Koινωνία: Fellowship with or participation in the Spirit? Revisiting 2 Corinthians 13:13

Abstract

The notion that, in the Christian Scriptures, the term κοινωνία (koinōnia) can mean “fellowship” has been challenged on philological grounds. Scholars argue that, in ancient non-Christian sources, meanings such as fellowship with fellow humans and with God are absent and that mundane meanings of participation and alliances are to be preferred. Discussion of this subject has suffered from a dichotomy between whether usage in classical sources trumps Christian theology in reading texts. Attention to Philo and revisiting philological patterns in Scripture suggest, however, the word had evolved to mean fellowship in the hands of Paul.

To those who interpret the lives of early Christians, the term κοινωνία (koinōnia) has presented many problems. It is sometimes treated as having an inherent qualitative meaning that distinguishes Christian gatherings in a way that goes to the heart of the Christian faith, placed alongside χάρις (charis) and α’γάπη (agapē), or as being concrete along with a visible ε’κκλησία (ekklēsia) and an audible εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion). In later theological developments, each of these terms may have distinctively Christian meanings, but if investigating the earliest Christian layers as an exercise of historical theology, caution is required. If it is a truism that meaning resides in context and function, then it is very much so for the word κοινωνία. Its meanings hinge upon grammatical structures within which it is found and the historical, literary, and documentary contexts in which it is used. One must go beyond the lexicon to understand how it is situated in diverse thought-worlds and why it is there.

Whereas hearing the word κοινωνία might cause many to picture a public group, in ancient sources it could just as often refer to a private arrangement between two people. It is typically a κοινωνία in something, a sharing in something, a partnership in something. The English language does not have a word congruent with the semantic range of κοινωνία, and so readers are familiar with seeing it appear in different contexts as “contribution,” or “participation,” or, indeed, “fellowship.” The question at hand is whether “fellowship” can be ruled in or out when translating the Christian Scriptures, and if it can be ruled in at all, how does one know where? This problem applies particularly to the question of whether fellowship with the divine was ever an idea in the minds of Paul’s audience on hearing the word κοινωνία. The end of this study is to seek to understand better the use of the term κοινωνία in the blessing that closes 2 Corinthians.

Methods

To shed light on canonical Christian writings, I have brought a range of critical tools to the study of the term κοινωνία and to the examination of literary and documentary sources. For an examination of literary sources, I take account of J. Y. Campbell’s philological comparison of biblical texts with literary texts in classical Greek. ¹ For examination of documentary sources, I use Julien M. Ogereau’s complementary study. ² Both come with caveats. Campbell’s literary sources depend largely on data from centuries prior to Paul’s koinē Greek. Ogereau’s review naturally leans heavily on a wide span of centuries either side of Paul. In addition, Campbell takes insufficient account of Philo, and for this, I turn to Joseph S. O’Leary. ³ Philo falls outside the scope of Ogereau’s study. For the studies of Campbell and Ogereau, my focus is on grammar in context. For O’Leary’s, my focus is on concepts in context. Campbell finds little instructive from Hebrew to assist in this assessment, and the present study is from Greek sources only. ⁴

Campbell’s study focuses on the noun κοινωνός (koinōnos), the verb κοινωνείν (koinōnein), and the abstract noun κοινωνία. That each is a derivative from the root κοιν-, “common,” underpins evaluations of meanings. Campbell’s method is to eschew later Christian theology and rely on classical literature to discover how hearers and readers in a first-century Greco-Roman culture may have first understood early Christian use of the terms, especially in Paul. Campbell’s reading of the classical literature leads him to reject two assumptions: that fellowship could ever be a primary sense in general use of the word κοινωνία and that it has any inclination toward mystical meanings such as fellowship with God. Campbell is thus averse to translating the word as “fellowship.” Any sense of association is backgrounded, and, rather than anything mystical, Campbell seeks out more mundane and business-like options for translators: the usual meaning is participation on a human level. Of course, fellowship was integral to the early Christian movement, but Campbell would argue that κοινωνία is not a word Paul employed to express it.

Campbell could be accused of approaching this problem in the manner of a grammatical purist. His paper reflects a time of academic confidence in the idea that the lexicon could arrive at a precise and stable definition of a word, dissected by grammarians. He would seek to translate on the basis of a narrow range of mundane meanings. This approach of seeing language as systematic, like codes that can be deciphered, goes back some four centuries or so, hailing from a time when it seemed common sense that a transparent relationship exists between words and things, such that lexicons and lists can be made and words labeled. Up to the twentieth century, this thinking reflected a confidence in historical semantics and the stability of words and symbols, with special attention paid to the time and place of writing. Historians have long followed the example of literary critics and philologists, who might themselves ask, for instance, how Shakespeare’s first audience would have interpreted a phrase he uses and what he intended. Lexicon building is essential groundwork, but it has increasingly been hedged with caution about its assumptions that the past is a world of knowable facts and that the historian can access it and re-create the thought-world in which a text was produced. Later twentieth-century critics had more confidence in discovering meaning through how words relate to other words than how they relate to things. The argument is that words and experiences create our world, and this view led to a loss of confidence in the stability of words and symbols. ⁵ If Campbell was confident about what first-century ears might hear, scholars are today less so. They are aware not only of the instability of language but also that readers are sometimes listening to an in-group conversation. Paul’s letters were not written for the ears of outsiders. And they were written for oral delivery, in a setting in which listeners could ask the speaker to stop and explain if needed. There is no reason to suppose that Paul the rhetorician was as devoted to every jot and tittle of grammar as the modern exegete is.

