Communion
Communion
The Greek word has a wider scope (see Fellowship) than the English word communion, which the English Version uses particularly in regard to the Lords Supper (1Co 10:16). St. Pauls expression is somewhat ambiguous. In what way may the cup and the bread be said to be a communion? They may either be a symbol for communion or may constitute a communion by sacramental influence. What does the blood of Christ mean? Is it the blood which was shed at His death, or does it signify the death itself or its effects? Or does St. Paul perhaps think of the blood as some transfigured heavenly substance? And what does the body of Christ mean? Is it the material body, which Jesus wore on earth, and which hung on the cross, or the immaterial body of the heavenly Lord? Or, again, is it the spiritual body, whose head is Christ, i.e. the Church? And lastly, what does communion of the blood and of the body mean? Is it communion with, i.e. partaking of, the blood and the body, or is it a communion whose symbol, and medium are the blood and the body? In former times all attempts at interpretation distinguished sharply between those various meanings; nowadays there is a tendency towards accepting the different views as being present at the same time in the authors mind and in the mind of his first readers, not as entirely separate ideas, but all together in fluctuating transition. Grammar and vocabulary are not decisive in such a case. We have to start from the general view of communion which early Christianity held. In this the particular meaning of communion in regard to the Lords Supper will be included.
There can be no doubt but that early Christianity had a double conception of fellowship: all members of the Church were in close fellowship one with the other, and at the same time each and all of them were in fellowship with the heavenly Lord. The former conception was the more prominent; but the latter no doubt was the basis of faith. Now in the Lords Supper we find both these ideas present. St. Paul complains of the divisions at Corinth (1Co 11:18): the members of the Church do not share their meal in a brotherly way, nor do they wait for one another (i.e. probably for the slaves who could not be present early). Here we have the purely social and moral idea. But St. Paul, in speaking of the Lords Supper (1Co 11:20), indicates another point of view, which may be called the religious and sacramental conception: the Lards Supper is not only a supper held at the Lords command, or a supper held in honour of the Lord (cf. 1Co 11:23; 1Co 11:28), but it is also a supper in communion with the Lord, where the Lord is present, participating as the Host. In this way the Lords Supper is not only the expression of an existing communion with Him, but it realizes this communion every time it is held. Now the question is: Is it the common supper which constitutes the communion, or are we to think of the particular elements, bread and wine, as producing the communion? We shall try to find an answer by noting some analogies from the comparative history of religions.
W. Robertson Smith started the theory that the origin of all sacrifice lies in the idea of a sacramental communion between the members of a tribe and the tribal deity, which is realized by the common eating of the flesh of the sacrifice and the drinking of its blood. The theory as a complete explanation is inadequate, but we may admit sacramental communion in this sense as one of the different views underlying the practice of sacrifice. In ancient Israel the so-called peace-offering may be taken as illustrating this view. In later Judaism, however, this rite held but a small place, and Rabbinical transcendentalism would not allow any thought of sacramental communion with God the Most High. To adduce analogies taken from primitive culture is of no value. According to Dieterich, primitive man had the idea that, by partaking of the flesh of any sacrificial animal offered to a god, he was partaking of the god himself, and thus entering into sacramental communion with him. This theory has not been proved, and in any case it is beside the point here. We find better analogies in the Hellenism of the Apostolic Age, where we may distinguish two sets of parallels. (a) In the Mysteries certain sacred foods and drinks were used to bring man into communion with the god; (b) on the other hand, many clubs held an annual or monthly supper, which generally took place in a temple, and was at any rate accompanied by religious ceremonies which were to constitute a communion between the members and the god or hero (very often the founder of the club) in whose honour the supper was given. So we have two conceptions of communion: one mystical, individual, magical; the other moral, social, spiritual. In the former, particular food is supposed to bring the partaker into communion with the god physically (or rather hyper-physically), to transfer the essence and virtues of the god into the man and so to make him god (deify him); in the latter, it is the community of the meal which unites all partakers to one another and to the hero in the same sense as marriage or friendship unites distinct personalities.
