Professional Documents
Culture Documents
i\
JOURNAL
OF
BIBLICAL
LITERATURE
Editor
J. PHILIP HYATT
HERBERT G. MA Y
Editorial Committee
HENRY J. CADBURY
MORTON S. ENSLIN
FLOYD V. FILSON
HENRY S. GEHMAN
H. L. GINSBERG
FREDERICK C. GRANT
HERBERT G. MAY
JAMES MUILENBURG
HARRY M. ORLINSKY
AMOS N. WILDER
VOLUME LXVII
1948
A QUARTERLY
PUBLISHED BY THE- SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
AND EXEGESIS
Reprinted with the permission of The Society of Biblical Literature and Exegcsis
JOHNS ON REPRI NT CORPORATION
n )p.?3~
Lonuon,
UNIYE
r.~': _:. I\
~ i!
l'_
~ ..
vV.
1.
l)!.
.... ' .. \I'\l~.
A.
;/ ~l/, r:f:'
... " .. r\
I
1
h,
it
I
!
tl
c,
o'
p
a
ti
11
V
f,
v
,
"
112
to
of
01
St
so
w:
ce
ti,
w
In
)
h
h
a
I
t
t
I
I
(]
h
11
113
. 4
>
1
I
~
,,
1
e
.1
:l
'r
n
I
f
.~
114
310
wit
by
mel
suc
Ne'
IT
the
too
rep
con
!n_
an
wh
1
res
(KO
7rV,
qw
thf
inf
Gr
pe]
W,
th(
YE
ab
Pr,
H.
CQ
115
"
.~
116
h
:l
y
16
y
0
~e
'e
"
IS
sIS
of
al
Iy
,le
SL
ms
24
sa
79,
uld
,lar
en-
117
are the properties of the Triad that, where the KOtVWVa of the
Spirit is, there al so is (dJpMh) that of the Soo, aod where the
XptS of the Soo s, there al so is that o the Father and the
Holy Spirit." Thus surely this great cornrnentator rnade it
manifest that he regarded KOLvwva, XPL'l and :y7rr to be
gifts from the three Divine Persons equaHy. That being so, aH
the genitives of the blessing must be taken for subjectives.
After Sto John Chrysostom, Seesemann cited Theodoret,x9 but
this ancient writer is in close agreement with the Byzantine
Patriarch and enlarges on the comment just quoted with an
observation that Sto Paul, in his first epistIe,'o referred to God the
Father Tu' EVEp"(~;.aTa which he al so said were of the Holy
Spirit.
We may express a doubt if the definition of KOLvwvLa I pronounced by Euthymius Zigabenus does in fact lend any support
to Seesemann's theory. The latter has not observed that, in
his PanoPlia Dogmatica, the Greek theologian maintained" that
the Divine Triad of Persons is such that what is true of one
Person is true of each of the other two Persons, and later on,'3
when commenting on II Cor 13 13, he said:
The grace - nay, the gift - given by the Triad is givenfrom the Father,
through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. For just as the grace [that comes]
from the Father is given through the Son, even so the sharing together in
what is given cannot take place in us unless [impartedl in (or, by) the
Hely Spirit. For being partakers of the latter (or, His partakers), we have oC
the Father the love, oC the Son the grace, and of the Spirit Himself the
sharing together."
When the extract from ecumenius's commentary which Seesemann has cited (with the addition made by Theophylact) is
well pondered, it will probably be found that the objective force
of ro) u'''(LOV 7rVEJ;.aTo'$ is not at aH so well established as
Seesemann has imagined!4
M. P. Gr. LXXXII. 457.
That is to say, 1 Cor 12 4-1l.
" Quoted by Seesemann, op. cit. p. 50.
" M. P. Gr. CXXX, col. 61.
'3 bid. col. 721.
'4 Cp. C. F. Georg Heinrici, Meyers Kommentar ber das Neue Testament
(8 ed., 1900), p. 435.