The idea that meaning is as stable as lexicons indicate is thus difficult to sustain. This insight drives the study of texts in new ways, finding how they refer to other texts, discovering what they exclude, questioning their logic, and asking why communities preserved them. ⁶ As such, Campbell’s work provides essential groundwork, rather than conclusions, for approaching what Paul and others mean by κοινωνία. It remains to ask how Paul used words to create thought-worlds.

Ogereau builds on Campbell’s work, adding documentary sources to the evidence base, that is, papyri and inscriptions. The advantage, as Ogereau argues, is that doing so brings into view popular patterns of language more representative of koinē Greek than data gleaned from classical literary sources. Ogereau’s survey accords with the literary sources inasmuch as the primary idea of the key word here and its cognates is that of participation, and the meaning “fellowship” is scarcely there at all. Ogereau finds the idea of personal association more prominent than Campbell did, however, which is to be factored into this assessment.

In the following overview from literary and documentary sources, I follow Campbell’s lead to note genitive constructions in particular.

Κοινωνός: Classical and documentary sources and a Christian parallel

The noun κοινωνός at a basic level signifies “one who has something in common with someone else.” If this phrase seems reductionist, it is nevertheless the flexible common thread across a wide range of contexts. In the classical literary sources, it is a somewhat bland word that carries the flavor of the words used with it, rather like pasta can be fairly tasteless but serves to carry the flavor of a sauce with which it is cooked. The thing in common provides the primary flavor that attaches to a κοινωνός in context. Campbell sets out from a cautious starting point rather than with translators’ options such as “partner,” “associate,” or “companion,” so as not to presume meanings. A κοινωνός is typically a participant in something with one or more fellow participants, and κοινωνοι` (koinōnoi) could encompass both a group of people and their possessions. ⁷ The idea of one’s association with fellow participants is at most a secondary meaning in the literary sources.

Campbell gives pivotal attention to the grammatical constructions in the contexts in which κοινωνός appears, especially contexts in which it is joined by an objective genitive construction to the item that the participants share, the genitivus rei, the genitive of the thing shared. In this construction, stating explicitly who the fellow participants are is not always necessary. This lack of specificity occurs, for example, in 1 Peter: δόξης κοινωνός, “a sharer in the glory” (5:1). ⁸

As to how the bland sense of “someone who has something in common with someone else” is fleshed out in documentary contexts, Ogereau notes that it could be as simple as partners holding property in common, ⁹ but this versatile term takes on wider commercial or civic meanings with mutual obligations, for example, a business partner, associate tax-farmer, life-partner, accomplice, or political ally. ¹⁰ The word does not intrinsically signal virtue beyond an assumption of faithfulness to an agreement. In contract form, it mandates a set of rights, duties, and obligations shared by its members, and it can be extended to a large enough body to be a community. The documentary sources for κοινωνός yield some evidence of a category of “associate” in a liturgical context, but they do not yield a particular religious sense or theological connotation prior to Montanism. This lack does not rule out a theological sense in literary sources such as Paul, but one should have clear reasons to read Paul as an exception. ¹¹

Κοινωνείν: Classical and documentary sources and a Christian parallel

The verb κοινωνείν primarily means to be a κοινωνός, having something in common with someone else. Significant differences come into view. That is, Campbell is keen to note that a common construction in the classical sources is the genitive of the thing shared. However, he finds only one such instance in the Christian Scriptures: κεκοινώνηκεν αι′ματος και` σαρκός, “share in flesh and blood” (Heb 2:14). ¹² Conversely, in the classical literary sources, Campbell finds no examples of a dative of the thing shared, but this construction accounts for most of the Christian Scriptures’ usage of the verb. ¹³ For example, the Gentiles share in a thing (in this case, in spiritual blessings) in Rom 15:27: τοι∼ς πνευματικοι∼ς αὐτω∼ν ω,κοινώνησαν. These differences destabilize the idea that classical sources are a good predictor of early Christian usage of these terms, although Campbell does not acknowledge it.