The evidence of these parallels brings the early Christian conception of the Lords Supper into close affinity with the communion of the club suppers, which had their analogy in suppers held in the Jewish synagogues of the Hellenistic Dispersion. The Mysteries did not influence Christian thought before the 2nd century. St. Paul, it is true, starts the idea of an unio mystica between the individual Christian and Christ (Gal 2:20); this idea is prevalent in his doctrine of baptism (Rom 6:4, Col 2:12); but his predominant line of thought is the other view, which regards the two personalities as apart from each other, and may be described as the idea of fellowship. The same may be said about St. Johns view, in spite of all mystical appearances.
Now, when we turn to 1Co 10:16 again, we see clearly that it is not the bread and the wine that constitute sacramental communion by themselves; nor is communion the partaking of Christs material body and blood. Bread and wine in relation to body and blood were given by tradition, but, as far as performing a sacramental communion is concerned, they represent only the common meal, which brings men into communion with the Lord, who through His death entered upon a heavenly existence. From this conception of the transfigured body it is easy to pass to the other one of a spiritual body whose members are the partakers (1Co 10:17).
This interpretation is further supported by the comparison, made by St. Paul himself, of Jewish and Gentile sacrifices. When he says that the Jews by eating the sacrifices have communion with the altar, he means spiritual communion with God whose representative is the altar (note that the phrase communion with God is avoided-a true mark of Rabbinism); and when he says that to partake of a supper connected with a heathen sacrifice brings men into communion with demons, he does not accept the popular idea that the food itself was quasi-infected by demonic influence (he declares formally that to eat such flesh unconsciously does not harm a Christian); but he says; ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils, because partaking of the table constitutes a spiritual and moral communion which is exclusive in its effect. See Eucharist.
Literature.-W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, new ed., 1903, RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites (W. Robertson Smith).] 2, 1894; A. Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie, 1903; E. Reuterskild, Die Entstehung der Speisesacramente (Religionswissenschaftliche Bibliothek, 1912); L. R. Farnell, Religious and Social Aspects of the Cult of Ancestors and Heroes, in HJ [Note: J Hibbert Journal.] vii. [1909] 415-435. For memorial suppers, see inscriptions collected by H. Lietzmann, Handbuch zum NT, iii. [1907] 160ff.; E. Lucius, Die Anfnge des Heiligenkults, 1904. For Jewish suppers in synagogues, see E. Schrer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jdischen Volkes (Schrer).] 4 iii. [1909] 143; O. Schmitz, Die Opferanschauung des spteren Judentums, 1910; W. Heitmller, Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus, 1903; E. v. Dobschtz, Sacrament und Symbol im Urchristentum, in SK [Note: K Studien und Kritiken.] , 1905, pp. 1-40; F. Dibelius, Das Abendmahl, 1911. Cf. the Commentaries on 1 Cor. by L. I. Rckert (1836), C. F. G. Heinrici (1880), T. C. Edwards (21885), P. W. Schmiedel (1891), H. Lietzmann (1907), P. Bachmann (190521910), J. Weiss (in Meyer9, 1910).
E. Von Dobschtz.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
COMMUNION (1)
In its strict and proper sense signifies holding something in common with another, Act 2:42.
2. In a more general sense, it denotes conformity or agreement, 2Co 6:14. Eph 5:11.
3. It signifies converse, or friendly intercourse, wherein men contrive or consult together about matters of common concern, Luk 6:11. Psa 4:4.
4. Communion is also used for the Lord’s supper, because we herein make a public profession of our conformity to Christ and his laws; and of our agreement with other Christians in the spirit and faith of the Gospel.
See LORD’S SUPPER.
