp1ans
represented a reviva! in their concern for their founder (v. lüa), a
concern expressed by the 'partnership' between Paul and the
community which existed from 'the beginning of the gospel' (v. 15),
i.e. the beginning of Paul's missionar y activity in Europe, which
started with the evangelization of Philippi (Acts 16:11-40). 22
The use of the koinon- word-group to designatc material assis-
tance directly. seems cvident in Gal. 6:6, which enjoins the cate-
chumen to share 'all good things ' with his catechist. The substan-
tive, koinonia, is used of the collection for the poor in Rom. 15:26
(RSV : 'For Macedonia and Achaia hc1se been pleased to make
:1~77.:C.co'.itrihution for the poor an:01,~ the saints at J,erusalem' ).
l !11s 1s likely to be the case also m 2. G..or. 9: 13 (RSV : the gener-
osity of your contribution").'2:l In 2 Cor. 8:4 koinonia has its mor e
usual abstract ~ense, but it is u scd together with another noun,
diakonia, which clearly designates the collection ('a participat ion
in the relief of the saints').
Although the word-group ma y be used in such passages for sorne-
thing vcry concrete, it always suggests an inner relationship to thc
beneficiary, and not simply an externa] gift. Thus Paul can relau·
the material contribution to the Jerusalem poor to the 'spiritual
contribution' (Rom. 15:27) which the se same poor have rnade to
the Gentile Christians by sharing the gospel with thern. A simila r
exchange is also expressed in Phi!. 4:15 by means of a technical
expression taken from accounting. Literally, 'No other church
shared with me an account of giving and receiving.' In exchange
for the apostle's gift of the goocl news (cf. 1:5) the Philippiarn
have given Paul material support in his missionary activitie,,

22. The difference between the situation in Phi!. 4: 14 and the one refcrr,'d
to in 2 Cor. 1 : 7 should be noted. The Corinthians shared the sufferings of
Paul in the sense that they were enduring sufferings of the same kir:d G:,
their own account. The Philippians 'shared 1 his affiiction only in the sens, ·
that thcy had a lively and active sympathy for him.
23. The fact that the beneficiaries of this koinonia are said to be, not
simply 'them', i.e. the Jerusalem poor, but also 'al! others ' does not pn · •
elude the interpretation of koinonia in terms of material a:;sistance, sine ,
the concluding phrase is simply one of Paul's characteristic suduen afrn-
thoughts, indicating 't hat a benefit conferred on the brethren at Jcnisaka:
is a benefit to the whole body of Christian!;' (A. Plummer, A Critica/ c:7.d
Exegetical · Commentary on the Second Epistle to St. Paul to the Co,i,, -
thians (New York, 1915), ad loe. ).
 Koinonia as tlw Jlasis o/ N ew Testamcn t Ecclesi ulogy? 163
somethinrr which he cleclinecl to accept from any other church
"
(1 Cor. 9:11-18; 2 Co r. 11:9).
Paul's u se of the koinon - word -group in connection with the
rendering of material assistance is certainl y not withou t eccle sio-
logica l significance,:24 but this significance derives as much from
the way the wo rd is used in context as it does from its root
meaning . The collection for the J erusalem J)OOr servecl to promote
that comm un ication 1. wtween Christian communities which th c
spirit of Jesus requires.
Wc n1ove 011 nnw from orr111Tc11ceso f thc koi11ii11 - wmcl -grnup
whe re the context su.ggest:s what is id1ared to instances where what
is shared is exj1lir.itly .1/atc r!. We have airead y considercd 1 Cor. 1 :9,
whe re a sharing in Clirist is said to he the ohjcct of the Christi:\11
voca tion.2" Tli -e Cl1ristia11 sliarc~s in Christ licrc ,111d now, in
imperfect fashion, ami thi s participation will be perfected in the
eschaton. The Christian's present sharing in Christ is first of ali a
sharing in the gospel (Ph i!. l :5, koinonia .. . cis to euaggelion)~ti
and thc faith that comes through the gospel (Phm. 6, koinñnia th
jJisteos).'27 The ,p iritual comm union which results frorn the arccp -
tance of the gospcl in faith entails a sharing in the sufferings of
Ch rist (Phil. 3:10; 2 Cor. 1 :7). The C hristian 's present shar ing in
Christ is also a sharing in the spirit of Chris t (Phi!. 2:1: 2 Cor.
13:13).
The eschatological object of koi11on- ma y be aff1rmecl in Cor.
9:23, where Paul expresses J-.is hope of sharing in the blessings of