On κοινωνείν, Ogereau finds that, in the centuries stretching before and after the apostles, the majority of inscriptions indicate people participating, co-operating, and associating in the activities of civic occasions or cultic sacrifices, with the verb and a partitive genitive combined to identify what is in common among them. The connection with cultic sacrifices needs to be handled with caution as little or no evidence of a precedent for later Christian cultic language of Holy Communion exists. The evidence, however, has shed light on, inter alia, tax-farming partnerships, agricultural leases, other kinds of business joint ventures, and even criminal enterprises. ¹⁴

Κοινωνία: Classical and documentary sources and Christian parallels

The abstract noun κοινωνία refers to the participation and sometimes also association relevant to κοινωνός and κοινωνείν. That is, it reflects having something in common with one or more persons. The noun has multiple meanings in lexicons, which is hardly unexpected if authors have trawled its usage in literary sources. One may expect to find it used with clarity of meaning in context, especially in documentary sources that have commercial contractual purposes, even if the evidence does not always furnish a record of activity. ¹⁵

Although Campbell argues that fellowship is never the primary meaning of κοινωνία in classical sources, he is willing to countenance a more concrete noun such as community to convey a sense of association in rare cases. He laments that “dictionaries usually fail to distinguish clearly the abstract and the concrete meanings.” ¹⁶

Three genitive constructions appear with κοινωνία in the classical sources. First, the genitive of the thing shared functions as it did for κοινωνός and κοινωνείν, indicating a participation in something. This usage is the most common one in the classical literary sources. ¹⁷ Belonging to this pattern, according to Campbell, Paul writes τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς διακονίας, “participation in this ministry” (2 Cor 8:4). Second, κοινωνία may take a subjective genitive, the subjects being the participants. Correspondingly, Paul writes κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν, “your partnership in the gospel” (Phil 1:5). Several Christian examples are a matter of contention among commentators as to whether the first or second construction provides for the correct interpretation of the genitive.

Third, the dative of the person, the person associated with, may be replaced with a genitive of the person associated with, as an equivalent, but Campbell regards this usage as vanishingly rare. ¹⁸ Nevertheless, some commentators consider that Paul intends this meaning in writing κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, “fellowship with his Son” (1 Cor 1:9). ¹⁹ Questions arise: must such ambiguity be resolved decisively? And should the classical and documentary sources be the adjudicating factor as Campbell would advocate?

Whereas Campbell presses the case that classical sources provide a significant bias toward the genitive of the thing shared, one needs to be wary of a certain circularity of argument. Defaulting repeatedly to the genitive of the thing shared risks artificially expanding the evidence base it predicts. In a surprising number of cases, however, valid alternative interpretations prefer to read, for example, a subjective genitive, and some of these are considered further below.

On the documentary sources, Ogereau accords with the basic definition of κοινωνία as reflecting having something in common with a person(s). However, he emphasizes that it evokes ideas of both participation and association. In the centuries before and after the first Christian writings, κοινωνία is found in inscriptions to do with participation in cultic activities and sacrifices, which might at first glance seem relevant here. However, notably a broader range of contexts includes contests, and in later centuries, and therefore to be handled with more caution, it is used for participation in civic duties or in reference to marriage or community. ²⁰ In papyri, κοινωνία in reference to marriage is common, but more common is reference to joint ownership of property, such as land and livestock. No early evidence exists in the papyri of an intrinsic religious connotation. ²¹ Following in Campbell’s footsteps, he is confident of several instances in Paul’s letters in which the mundane sense of participation or association is to be preferred in light of the documentary evidence (e.g., Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:13; Gal 2:9). ²²

If the literary and documentary sources are indicative of everyday meanings, then, all things being equal, meanings such as religious fellowship or spiritual communion would be improbable in the earliest Christian writings. ²³ To reach a different conclusion about this or that passage in Christian Scripture must be on persuasive grounds.

The issue in Christian interpretation

The three words under scrutiny here—κοινωνός, κοινωνείν, and κοινωνία—are less common in Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures than in either the classical sources or Christian Scripture, and the evidence adds little to the discussion. ²⁴ I therefore now turn to the latter. It is necessary in such a review as this to go through a range of instances of κοινωνία and its cognates. Only in light of such a review can one approach 2 Cor 13:13 with a reasonable degree of awareness and confidence.

A mundane practical sense of participation in an endeavor through contributing financially is well attested in Christian Scripture and uncontroversial. Indeed, the three focal terms amply evidence the basic idea, in Christian contexts, of partners partnering in a partnership. Whereas an example of what Campbell and Ogereau are pushing back against is necessary, Harold M. Moulton’s study of the word “partnership” provides such an example. ²⁵ Under this heading, Moulton considers κοινωνία and its cognates. He acknowledges its mundane sense. Characteristic of Christian interpretation, he also notes context: “main usage of the words in the Christian Scriptures is in a directly spiritual context.” For this purpose, he inevitably begins with 1 John 1:3–7 as an example of κοινωνία, meaning fellowship with the divine and with fellow believers. First John 1:3–7 is a text I do not consider in this study, and I simply note that Campbell does make a rare exception to his rule in this case and allows that it means “fellowship.” ²⁶