The fourth council of Lateran decrees, that every believer shall receive the communion, at least, at Easter; which seems to import a tacit desire that they should do it oftener in the primitive days. Gratian and the master of the sentences, prescribe it as a rule for the laity to communicate three times a year; at Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas: but in the thirteenth century the practice prevailed of never approaching the Eucharist at Easter; and the council thought fit to enjoin it then by a law, lest their coldness and remissness should go farther still: and the council of Trent renewed the same injunction, and recommended frequent communion without enforcing it by an express decree. In the ninth century the communion was still received by the laity in both kinds, or rather the species of bread was dipped in the wine, as is owned by the Romanists themselves. M. de Marca observes, that they received it at first in their hands; and believes the communion under one kind alone to have had its rise in the West, under pope Urban II. in 1096, at the time of the conquest of the Holy Land. It was more solemnly enjoined by the council of Constance, in 1414. The twenty-eighth canon of the council of Clermont enjoins the communion to be received under both kinds distinctly; adding, however, two exceptions,
the one of necessity, the other of caution; the first in favour of the sick, and the second of the abstemious, or those who had an aversion for wine. It was formerly a kind of canonical punishment for clerks guilty of any crime to be reduced to lay communion; 1:e. only to receive it as the laity did, viz. under one kind. They had another punishment of the same nature, though under a different name, called foreign communion, to which the canons frequently condemned their bishops and other clerks. This punishment was not any excommunication or deposition, but a kind of suspension from the function of the order, and a degradation from the rank they held in the church. It had its name because the communion was only granted to the criminal on the foot of a foreign clerk; 1:e. being reduced to the lowest of his order, he took his place after all those of his rank, as all clerks, &c. did in the churches to which they did not belong. The second council of Agda orders every clerk that absents himself from the church to be reduced to foreign communion. Church communion is fellowship with any particular church.
See CHURCH FELLOWSHIP.
It is sometimes applied to different churches united in doctrine and discipline. The three grand communions into which the Christian church is divided is that of the church of Rome, the Greek church, and the Protestant church; but originally all Christians were in communion with each other, having one communion, faith, and discipline. Free Communion, a term made use of in relation to the Lord’s supper, by which it is understood that all those who have been baptized, whether in infancy or adult age, may, on profession of their faith, sit down at the Lord’s table with others of different denominations. Some of the Baptists object to free or mixed communion, and do not allow of persons who have been baptized in their infancy to join in the celebration of the Lord’s supper with them: because they look upon such as not having been baptized at all, and consequently cannot be admitted to the table. Others, however, suppose that this ought to be no objection; and that such who believe themselves to be really baptized (though in infancy, ) are partakers of grace, belong to the true church of Christ, and are truly devoted to God, ought not to be rejected on account of a different opinion about a mere ordinance. Mr. Killingworth and Mr. Booth have written against free communion; John Bunyan, Dr. Foster, Mr. Bulkley, Mr. Wiche, and Mr. Robinson, for it.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
COMMUNION (2)
Spiritual or divine, is that delightful fellowship and intercourse which a believer enjoys with God. It is founded upon union with him, and consists in a communication of divine graces from him, and a return of devout affections to him. The believer holds communion with God in his works, in his word, and in his ordinances. There can be no communion without likeness, nor without Christ as the mediator. Some distinguished communion with God from the sense and feeling of it; that is, that we may hold communion with him without raptures of Joy; and that a saint, even under desertion, may have communion with God as really, though not so feelingly, as at any other time. This communion cannot be interrupted by any local mutations: it is far superior to all outward services and ordinances whatsoever; it concerns the whole soul, all the affections, faculties, and motions of it being under its influence: it is only imperfect in this life, and will be unspeakably enlarged in a better world.
In order to keep up communion with God, we should inform ourselves of his will, Joh 5:39. be often in prayer, Luk 8:1-56. embrace opportunities of retirement, Psa 104:34. watch against a vain, trifling, and volatile spirit, Eph 4:30. and be found in the use of all the means of grace, Psa 27:4. the advantages of communion with God are, deadness to the world, Php 3:8. patience under trouble, Job 1:22. fortitude in danger, Psa 27:1. gratitude for mercies received, Psa 103:1. direction under difficulties, Pro 3:5-6. peace and joy in opposition, Psa 16:23. happiness in death, Psa 23:4. and an earnest desire for heaven and glory, 2Ti 4:7-8.