24 . Cf. K. F. Nickle, T he Collection: A Study in Paul's Strategy (Lo ndon,

1966), especially chapter IV , sec.tion 2: 'The Collection and the Unitv
of the Church'. ·
25. To th e Christian's sha rin g in Christ rnrresponds, under thc old
covenant, the I sra elites' sharing in th e altar, i .e. God (1 Cor. 10: 18). Th e
fact that the Old Testament never uses hbr (=koinon -) to express th e
rcla tionsh ip be:ween God and his pcople is not d ecis i"e, since in this text
we have to do not with an Ole! Testament formulation but rathcr with
Paul's int erpr eta tion of Old T cstamP•íii sac rifice, víewe d from his Christian
rerspective .
26. J. Gnilka (Der Phiiipperbrie( (Freiburg, 1968 ), ad loe .) sees here an
ncth•e sharing in the gospcl, i.c. · a sharing on thc part of thP Philippi~ ns
111 Paul's preaching mission. But this; of coursr, pres upposes a sharing in
thc gospel in the sense of an acceptance of it as the bas is for thc Pxistence
(lf the r.ommunity.
27. I t is not crucial far our p urposes whether th e possessi" e pronoun sou
is. to be taken with koinonio, i.e. 'yo ur (Philemon's ) participation in th c
farth',. or_ w1th fzste~s, _i.e. '(their, i.e. the saints'; cf. v. 5) participation in
your (Plule mon s) fa11h·. In R ev. 1 : 9 'pa tience' is the object of sharing .
l(il ! !11r: rn Chris!
the gospeJ.28 An unambiguous express 'ion of koinrm- in relation to
the eschaton is expressed in 1 Peter, a letter which often echoes
Pauline themes. There 'Peter' characterizes himself as 'a partaker
in the glory that is to be revea ]ed' (5 :1; d. Rom. íl:17). 29 Yct thc
joyful aspect of koinon- is not reservcd for the cnd-time. Besides
the eucharistic sharing (see below) Paul also affirms a sharing in
consolation (2 Cor. 1 :7) which con :esponds to the sharing in
Christ's sufferings, and there is no reason for taking 'consolation'
licrc to be cxclusivcly eschatological (d. ]Vlt. 5:4·). Thc Christian's
sliar ing in Christ is a sharing in Gocl's prom;scs to liis peoplr.
1fencc 1':11d can say i11 Rrn11. 11: 17 tli:11. t!lt' wild ()livt' s!it,nt
(=the Ccntile C:l1risti:1w,) sl,an·s i11 thc 1icli1H',s of tlic olive lr<'c
(= Israel). i
Christian participation in Christ ta(es place sacramenta lly as a
participation in Christ's body and bloo<l (1 Cor. 10:16).:lO This
sacra mental koinonia in Christ excludes a participation in clemons
through pagan rites of table-fcllow ship (1 Cor. 10:20).:ll In chis
passage, as in 1 John, the connection betwcen the Christian\ rela-
tionship to Christ and his relationship to his fellow-Christians is
clcarly affirmed : '13ecause there is one bread, we who are rn:111\ ·
are one hody, for we al! partake oí tltc nnc bread' (v. 17).:12
This passage underlines the truth, so important in the current
discussion of intercommunion , that the participation in Christ in
the Eucharist J;roduces unity among Christians. Hence it is unrcas-
onable to require perfect unity as the prr:supj10sition for inter-