Following this example, Moulton highlights frequent spiritual contexts: sharing in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), in God’s grace (Phil 1:7), in God’s calling (Heb 3:1), in God’s discipline (Heb 12:8), and in God’s glory (1 Pet 5:1). Moulton also sees a directly spiritual context in sharing in the benefits of Christ’s death (1 Cor 10:16) and in his sufferings (2 Cor 1:7; 1 Pet 4:13). One can easily see why these texts have provided fertile ground for the assumption to develop in Christian exegesis that the word κοινωνία leans naturally toward mystical meanings such as fellowship with the divine. Moulton exhibits the tendency to admit the terms “fellowship” and “communion.” In his view, “the fellowship of His Son” and “communion of the body of Christ” refer to fellowship inclusive of both fellow believers and the risen Christ (1 Cor 1:9; 10:16). Moulton finds fellowship with the Holy Spirit in Phil 2:1 and seemingly in Heb 6:4 as well, and he settles for translating 2 Cor 13:13 as “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.” According to Moulton, the κοινωνία in Acts 2:24 and Gal 2:9 is “fellowship,” and 1 Cor 10:20–21 describes “fellowship” with devils. Collectively, this case may appear persuasive for foregrounding the idea of fellowship, including fellowship with the divine. Whereas Campbell does not deny that a context might be spiritual, he pushes back against the ideas that the term κοινωνία leans toward mystical or uniquely Christian meanings and against translators using the word “fellowship” in any text other than 1 John. To illustrate the breadth of where controversy is, and is not, I follow a trail of analysis from Campbell and Ogereau.

Κοινωνός in the Christian scriptures

Κοινωνός occurs nine times in the Christian Scriptures. Without a preposition, taking the dative of the person, one finds a business-oriented meaning familiar from other sources: the sons of Zebedee can be κοινωνοὶ to Peter as fishermen (Luke 5:10). Campbell makes an interesting suggestion, noting that “in verse 7, Luke has mentioned Simon’s μετοχόι [metochoi]; it seems that by this he means those who at the time happened to be in the work of fishing, while by κοινωνοὶ he means those who were regularly partners with him, sharing in the profits.” ²⁷

Elsewhere, with a genitive of the thing shared, κοινωνοὶ share in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). ²⁸ Similarly, the Corinthians are sharers in the sufferings of Paul and company (2 Cor 1:7). These texts comfortably fit Campbell’s framework in which the term “fellowship” is redundant, but it is contrary to those who would prefer concepts such as “a fellowship of suffering.”

In Heb 10:33, the Hebrews are κοινωνοὶ of other persons (those ill-treated). Here is a genitive of the persons with whom something is in common. Campbell, following Moffatt, resists translations such as “companions,” and, to distance the meaning effectively from “association,” he prefers that the Hebrews are “making common cause” with the ill-treated ones, a path he also follows with κοινωνείν.

Κοινωνείν in the Christian scriptures

The verb κοινωνείν has eight occurrences in the Christian Scriptures, and additionally three of the compound συνκοινωνείν (sunkoinōnein) that might make the idea of association more difficult to resist, although Campbell argues the case. For example, it is praiseworthy of the Philippians to share, συνκοινωνείν, in the afflictions of Paul (Phil 4:14). Campbell, following Vincent, translates this term prosaically as “make common cause with my affliction.” ²⁹ Similarly, “you make common cause with the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pet 4:13). In so saying, Campbell is striving to strip back any layer of later Christian theology to inscribe meanings understood from classical sources instead, as more likely to be heard by first-century ears. That is, this is suffering after a pattern of Christ, not communing mystically with Christ’s historic suffering.

Campbell argues that κοινωνείν does not necessarily imply giving or receiving anything, citing Heb 2:14 as a case in point. ³⁰ Context can demand it, however. In an uncontroversial case for translation, the believers should contribute to the needs of the saints (Rom 12:13). “Contributing” is a more natural translation than “fellowshipping” here, so Campbell is on strong ground and, indeed, common ground.

Κοινωνείν most often in the Christian Scriptures, including Rom 12:13 above, takes the dative of the thing shared. In this pattern, κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς, “one participates in evil works” (2 John 11). Similarly, believers are instructed: do not συνκοινωνείν in fruitless works (Eph 5:11); do not κοινωνείν in sins of others (1 Tim 5:22); and do not συνκοινωνείν in her sins (Rev 18:4). According to context, this usage could mean do not “be associated” with sins (1 Tim 5:22) or do not “take part” in her sins (Rev 18:4). Semantic ambiguity is a feature of early Christian usage of κοινωνία and its cognates, which may suggest language is being stretched by the functions it is serving.