See Shaw’s Immanuel; Owen and Henry on Communion; and article FELLOWSHIP.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Communion
(, a sharing), in ordinary terms, an association or agreement when several persons join and partake together of one thing; hence its application to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper as an act of fellowship among Christians (1Co 10:16); and it is to this act of participation or fellowship that the word communion, in the religious sense, is now chiefly applied in the English language. In 2Co 6:14, it takes the derived sense of concord. The communion of the Holy Ghost (2Co 13:14) signifies that spiritual intercourse with the divine Spirit which the child of God maintains by faith and prayer. The Greek term has also a secondary meaning of bestowal in charity, in other passages, where it is rendered contribution, distribution, or communication [which see]. The word is elsewhere translated simply fellowship (q.v.). For a large number of treatises on this subject, see Volbeding, Index Dissertationum, p. 147 sq.
(1.) Communion () therefore properly means the sharing something in common with another. Hence, in the Christian sense, it signifies the sharing divine converse or intercourse (1Jn 1:3); and as this takes place, sacramentally, in the Lord’s Supper, the word, in a third stage, signifies a joint participation in a spiritual sense of the body and blood of Christ, i.e. of his Spirit (Joh 6:63) in that sacrament (1Co 10:16). Some explain the in the Lord’s Supper to be a communication of the body and blood of Christ,’ as though these were given by the Church to the receiver, but the above account of the order in which the senses of the word have grown out of one another shows that such an interpretation is untenable. The Church has not, nor pretends to give, anything as from herself in that ordinance, but Christians come together to hold communion’ with each other, and with their (once- sacrificed) Lord, of the benefits of whose death, sacramentally exhibited, they are in a special, though only spiritual, manner then partakers. Communion’ () is that which is sought and spiritually partaken of by the receiver, not that which is actually conveyed by any person as the giver. Of the several names by which the Supper of the Lord has been at different times distinguished, that of the Holy Communion’ is the one which the Church of England has adopted for her members. The Rubrics, Articles, and Canons almost invariably employ this designation. SEE EUCHARIST; SEE LORDS SUPPER.
(2.) In a historical sense, communion denotes participation in the mysteries of the Christian religion, and, of course, Church fellowship, with all its rights and privileges. Hence the term excommunication. In this sense the word is used also with reference to the admission of persons to the Lord’s Supper. This is said to be open when all are admitted who apply; to be strict when confined to the members of a single society, or at least to members of the same denomination; and it is mixed when persons are admitted from societies of different denominations, on the profession of their faith and evidence of their piety, as is the case in Protestant churches generally. The principal difficulty on this point arises between the strict Baptists and Paedo-baptists.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Communion
fellowship with God (Gen. 18:17-33; Ex. 33:9-11; Num. 12:7, 8), between Christ and his people (John 14:23), by the Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 2:1), of believers with one another (Eph. 4:1-6). The Lord’s Supper is so called (1 Cor. 10:16, 17), because in it there is fellowship between Christ and his disciples, and of the disciples with one another.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
COMMUNION
In simple terms, communion means a sharing together in something that people hold in common. In present-day language, fellowship is the word usually used to indicate communion (Act 2:42; for further discussion see FELLOWSHIP).
The particular act of fellowship with Christ where Christians share together in a token or symbolic meal of bread and wine is commonly called Holy Communion, or the Lords Supper (1Co 10:16-17). (For further discussion see LORDS SUPPER.)
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Communion
COMMUNION.It is surprising that neither the substantive () nor the verb (), which represent the concept of communion in NT, is to be found in any of our four Gospels. It would, however, be unsafe, and indeed untrue to fact, to assume on this account that the idea of communion is wanting. While there is an absence of the words concerned, there is no absence of the conception itself. A careful study of the Gospels, on the contrary, not only reveals a plain recognition of this vital aspect of the religious life, but also (and especially in the records of our Lords teaching preserved by St. John) presents the conception to us with a certain clear, if unobtrusive, prominence.
The subject contains three distinct parts, which will naturally be considered separately: (1) The communion of Christ with the Father; (2) our communion with God; (3) our communion one with another.