28. H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther 1-II (Tüb ingen, 1923), ad lor.

29. Cf. also Rev. 1 : 9, wherr 'the kingdorn' is the object of sharing.
30. ,We cannot treat here the conflicting interpretations of this difficu! t
passage. Cf. G , V. Jourdan, 'Koinonia in 1 Corinthians JO: 16', ]BL , 67
(1948), pp. 111-24.
3 I. For thc pagan use of koinon- in connection with sacrificial mea Is, cf.
the inscription, dated A .D. 250: 'I, Aureliu 's Syrus , as a participan! (ko ir.-
onus) have certificd Diogenes as sacrificing along with us.' G. ;\fill igan,
Selections from the Greek Papyri (Cambridge, 1910) , p. 11 G.
32. Besides the sacramental contex t, which is absent in 1 Jn. 1 :3, fi, 7, tiic
two passages differ in that the relationship with Christ is a particif>atior.,
according to Paul, and an assoriation (meta), according to John. Furthn·
n:ore, the relationship between Christians is expresscd by Paul in tenns r,/
h1s theology of the Body of Christ and by John in terms of koirwnia
Paul <loes not use koinonia to e.xpress the 'horizontal' rPlationship <'XÍ<ltr·,,:-
betwecn rnen. The apparent exception, 2 Cor. 6: 14, proves the rule, 1iw,r.
the passage is probab!y not by Paul. Cf. H. Seesemann. -Der Beoril' Ko i.~-
onia im Neuen Testament (Gicssen, 1933), p. 99. · º ·'
 Koi,wnia. as t/u: l!rnis o/ N i:1u '/'nlr1m1 ·11l l•:Cclr:sio/og) '? 16.í
communion . .Just what degree of unit y is nece ssarv for Christian s
to share the one bread is, of course, a question to which the Ne\\
Testament does not give us an answer. The claboration of koinonia
l'kklesiastik¡; is a patristic: clevelopment. 3 :l
From this rapi<l survc y of thc use of the /..:oiHñn- wurd -gro up in
the New Tc stament vve see that it woulcl be going too far to clairn
that ko inonia is th.e basis for New Te stament ecc.lesiology. The
metaphors of 'body of Christ', 'bride ', 'temple of God' and 'vine'
are far more crnc.ial. Evcn if wc restrict. our consicleration to
:distract concept s, we would llave to acknowlcdge that 'charity·
;,11d 'cclific:;1tirn1' ;1rc 1111H·llrnorr irn¡iortant for Pal!l's unclerstanding
of the C.:l1urc:h tl1;11Jl:ui11ñ11ia, wliic li is 11srcl liy l':iul i11 ;111 t'xcli1 -
sive lv 'vertical' scnse.a-1 Neverthelcss, Seescman11 gocs ton f;ir wl1c11
lie n;aintains that koi11011ia tell s l!S nothing of Paul's understanding
of thc Church.:l:í As we havc seen, the Chrístían's sharing in Christ
is related hoth to the present unit y of thc Church and to thc
futl!re consummation in th e eschaton , to whic h the Church, as an
cxchato logical com munit y, tends by its very na ture. Fl!rtherm ore,
the ecclesiological signi ficance or koinon - when used in relationship
to thc col lection shou l<l not be igno red . Finally, outside the Paul ine
corpus, the passage i 11 1 .follll is nf olwious ecclesiological rele -
\·::tnce,:H; a lthougl1 the use of koinrí11ia in tliis pas sagc· to exp1Tss
the 'horizontal' re lationship existing among Chri stian s is quite
unusua l in the New Tcstament.
The understancling of 'communion ' which is of the greatest
importance for our pre sent ecumcn ical situation is, of cour se,
<'Ommuni o eccl esiarum. Obviously , w e \\'Ollld look in vain i11 tlw

:U. C:f. G. W. H. Lampe , A l'atristi c Greek Lexi r:on (Oxford, 196 !), p. 7G3.
:q. Even the sacr:irncntal participation in Christ is a participation in th,·
,:xalted Lord, whorn Paul views as idcntical wirh th e Christ of fksh (hndy )
a nd hlood.
35. Page 99.
3ii. SePscmann \\Tites (pµ . 9 7-98) : 'H 01,-- ·c !osc ly connected the fcllowship of
:he faithful among th cmsclvcs is with thc fellowship with God and Christ
i, shown by the transition from v. 3a to v. 3b .. . i.c. I manifest ro you thc
H lowship whid1 I have with thc Father and the Son , in order that you
,,,, rnay ha,·e felJo wshi p with me. In other wo rd s, the foundation of rhc
frllowship bcrwccn the aL1thor and his addressees is the feJ!owship of thc
rnthnr with God and Christ. He <loes not say here that the readers' fellow-
shi¡.;with God and Christ is al;o thc foundation for this fellowship , but this
'-> t~1kcri for granted.'

