Some believe that the fellowship of God’s Son (see
1 Cor. 1: 9) does not have in view what is ecclesiastical but
concerns only that spiritual communion with the Lord that every
believer ought to have. Leaving aside the awkward fact that the
verse speaks not of fellowship with God’s Son, but the
fellowship of God’s Son, it follows that this
fellowship is not connected to the “within” and the “without”
described elsewhere (see 1 Cor. 5: 12, 13; Col. 4: 5) since such
boundaries are clearly ecclesiastical.
The Greek word used
in 1 Cor. 1: 9 for fellowship is koinonia, which is
closely related to two other words: koinoneo (to have
fellowship) and koinonos (a fellowshipper). All
three words are rooted in the adjective koinos which means
common (as in Acts 2: 44 and Jude v3—that which was true of
all). None of the words necessarily has a spiritual meaning. Thus in
Matt. 23: 30, the Pharisees said they would not have been
“partakers” (koinonos) with their forebears in the death of
God’s prophets, and in Luke 5: 10 we read of how James and John were
“partners” (koinonos) with Simon in a fishing business. What
is readily apparent from both these cases is that the commonality is
not just a matter of similarity but also of association, and with
it, responsibility.
In 2 Pet. 1: 4,
Christians are said to be “partakers” (koinonos) of [the]
divine nature”. Some might say, ‘I do not see any association or
responsibility there’ but the very Scripture that tells us that “God
is love” (1 John 4: 8) also tells us that “He that loves not has not
known God”. The test of whether we “have passed from death to life”
is “because we love the brethren” (1 John 3: 14).
In Gal. 6: 6, “him
that is taught in the word” is to “communicate” (koinoneo)
“to him that teaches in all things”. This speaks of a sharing of
knowledge between one believer and another. We see a beautiful
picture of this in how Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos aside and
“unfolded to him the way of God more exactly” (Acts 18: 26). These
things are not optional but the result of “holding fast the head,
from whom all the body, ministered to and united together by the
joints and bands, increases with the increase of God” (Col. 2: 19).
Similarly, Paul
writes of how the Philippian saints had “fellowship” (koinonia)
“with the gospel” (Phil. 1: 5) and how “ye have me in your
hearts, and that both in my bonds and in the defence and
confirmation of the glad tidings ye are all participators” (sugkoinonos)
“in my grace” (v7). Can we absolve ourselves of this responsibility
to those actively labouring in the Gospel? No, for the work is one,
even though not all may preach. Thus, elsewhere Paul tells Timothy
to “Be not therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me
his prisoner, but suffer evil along with the glad tidings” (2 Tim.
1: 8) and goes on to describe another believer who “has not been
ashamed of my chain” (v17).
What Paul is
describing is essentially a quality of fellowship that
is genuine (as over against what is merely feigned). Thus, elsewhere
he writes “if any fellowship of [the] Spirit” (Phil. 2: 1). However,
the desirability of what is genuine in fellowship does not mean that
there is not also a sense in which fellowship rightly exists in a
formal or structured sense—that is, as a visible association, with
definite boundaries and standards. That is why the Corinthian saints
were instructed to “Remove the wicked person from amongst
yourselves” (1 Cor. 5: 13). He (if a genuine believer) could not be
removed from the body of Christ, but he could be removed from among
the saints—from their fellowship.
The fundamental
basis of Christian fellowship is given in 1 John 1: 7 which says
that “if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have
fellowship” (koinonia) “with one another”. This means that
believers are brought together by virtue of their shared position as
being in the light of Christianity. In a practical sense, the light
of Christianity is inextricably bound up with the doctrine and
fellowship of Christ’s apostles (see Acts 2: 42; 1 John 1: 3) for
Christ’s Assembly is built upon their “foundation” (Eph. 2: 20). In
NT times, walking in the light meant walking with the apostles. Now
in Acts 9: 26, the newly converted Saul of Tarsus “essayed to join
himself to the disciples” but was initially excluded since “all were
afraid of him”. How could this be since Saul was certainly walking
in the light of the Christian revelation? He was outside the
apostle’s fellowship! Only when “Barnabas took him and brought him
to the apostles” (v27) could he be said to be in their fellowship.
The situation was anomalous, but the incident serves to illustrate
the fact that fellowship has firm boundaries and is not just a
nebulous or transitory ‘sharing’. Today, of course, the apostles are
all dead, but we have the record of their doctrine in the epistles,
and it is therefore possible to walk in the light of
their fellowship (that is, by following their precept and example).
So how does all
this fit in with 1 Cor. 1: 9? That verse begins with the words “God
[is] faithful” and this was clearly intended to remind the
Corinthians that there had been no failure on God’s part. No failure
in what? In the fact that He has “called” us “into [the] fellowship
of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord”. That fellowship is available to
us through divine provision, and we are called to it. What of the
Corinthians then? How had they responded to that calling? “Now I
exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (the One
at the centre of the fellowship), “that ye all say the same thing,
and that there be not among you divisions” (v10). They had failed in
their response to the calling and had structured narrow circles of
fellowship around party-leaders (see vs. 11, 12). God was faithful,
they were not. To say that the apostle was not writing here about
koinonia in its ecclesiastical sense is nonsensical. Go back a
few short verses where the epistle opens
with Paul addressing the Corinthians as “the assembly of God which
is in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1: 2). He addresses them as an assembly
(Greek: ekklesia)—clearly, he is going to take up
ecclesiastical matters with them in a very definite way (the epistle
to the Romans, by contrast, is simply written “to all that are in
Rome”—Rom. 1: 7).
Turn over to 1
Cor. 10: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not [the]
communion” (koinonia) “of the blood of the Christ? The bread
which we break, is it not [the] communion” (koinonia) “of the
body of the Christ? Because we,
[being] many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one
loaf. See Israel according to
flesh: are not they who eat the sacrifices in communion” (koinonos)
“with the altar? What then do I
say? that what is sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol
is anything? But that what [the
nations] sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God. Now I
do not wish you to be in communion” (koinonos) “with demons.
Ye cannot drink [the] Lord’s cup, and [the] cup of demons: ye
cannot partake of [the] Lord’s table, and of [the] table of demons”
(vs. 16-21). Unquestionably this refers to formal association—what
is ecclesiastical. To partake of the Lord’s table (see 1 Cor. 10:
21), is to be at His table—that is, to be in His
fellowship. A helpful parallel is drawn in which those who ate the
sacrifices in Israel are said to be in communion with Jehovah’s
altar (see v18). There was one fellowship in Israel centred around
the altar, and there is one fellowship in Christianity centred
around Christ’s death.
Sadly, the real reason why believers want to evade the plain
ecclesiastical force of 1 Cor. 1: 9 is not difficult to discern: if
we are called into the fellowship of God’s Son, then the many
‘fellowships’ than man has created have no more merit
than “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of
Cephas, and I of Christ” (v12). God has provided one
fellowship, and it is centred in Christ.