1. The communion of Christ with the Father.The more conspicuous aspect of our Lords communion with the Father as reflected in the Gospels, is that which characterized His earthly ministry. But it is not the only aspect presented. Christ Himself clearly claimed to have enjoyed pre-existent communion with His Father (Joh 17:5; Joh 17:24), and the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel in three or four weighty clauses confirms the claim. This pre-existent communion included both unity of essence and life, and fellowship in work, (a) The Word was (Joh 1:1), realizing His very personality in active intercourse with and in perfect communion with God (Westcott, in loc). His nature was the nature of Deity ( , ib.). His Sonship is unique (Joh 1:14; and for the uniqueness of the relationship cf. the important Synoptic passage, Mat 11:27 = Luk 10:22). His is the the sum of the Divine attributes (Joh 1:16, cf. Col 1:19; Col 2:9; Eph 1:23), and He is (Joh 1:18)One Who is God only-begotten (Westcott). (b) The pre-existent communion not merely consisted in identity of essence, but was also expressed by fellowship in work. The Word was the Agent in the work of Creation (Joh 1:3; Joh 1:10, cf. also 1Co 8:6, Col 1:16 : His work in sustaining the Universe so created is taught in Col 1:17, Heb 1:3). See art. Creator.
Our Lords realization of His Fathers presence during His life upon earth was constant. That He Himself laid claim to such fellowship is beyond contention. He did so directly in His words (Mat 11:27 = Luk 10:22, Joh 12:49-50; Joh 14:6; Joh 14:10-11; Joh 16:28; Joh 16:32), emphasizing especially His unity with the Father (Joh 10:30-38; Joh 12:44; Joh 14:7 ff.), and accepting with approval the title of God (Joh 20:28-29). He did so even more impressively, if less directly, by assuming His Fathers functions in the world (Mar 2:5; Mar 2:7 = Mat 9:2-3 = Luk 5:20-21; Luk 7:48) and representing Himself as controlling Divine forces and originating Divine missions (Mat 11:27 a, Joh 15:26; Joh 20:22-23). Moreover, any attempt to explain away that intimate knowledge of God which the Gospels consistently ascribe to Him, is compelled to disregard not merely the passages in which His own words and actions distinctly assume it, but also not a few in which, whether with approval or with disapproval, others recognize that He claimed to possess it (Joh 5:18; Joh 10:33; Joh 13:3; Joh 19:7, cf. also Joh 17:7-8). See Claims of Christ.
But apart altogether from His specific claim to the enjoyment of this Divine fellowship, we have abundant evidence of its existence in His earthly life itself. The sense of communion was an integral part of that life. It is one of those elements in His personality that could not be eliminated from it. A Christ unconscious of intercourse with God would not be the Christ of the Gospels. It was this sense of communion that moulded His first recorded conception of duty (Luk 2:49, Authorized Version or Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ). The thirty years of quiet preparation for a three years ministry (the proportions are suggestive; for other examples of equipment in seclusion see Exo 3:1, Luk 1:80, Gal 1:15-17) may without doubt be summed up as one long experience of fellowship with His Father. And the recognition of this union, which marks His first thoughts of His mission, and which must so largely have constituted His earthly preparation for it, is found to be His constant support amid the stress of the work itself. It is present in a special manner in the Baptism which signalized the beginning of His ministry among men (Mar 1:10-11 = Mat 3:16-17 = Luk 3:21-22). It is His stay alike before the labours of the day begin (Mar 1:35), at the very moment of service (Mar 6:41 ; cf. also Mar 7:34; Mar 8:24, Joh 6:11; Joh 11:41), and when refreshment of soul is needed at the close of the long hours of toil (Mar 6:46 = Mat 14:23, Luk 5:16). The Gospels, indeed, make it plain that He regarded such communion as a condition on which the accomplishment of certain work depended (Mar 9:29, cf. Joh 5:30), and we cannot fail to observe the frequency with which both He and His biographers insist that the Divine Presence is with Him in all His words and works (Luk 4:14; Luk 4:18, Joh 3:34; Joh 5:19-21; Joh 5:36; Joh 8:16; Joh 8:26; Joh 8:20). So constant is the communion, that even the most familiar objects of Nature convey to Him suggestions of the Father in heaven (Mat 6:26; Mat 6:28). It is noteworthy that retirement for intimate converse with unseen realities is especially recorded as preceding Christs action or speech at certain great crises in the development of His life-mission (Luke is particularly careful to draw attention to this; see Luk 3:21; Luk 6:12-13; Luk 9:18; Luk 9:28 ff., Luk 22:41; Luk 23:46; cf. also Mar 9:2, Joh 12:28; Joh 17:1 ff.), and that intercession for individual men had its place in this sacred experience (Luk 22:31-32; cf. Luk 23:34, Joh 17:6-26).