1
1
166 One in Christ
New Testament for this formulation.3 7 Nevertheless, there cer-
tainly are passages which revea] that the problem of 'the Church
and the churches' existed in N ew Testament times. Paul goes up to
Jerusalem to lay out his gospel pri vate ly before 'those who were of
repute .. . lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain'
(Gal. 2:2). What sort of koinonia (cf. v. 9) did Paul hope to
establish or preserve by thi s action? There are various possible
interpretations, ranging all the way from an acknow ledgment by
Paul of his inferiorit y to th e Jerus alem authorities in matter s of
doctrine (at least as far as th e .JesJs -trad ition was concernecl) to
the suggestion that it was Paul's inte ntion to ask whether 'those of
repute' would dare to say that he liad 'run in vain'. An inter-
mediate view would be that, with out acknow ledging any right of
the Jerusalem authorities to pass jud gment on his gospel, Paul
wished to fore stall Jewish-Christian opposition to him in Antioch
or Jerusalem, which coulcl nullify his building of the Gentilc
churches.38
In the incident at Antioch (l;a l. 2:11 ff.) it is surely sign ificant
that Paul considered 'the truth of the gospel' (v. 14) to be endan-
gcred by Cephas' dissimu lation wi th r<>gard tn table-fcllowship witli
Gcntilc Christiam (v. 12), whctl1cr specil-ically cuchari stic fellowship
was involved here or not.
Paul is deeply concerned about communication between th e
Christian churches. When he wri tes in Rorn. 16:16 'ali the chur-
ches of Christ greet you', we see behind this friendly greeting the
fellowship in which all the indi vidua l communities are join ed
together through Christ. Col. 4: 15 f. attest s to the early exchange
of apostolic letter s among neighbouring communities.39 Eacli
church, each community is responsi ble for preserving the fellow-
ship with the other churches (cf. 1 Th. 4:9-10 ), even when grcat
divergences in ment ality and custorns exist, as was the case with
J erusalem. 40

37. Once again, as we pointed out in note 11, we must he careful not to
read back into koinonia nuances derived fr om contemporary usage, as in
the phrase 'the Anglican fellowship of churches '.
38 . Cf. R . E. Brown, K . P. Donfried , J. R cu mann, Peter in the New
Testament (New York, 1973), pp . 27-29.
39. Cf. K . Kertelgc, Gemeinde und Amt im Neuen Tes.iament (Munich,
1972), p . 76. We have already alluded (pp . 4-6) to the ecclesiological
sign ificance of the collection for the Jerusalem poor.
40. Cf. A. Jaubert, 'Le fait communautairb', in Le ministere et les miniJ-
tcres selon le Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1974), p. 20.
 Koinonia as the Basis of Ncw Testamcnt Ecclesiology? 167
Despite the idealistic reµresei1tation of Church unity which \Ve
f-ind in the Book of Acts, the New Testament reveals that the early
Christian communities experienced divisions analogous to tho se of
later centuries. 'The elder' complains that 'Diotrephes, \vho likes to
put himself first, does not acknowledge m y authority' (3 Jn. 9) and
're fus es himself to welcorne the brethren, and also stops those who
want to welcome them and puts them out of the church' (v. 10).
Paul is grieved at those who 'preach Christ from envy ;ind rivalry'
(Phil. l :15), proclairning liim 'out of partisanship, not sincereh·
hut thinking to afllict me in rny irnprisonment ' (v. 17). But then ,
in an extraordinary outburst of aposto lic magnanimity, he reveals
whe rci n thc csse,~tial unity of the Church consists : '\Vhat thcn ?
Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is
proclaimed; and in that 1 rejoi ce' (v. 18). As we would expect in
this initial period of the Church's existence, when the work of the
mission took precedence over everything else, the fcllowship among
tlic missionary prcacliers al!(! tlic conmrnnitics wliicli they founded
was expressecl primarily through proclaiming the same gospel (cf .
1 Cor. 15:11).
l w;ll not dcvclnp tl1<'S<'.,11g',!.;·<·stini1s
a11,· furtll<'r , since tlicy go
bcyond the assignecl topic of this paper, which is concerned with
the word koinonia and its cognates. Nevertheless, it seemed appro-
priate at least to inclicate that our concern over the fellowship
between Christian comrnunities and their leader s has clear anal-
ogies in the New Testament.

The General Theological Seminary, SCHUYLER RRO'vVN , S.J.

:-iew York City .