Κοινωνία in the Christian scriptures

In the Christian Scriptures, the noun κοινωνία is the most common of the three focal terms with 19 occurrences and the main topic here. Without committing to the word “fellowship,” one can say that it is to some degree relational, and it is an in-group concept. Any κοινωνία with which Paul is involved is never with non-believers. Mission might be oriented toward converting non-believers, but his κοινωνία belongs among fellow believers relying on each other in supporting missionary work.

Three times in the Christian Scriptures κοινωνία is used absolutely, and Campbell again eschews the translator’s common choice of “fellowship.” First, in Gal 2:9 he sees the right hand of “partnership,” not of fellowship. Second, in Heb 10:13, “do not forget κοινωνία” means do not forget your contribution. Third, in Acts 2:42, κοινωνία appears in a list in which it seems out of place to be merely abstract. Thus, that the disciples devoted themselves “to the apostles’ teaching and κοινωνία, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” may mean to the teaching and “contributing,” and so on. This suggestion is not unusual. ³¹ In Rom 15:26, the primary sense of the noun κοινωνία is as a contribution toward the needs of the saints: some believers “made κοινωνία for [εἰς] the poor.” Similarly, in 2 Cor 9:13, “the generosity of κοινωνία towards them” means practical sharing with them. Campbell notes that for the latter two examples, parallels of Paul’s usage are difficult to find in the classical sources, ³² another illustration that the classical sources are by no means a straightforward template for reading early Christian usage.

Illustrating his resistance to the idea of κοινωνία as spiritual fellowship, Campbell’s prosaic approach to 2 Cor 6:14 shies away from the translation “what fellowship is there between light and darkness?” Such would imply believers being in fellowship with one party, eschewing fellowship with another. Instead, Campbell prefers “how can light and darkness have anything in common?” ³³ Clearly, Paul’s meaning is fellowship-oriented, about not yoking believers and unbelievers together. Campbell would seem to conclude, however, that the translator need not rely on κοινωνία to convey it.

Campbell is consistent that, in instances in which κοινωνία takes a genitive, translation should follow the classical sources, indicating participation in something. Thus, on 1 Cor 1:9, concerning ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, Campbell’s preference leads him to read it as something ambiguous: “you were called to participation in his son.” This translation seems opaque as to meaning, and Campbell tries to resolve that opacity by expanding it to “participation [in the spiritual blessings made available] in his son.” This translation seems over-interpretative. The NRSV, like Moulton, reads a subjective genitive: “the fellowship of his Son.” ³⁴ Campbell objects to the anarthrous κοινωνία being read as having the definite article, “the fellowship.” ³⁵ The NASB, and John G. Nordling, reads a genitive of the person associated with: “fellowship with His Son.” ³⁶ Campbell objects to the same on the grounds that this construction is rare in the classical sources. This translation, however, seems the one with the fewest problems. As such, fellowship with the exalted Christ seems a warranted reading here. Again, the problem arises that the classical sources may not be a reliable predictor of early Christian usage.

On Phil 2:1, Campbell is keen to avoid reading into the text the personhood of the Holy Spirit as he suspects this layer of meaning is late. Instead, relying on a genitive of the thing shared, he renders εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος as “participation in the Spirit.” The NRSV similarly has “any sharing in the Spirit.” This rendering would be rather than “fellowship with the Spirit” as Moulton would prefer in reading a genitive of the person associated with, similar to his reading of 1 Cor 1:9: κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, “fellowship with his Son.”

Campbell’s “participation in the Spirit” seems to be reference to some kind of union with the divine, although Campbell does not say so. That Paul’s conception of κοινωνία encompasses the mundane and the heavenly surely comes into view, and the question of how κοινωνία fits into Paul’s cosmological worldview becomes pressing.

The narrowness of Campbell’s findings by no means meets universal acceptance. For example, Gerald F. Hawthorne, in his commentary on Philippians, while citing Campbell and the complementary work of his contemporary Seesemann, does not treat their work as his guide. In his reading of Phil 2:1, “The expression, κοινωνία πνεύματος, thus means no more than a fellowship of kindred spirits.” ³⁷ Hawthorne thus takes the term to be a subjective genitive. Hawthorne comments, “In the NT κοινωνία is that fellowship or that close relationship which exists between believers. . . . It is that community made up of people who are fellow members of the heavenly politeuma” (Hawthorne cites Aristotle). He adds, “κοινωνία itself as it is used in the NT conveys the idea of ‘spiritual fellowship.’” ³⁸ With a different treatment of a subjective genitive, the NASB takes it as “fellowship of the Spirit.”

Hawthorne also seems to locate fellowship with the divine in Phil 3.10: “the fellowship of his sufferings.” He comments, “This suggests that the power of the resurrected Christ and the fellowship of his sufferings are not to be thought of as two totally separate experiences, but as alternate aspects of the same experience.” ³⁹ Campbell would not wish to go this far: studiously avoiding the word “fellowship,” he translates Phil 3:10 as “the sharing of his sufferings,” meaning “real participation in the sufferings of Christ,” by which he seems to mean actual suffering after a pattern of Christ, as in Phil 4:14. ⁴⁰ Hawthorne must be right that κοινωνία here is connected with something spiritual, mystical, as this passage encompasses “to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection of the dead.”