Thus constantly, alike at critical junctures and in more normal moments, did the sense of His Fathers presence uphold Him. In one mysterious moment, the full meaning of which baffles human explanation. His consciousness of it appears to have wavered (Mar 15:34); yet even this cry of desolation must not be considered apart from the certain restoration of the communion revealed in the calm confidence of the last word of all (Luk 23:46). See art. Dereliction.
One further point maybe briefly suggested. Our Lords communion with the Father was not inconsistent with His endurance of temptation. Nay, it was under the strong impulse of that Spirit whose presence with Him was at once the sign and the expression of His union with God (see Mar 1:10), that He submitted to the assaults of evil (Mar 1:12-13, note , = Mat 4:1 = Luk 4:1). The protracted testing ( , analytical tense, cf. the suggestion of other occasions of temptation in the plur. , Luk 22:28, and Joh 12:27), successfully endured, itself became to our Lord the means of a fresh assurance and (perhaps we may add) a fuller realization of fellowship with the spiritual world (Mar 1:13 impf.). In this respect, as in others also, His life of communion, while in one sense unique (Luk 10:22), is seen to be the exemplar of our own.
2. Our communion with God.The reality of the believers communion with God is plainly revealed in the teaching of the Gospels. This communion is presented sometimes in terms of a relationship with the Father, sometimes in terms of a relationship with the Son, sometimes in terms of a relationship with the Spirit; but all three presentations alike are relevant to our study (1Jn 2:23 b, cf. 1Jn 1:3, Joh 14:16-17).* [Note: It is scarcely necessary to point out that for purposes of doctrine, I Jn. ranks as practically a part of the Fourth Gospel.] if our outline is to be at once clear and comprehensive, we must treat the passages concerned under two headings. The first (a) will include those that deal with the state of communion with God into which a man is brought when he becomes the servant of God; the second (b) those that relate to the life of conscious communion with God which it is his privilege to live from that time forward. The distinction, as will shortly appear, is by no means an unnecessary one, the second experience being at once more vivid and more profound than the first need necessarily be.
(a) It is clear that in the case of every believer the barrier raised between himself and God by his sin has been broken down. In other words, he has been restored to a state of communion with God. The means by which this state is brought about have both a Divine and a human significance. It is in considering their Divine aspect that we reach the point of closest connexion between the communion of believers with God and the communion of Christ with His Father. For these in a true sense stand to one another in the relation of effect and cause (cf. what is implied in such passages as Joh 1:16; Joh 14:6; Joh 14:12; Joh 17:21-23). It is in virtue of our Lords perfect fellowship with God that through His life and death we too can gain unrestricted admission to the Divine Presence. This truth is all-important. It needs no detailed proof. The whole story of the Incarnation and of the Cross is one long exposition of it. Perhaps it is symbolically represented in Mar 15:38. The conditions required on the human side for restoration to the state of communion with God appear plainly in our Lords teaching. This state is described in varied language and under different metaphors. Sometimes it is presented as citizenship in Gods kingdom (Mar 10:14-15, Joh 3:3); sometimes as discipleship (Luk 14:26, Joh 8:31), friendship (Joh 15:15), and even kinship (Mar 3:32-35) with Christ Himself. In other places it is spoken of as a personal knowledge of Him (1Jn 2:3); in others, again, as a following in His footsteps (Mar 8:34, Joh 8:12); and in yet others as the possession of a new type of life (Joh 3:16 : for the definition of eternal life as knowing God see Joh 17:3, 1Jn 5:20). As one condition of finding this experience, which, in whatever terms it be described, places men in a new relationship with God, Christ mentions childlikeness of disposition (Mar 10:15). As other conditions He emphasizes poverty of spirit (Mat 5:3, Luk 18:9 ff.). and the performance of the Divine will in a life of