19
20
:1
118
The importance of this whole discussion centers in the possibility that, if it could be proved that II Cor 13 13 and Phi! 2 1
referred to a sharing together in the Holy Spirit, the opportunity
might be provided for sorne to insist that the spiritual benefit
indicated is a quality inherent in man. 25
Fraught with what is of still greater importance to our argument, the same syntactical circumstance has brought within
the scope of the same debate 1 Corinthians 1 9, where, it has
bccn asscrted, KO~/lW/li.a/l rou viou arou h7<TOU Xp~(TTOU can
onl y mean "Anteilhaben an Christus." No doubt the Greek
construction may be represented as demanding the signification
"the sharing togethe~: in His Son, J esus Christ," yet, rare though
it was, KO~/lW/l/l did at least sometimes mean "to give a share",
and the appropriate adjective KO~/lW/I~KOS is a witness to the fact.
We have alrcady seen, moreover, that KO~/lW/li.a could be, and
was, employed to signify "a share-giving", and concretely, the
"share-given," or "contribution." It does not, therefore, seem
unreasonable to treat the genitives which occur in the passages
under discussion, 11 Cor 13 13; Phil 2 1, as well as 1 Cor 1 9, as
subjective, and to understand them as relating, not to the
person with whom , or the thing in which, the sharing-together
takes place, but rather to the person by whom the sharing is
effected. Thus esteemed, KO~/lw/lLa becomes the term for a
divine gift corresponding to the Xp~s of the Lord Jesus and the
'}'7rr of God , as Chrysostom assumed it to be.'6 In the case
of 1 Cor 1 9 it is probable that KOL/lW/lLa stands for the sublime
gift of God conveyed to man through his Son, the "fellowship",
the "sharing together", which assures equally to al! who are
"in Christ" (and therefore members of his Body), the adoption
as "sons of God and co-heirs with Christ," who therefore acquire
the Kt..rpO/loj.La of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Thus far we have examined this remarkable Pauline expression,
and have considered the arguments regarding the objective and
s Kittel , Theol. Wiirterbuch, III, 807; Seesemann, op . .cit. pp. 58 ff.
26 Plurnmer, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (1. C. C.), p. 384, appears
to have accepted the subjective character of the genitives in 11 Cor
13 13.
:y
it
uIn
as
in
ek
:m
~h
,
",
:::t.
nd
he
~m
~es
as
:he
Jer
lS
, a
the
ase
me
p",
are
:ion
lire
ion,
and
)ears
Cor
I
f
119
120
In
di
ar
pr
bE
ar
to
it
10
th
KO
co
pa
sa
be
th
to
re'
an
\v,
th
gI'
[la
bI,
Se
th
wf
In
pa
a :
cit
tn
fr
sor
pla
121
122
I
1
Gressmann J5 has adduced the same opinion, alleging the authority of Philo and later Jewish writings. He referred to Bousset as
authority, but the latter does not menton "altar" n his list o
hypostases of GOd,3 6 nor does G. F. Moore. 37 Lietzmann remarks
that Genosse des Altars appears to have become a customary
formula in Hellenistic Jewry,J8 but this would not explain Sto
Paul's choice of evuLaurfpLOv as a metonym for "God", if he
had truly intended to institute the presumed contrast with the
Christian KOLvwvOl. There is, in truth, nothing more certain than
that to the Hebrews of ancient times, as well as to those of the
age of Sto Paul, it never occurred to think that they were, or
could be, lJaberm (=KOLVWVOi.) of God. Not even Philo has gone
so far as to describe them as such, even in the passage from his
De Specialibus Legibus usually cited in this connection. J9 This
passage only bears testimony to the practical obligations of
that partnership among Israelites of which we read in Deut 12.
One will look in vain for any introduction by him into the
estimate the J ews entertained of their sacred meal the notion of
"fellowship" or "partnership" with God. Philo's KOLVWVOV ..
ro) (3Wlw) Ka!, op,Orp7rfrOV ro UVp,7r6ULOII corresponds c10sely
to Sto Paul's KOLIIWIIOUS ro) OvuLaurrpov in expression and
even in meaning. It is not by any means the only phrase by
which the J ewish philosopher and allegorist reminds one of the
great Christian apostIe. 40
To sum up: we have observed that Sto Paul gathered up into
the one comprehensive term KOLvwvLa all the expressions by
which he might have been able to indicate the varied phases of
the relationship of Christians to Christ and of Christ's relationship to them. ConsequentIy, 1 Cor 10 16 was the statement
s
s
S
\
'L
e
e
y
11
lS
lS
lt
J1
~o
!nI
lO
.he
Jer
6),
123
1
i
i
124