Additional literary evidence supports the argument that κοινωνία can refer to connecting with the divine, more than Campbell acknowledges. He seems to overlook a possible parallel in Philo’s Life of Moses 1.158, in which Moses has κοινωνία with the creator of the universe. ⁴¹ Seemingly neglected too is Plato’s idea of gods and humans held together in κοινωνία in Gorgias 508a, but perhaps this usage indicates harmony rather than fellowship. ⁴² Campbell does find something similar in Epictetus’ Discourses II.19.27 but dismisses it on the basis that Christian and Stoic ideas of “God” differ too much for fellowship to be a relevant concept. ⁴³ Campbell also dismisses the usage of κοινωνία in Philo’s On the Special Laws 1.131 and 1.221. ⁴⁴ He does not note that Philo’s conceptual thought sits somewhere on a spectrum between Stoic and early church thought. Joseph O’Leary’s contribution is necessary to consider here.

Whereas I have used the studies of Campbell and Ogereau to focus on fine detail, O’Leary allows consideration of concepts in context in Philo. Crucially, impersonal things in Platonism and Stoicism, such as Plato’s Forms, become personalized in Philo, which in turn opens new possibilities of meaning for κοινωνία.

As O’Leary notes, in Philo’s exegesis of the Decalogue, φιλανθρωπία (philanthrōpia) and κοινωνία are virtuous, inclusive of fellow-feeling, enabled in human community by the Logos and embodied in the life of Moses. They relate to God’s election of Israel as a sacred community. Another work, in which Philo discusses κοινωνία at length, On the Confusion of the Tongues, exegetes the story of the Tower of Babel. Here, Philo, while displaying awareness of Platonic systems, meditates on biblical stories and symbols, affording him a platform to discuss the logos within a narrative in which logos is personalized and gracious. In Philo’s cosmology, logos serves as a buffer between the created world and the Creator, and logos is important as God’s enabler of a harmonious world, one consonant with the Creator’s image. Through the logos, Israel knows God and is brought into harmony with God, a social communion of sorts between divine and human and, indeed, between humans. Saying so is not to invoke the term “fellowship” here, nor the sense of Christian eucharistic communion. Word choice may sometimes be difficult in translating κοινωνία, but communion will do here, keeping Philonic thought in mind. The logos is the foundation of true κοινωνία, discussed within the parameters of his personalized cosmology, in which κοινωνία can be a near synonym of συμφωνί (sumphōni), “agreement.” In Philo’s dualistic discourse on biblical narratives, a world of true and false κοινωνία exists, tied to the idea of polity. True and stable κοινωνία is to be found in divinely sanctioned Israelite community, rather than in a pagan Aristotelian polis. Israel has an authentic κοινωνία, a communitarian partnership in sound reason guided by the logos and expressed in Torah. As O’Leary puts it, “Philo’s sense of koinonia is imbued with social responsibility. . . . Platonic ideas are recast in social or communal terms.” ⁴⁵ One may conclude that whereas in the sources reviewed by Campbell, κοινωνία is a bland word that derives meaning from various contexts, in Philo it is a rather full word with conceptual force that he locates in his metaphysics and in the social world of Israelite narrative. Philo has established a profoundly Jewish functional use in which κοινωνία has taken an evolutionary leap closer to meanings that happen to be found in Christian Scriptures.

When Philo uses the term κοινωνία in his discussion of the Essenes’ common life as a social ideal, it would not be prudent to limit his meaning to participation in a common endeavor. In his narrative, Moses prepared the Essenes for a life of κοινωνία. ⁴⁶ This usage seems to mean intense virtuous fellowship. Colson translates it as such in Philo’s description of the Essenes. Philo, in line with his portrayal of Israel as true κοινωνία in contrast to the pagan polis, presents the Jewish Essenes as a model utopian society, with studied appeal to Stoic ideals. ⁴⁷ Their fellowship and community of goods is of virtuous character. Thus,

their love of [humankind] by benevolence and sense of equality, and their spirit of fellowship, which defies description, though a few words on it will not be out of place. First of all then no one’s house is his own in the sense that it is not shared by all, for besides the fact that they dwell together in communities, the door is open to visitors from elsewhere who share their convictions. (Philo, Good Person 1.84, 91) I cannot be sure that Colson’s translation of κοινωνία as “fellowship” here is not influenced by Christian thought, but it does not seem unwarranted.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, κοινωνία had become an attractive and flexible word for Paul, which is not to ascribe literary dependence toward Philo, nor to claim that Paul’s thought-world was congruent with Philo’s metaphysics. What I can say is that ideas were circulating of a virtuous social κοινωνία that was an active part of a healthy relationship between Israel’s God and his elect. For Paul, κοινωνία is a sharing that he characterizes with religious themes. It can have a moral religious value: “light and dark” cannot have κοινωνία (2 Cor 6:14); it can refer to a meal-sharing that establishes fellowship (1 Cor 10:16–21); it can also refer to religiously valued Christ-like suffering (Phil 3:10). This values-laden κοινωνία goes beyond the usages accounted for by Campbell.