righteousness and love (Mar 3:35, Luk 6:35-36; Luk 8:21, Joh 8:31; Joh 14:23, cf. 1Jn 1:6; 1Jn 2:3-6; 1Jn 3:6). In one very important passage, addressed both to the multitude and to His own band of disciples, He may perhaps be said to include all individual conditions. If any man willeth to come after me, let him renounce himself (Mar 8:34 and ||). This saying has a meaning far more profound than that suggested by our English versions. Taken with the explanation contained in the verse that follows, it really leads us to the basis of communion. All communion between two persons, whether human and human or human and Divine, is possible only in virtue of some element common to the natures of both (see Joh 4:24; Joh 8:47; cf. the same principle differently applied in Joh 5:27). Mans sole possibility of communion with God lies in his possession, potential or actual, of the Divine life (cf. Joh 1:9). But joined to the self (the second of Mar 8:35) which is capable of union with God, he is conscious also of another self (the first of Mar 8:35) which is incongruous with that close relationship to Deity. The condition of realizing the one self, and with it, in natural sequence, communion with God, is the renunciation of the other and lower self.
So both Mar 8:34-35 : the of Mar 8:34 is thus equivalent to the first of Mar 8:35 The taking up his crossi.e. for his own crucifixion thereondefines the renouncing himself more closely. The teaching of the whole passage is the Evangelic representation of the Pauline doctrine of self-crucifixion, cf. Gal 2:20; Gal 5:24.
To change the figure somewhat, the unity of life involved in the idea of communion between man and God can be attained only through mans rising to Gods life. This, it is true, would have been outside his power had not God first stooped to his level. But in the Incarnation this step of infinite condescension has been taken, and by it the possibility of mankinds rising to the life of Godin other words, the possibility of its entering into a state of communion with Godhas been once for all secured. In order to make this state of communion his own, Christ teaches, each individual man must now leave his lower life, with all that pertains to it, behind; must be content to renounce himself; must be willing to lose that life which cannot consist with the Divine life. So complete, indeed, is to be the severance from the past, that the experience in which it is brought about is called a new birth (Joh 3:3), as real as, though of a type essentially different from, the physical birth (Joh 3:6). When with this self-renouncement is combined that faith in Christ which leads to union with Him and reliance upon Him ( Joh 3:16; Joh 3:36; Joh 6:29; Joh 11:26), we have the experience which sums up into one great whole the various individual conditions required on the human side for entering into the state of communion with God.
(b) Quite distinct in thought from the state of communion into which all believers are brought, is the life of communion which it is their privilege to enjoy. The one is always a fact, the other is also a consciously realized experience. Like so many of the blessings revealed in NT, such a life of communion is too rich an experience to be described in any one phrase or under a single metaphor. In different contexts it is presented in different ways. Sometimes, for example, it is set forth as an abiding in Christ who also abides in the believer (Joh 15:4 ff.). In other places it is represented as an indwelling of the Spirit (Joh 14:16-20; Joh 16:7; Joh 16:13-15, 1Jn 2:20; 1Jn 2:27; 1Jn 3:24; 1Jn 4:13), whose presence, to believers (as in a deeper sense to their Lord) the sign and expression of union with God, is to be with them from the moment of their initiation into the new life (Mar 1:8 and || ||, 1Jn 3:24; 1Jn 4:13). Yet another statement, emphasizing in a remarkable metaphor the inwardness and intimacy of the union that results, sets the experience before us as a mystical feeding upon Christ (John 6, esp. Joh 6:53-58, cf. also Joh 6:35). But while there is variation in the language in which this sense of the Divine Presence is set forth, there is no question as to the reality of the experience itself. It is the inspiration of this Unseen Presence that shall give to believers definite guidance in moments of crisis and perplexity (Mar 13:11 and ||, Luk 12:11-12). It is in this