Alongside these religious themes is a surprising pattern of κοινωνία that is not only about mundane practicalities (e.g. Heb 2:4; 2 Pet 1:4; and 1 John 1:3–7). The suggestive texts from Philo and others illustrate that something was “in the air” upon which innovative Pauline thinking could build.

Nordling argues that κοινωνία had

thoroughly financial—and even secular—applications in Greco-Roman antiquity, as we have seen; but in Paul’s capable hands, “fellowship”—or “communion . . .” acquired also a profound theological meaning. . . . κοινωνία is christological at core—expressive of nothing less than the relationship between God and [humanity] in Christ Jesus. ⁴⁸

If the term acquired this personal relational meaning with Paul, then surely this meaning indicates evolutionary leaps, and the larger the leap, the less reliable the classical sources have proved to be as a predictor of usage in Christian Scripture.

From the deductive argument made, one may reasonably conclude that “fellowship” is within the semantic range of New Testament usage of κοινωνία. One cannot leap from the general to the specific, but, in establishing that fellowship is within this semantic range, then an assessment of a particular usage of κοινωνία on a case-by-case basis, with this possibility in view, is permissible. I review 2 Cor 13:13 as a test case. As this verse features a contested genitive construction, the ground is not fully prepared without further review of the problem of where reading a subjective genitive may be preferable to a genitive of the thing shared.

Subjective genitives?

Out of 19 occurrences of κοινωνία, only 9 have a genitive construction without a preposition. Of these nine, up to five may be subjective genitives, all the more reason to hesitate in using the classical sources as a default when reading κοινωνία in Christian scripture. In a straightforward case, Phil 1:5, Campbell notes that κοινωνία comes with a subjective genitive (namely, κοινωνία ὑμῶν, “of you”). He regards this construction as rare, thus “your contribution towards the good news” or “your participation in the good news.” In four contested cases, coherent arguments can be made for subjective genitives, rather than a genitivus rei, including Phil 2:1, as argued by Hawthorne, ⁴⁹ as well as the NRSV’s reading of 1 Cor 1:9. ⁵⁰

One further example will be reviewed before looking at 2 Cor 13:13. Phlm 6 is widely acknowledged as the most difficult verse in the short letter to translate, although Campbell surprisingly asserts that it is the easiest instance of κοινωνία to translate. ⁵¹ He takes ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου as another genitive of the thing shared, but that choice does not avail of an easy interpretation. Following Moffatt’s lead and supplying “the saints” from the prior verse, he sees the saints’ κοινωνία and produces this meaning: “the saints’ participation in your loyal faith.” ⁵² Opaque meaning illustrates that the genitive of the thing shared is not necessarily to be preferred. What does “their participation in your loyal faith” actually mean? E. F. Scott notes a dazzling array of interpretations of the verse. ⁵³ The NRSV’s “that the sharing of your faith may become effective” seems similarly unlikely. It implies a κοινωνία oriented toward non-believers in evangelism, whereas Paul’s usage of κοινωνία is an in-group idea. ⁵⁴ If various approaches to an objective genitive do not supply a satisfactory reading, then a subjective genitive should be in consideration. Not “faith’s κοινωνία” as such, but a κοινωνία consonant with a certain faith. On these lines, N. T. Wright renders it “the mutual participation which is proper to your faith.” Wright persuasively, and at some length, argues that this translation makes the best sense in the context of the whole sentence and indeed the whole epistle. ⁵⁵ The assumption of a default genitivus rei is on shaky foundations when Christian scripture is in view, and a subjective genitive may not be so exceptional after all. Already, four of the nine cases could plausibly be subjective genitives, and with this in mind I approach the fifth.

2 Corinthians 13:13

As previously established, the meaning “fellowship” and reading a subjective genitive are not off the table. This verse makes an interesting test for where one may make an argument for a specific case. I cannot here review or do justice to the large body of literature on this verse and will base my argument on only three points: (1) this verse functions as a blessing with an implied verb (just as in the other blessings that close the undisputed Pauline letters); (2) κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος is apparently something that can be “with you”; and (3) Paul, in finishing the argument of his letter, is pointedly signaling that κοινωνία is something that the Corinthians currently lack but to which the Holy Spirit has a remedy. I argue that this usage is a subjective genitive and that it does presuppose fellowship with the divine. In that vein, the NRSV renders the phrase as “the communion of the Holy Spirit [be] with you all.” The NASB and ESV take a similar path, with “fellowship” rather than “communion.” Hawthorne argues the case for the same. ⁵⁶ To the contrary, Campbell brings his usually preferred genitive of the thing shared, “participation in the Holy Spirit.” ⁵⁷

The above three factors help to determine which option is better and must be applied to the verse as a whole: ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν.

First, the lack of a verb in the sentence is easily addressed. An implied “be” is surely right to fill the gap: “be with you all.” ⁵⁸ This implied verb makes the whole sentence a blessing, including, first, “the grace of Christ be with you all,” consistent with the closing blessings of all the other undisputed Paulines. ⁵⁹ Thus, first, “the grace of Christ be with you all”; second, “the love of God be with you all”; third, ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος be with you. This progression causes the question of what will “be with you” in the case of κοινωνία?

The second factor, the list of three, helps to answer that question. In the blessing, the ending “be with you all” is applied to a list of three things. Each of three consecutive things is, according to the blessing, somehow capable of being with you: grace, love, and κοινωνία. The grace of Christ, the love of God, and ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος are capable somehow of “being with you.” Thus, ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος points to a virtuous something that can “be with you,” and the translator is faced with finding the most appropriate word to express what can “be with you.” Campbell doubts that Paul may have believed in a personal Holy Spirit and on that theological basis objects to a subjective genitive, but this objection is insufficient. Crucially, given the implied verb be, Campbell’s reading of a genitivus rei would create this confused flow of thought: your own participation in the Holy Spirit be with you. This rendering does not work. In that light, a subjective genitive, meaning something of the Holy Spirit “be with you,” is surely less problematic. That understanding permits the question of why Paul would want the “fellowship” of the Holy Spirit to “be with you.” What does this phrase mean?

Third, the rhetorical rhythm of the sentence suggests that its three “be with you” parts combine to make a point. The fact that the letter was intended to be spoken to an audience is too rarely taken into account, and it is too often reduced to a literary product. This closing verse displays a routine classical rhetorical technique: a list of three things capped off with an end note. Compare this famous Pauline list of three capped off with another clause to fix a meaning: “faith, hope and love, but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13b). This clause too is a classically structured three plus an end note, fixing the meaning of the list: “Christ’s grace, God’s love, the Spirit’s κοινωνία—be with you all.” The broader social issue Paul is addressing in 2 Cor is that his audience lacks love, grace, and harmonious fellowship, and these three things are here meant to be taken together. This blessing is so that the divine presence will bring the necessary transformation. Paul is blessing, keen that the divine presence will be with you, exemplified as grace, love, and κοινωνία. Christ will be with you with characteristic grace, God with characteristic love, and the Holy Spirit with characteristic κοινωνία. All three will “be with you,” Paul says. These qualities are immanent in the presence of God, Christ, and Spirit and need to be incarnated in the community: love, grace, and fellowship. This sense of the divine presence, with qualities to be incarnated, can then reasonably be captured in the word “fellowship.” The NASB is surely right: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” The Holy Spirit lends its partnership, but above all its virtuous fellowship, to the believers, in Paul’s argument here.

Paul thus presents a remedy to a lack of κοινωνία in Corinth. When the Holy Spirit lends its fellowship to them all, they are all empowered to have true fellowship with each other. They have failed to generate this fellowship merely by themselves. Indeed, in and of themselves, the Corinthian church had generated internal divisions and conflicts. The argument that the translator of the verse can legitimately draw on the possibility of fellowship and a subjective genitive in translating κοινωνία here is surely sound. Campbell’s vital philological groundwork is complemented by this finding, not contradicted by it.

Conclusion

Plato, among the oldest material, evidences at least two strands in the use of κοινωνία: the mundane and a harmonious but impersonal cosmic κοινωνία. An evolutionary leap is in evidence in Philo, however, possibly on his own initiative, that appropriates the Platonic ideal and locates it in Yahweh’s ideal personal relationship with Israel and in the connected idea of Israel as the ideal polity. In addition to this cosmic strand, Philo has use of the mundane strand in his description of Essene community life, which seems to take κοινωνία onto ground similar to reflections on Christian community.

Paul on occasion uses κοινωνία with unusual ambiguity. Among it all, however, another evolutionary leap in the use of κοινωνία to include the idea of fellowship is surely present, both with fellow believers and with the divine. Sometimes recognized is that 1 John and 1 Cor were written as responses to division in the community, and in this context, as Perkins notes, these texts are invoking concepts of κοινωνία as a way of beckoning the community toward harmonious relationships and away from schism. New functions beget new meanings. This appeal is the rhetorical function and purpose of 2 Cor 13:13. It is illustrative of why, in places, the translation of κοινωνία as “fellowship” is warranted. It suits the function to which Paul fits the word. He is communicating that κοινωνία serves as a glue holding community together in harmony and virtue. Philo almost certainly would have understood.