communion with God that they will find their surest refuge against fears and dangers (Mar 13:18 = Mat 24:20) and against the assaults of temptation (Mar 14:38 and ||). Such fellowship, too, is their ground of certainty, alike in their teaching (Joh 3:11note the plurals; 1Jn 1:1-3) and in their belief (cf. Joh 4:42). It is, moreover, the source of all their fitness for service (cf. Gabriels suggestive speech, Luk 1:19) and the means of all their fruit-bearing (Joh 15:1-10). As would have been expected, the full significance of this converse with God is not understood, nor is its closest intimacy appropriated, in the earliest days of initiation. Knowledge of God, like knowledge of men, has to be realized progressively (cf. , Joh 1:16). There are degrees of intimacy (cf. Joh 15:15 and the suggestive interchange of and in Joh 21:15 ff.), and the extent to which the believer is admitted into fellowship is proportionate to the progress he has made in the lessons previously taught (cf. the significant connexion between Mar 8:31; Mar 8:27-29, which is clearly brought out in the emphatic of Mar 8:31 : cf. also Mar 4:33, Joh 16:12). The reason for this basis of progress is plain. An important element in communion being self-adjustment to Gods will (cf. our Lords own illustration of this, Mar 14:36 and ||), the degree of intimacy that ensues will naturally be conditioned by the extent to which this element is rendered prominent. Thus, while its neglect will open up the possibility of lapsing even to one who has been on intimate terms with Christ (Mar 14:18, Joh 13:18), its constant and progressive practice may bring a man to a union with God so close as to constitute his complete possession by Divine influence (cf. the Baptists magnificent description of himself as a Voice, Joh 1:23, taken from Isa 40:3). And the fellowship so enjoyed and ever more intimately realized under the restricted conditions of earth, is to find its perfect consummation only in the hereafter (Joh 12:26; Joh 14:2-3; Joh 17:24, cf. 1Jn 3:2). See art. Abiding.
The means by which, according to the Gospel teaching, the believer will practise this life of communion with God, may be briefly indicated. Prominent among them is seclusion from the world for the purpose of definite prayer. The importance of this our Lord emphasized by His own example. He also enjoined it upon His followers by oft-repeated precepts (Mat 6:8; Mat 7:7-8; Mat 26:41 and ||, Luk 6:28; Luk 18:1). At the same time the Evangelic teaching does not aim at making recluses. There are active as well as passive means of enjoying intercourse with God, and our Lords whole training of the Twelve indicates, even more clearly than any individual saying (cf. Joh 17:10), His belief in the Divine communion that is found in the service of mankind. The sense of fellowship with God vivified in secret devotion is to be realized afresh and tested in contact with men (so 1Jn 4:8; 1Jn 4:12; 1Jn 4:16).
Two more points call for separate attention. (1) Before His death our Lord ordained a rite which not only symbolizes the union of His followers with Himself, but is also a means of its progressive realization. If an intimate connexion between the Lords Supper (Mar 14:22 ff. and ||) and the Jewish Passover may, as seems reasonable, be assumed, that conception of the Christian rite which represents it as a means of communion between the individual soul and its Saviour would appear to have a basis in the foundation principle on which all ancient worship, whether Jewish or heathen, reststhe belief that to partake of a sacrifice is to enter into some kind of fellowship with the Deity. This aspect of the Lords Supper does not, of course, exhaust its meaning (see art. Lords Supper), but it is certainly prominent, and it is emphasized both by St. Paul (1Co 10:18) and by Christ Himself (Joh 6:56, where the eating would certainly include that of the Lords Supper, even though, as is most probable, it does not refer to it exclusively).
(2) One more suggestion may be put forward. Our Lord seems to hint at a special means of communion with Himself which is really a particular extension of the self-renouncement considered above. This is a mysterious fellowship with Him in His own sufferings for mankind (Mar 10:38-39 = Mat 20:22-23 a; for a symbolical illustration see Mar 15:21). It is only a hint, but the words are significant; and, taken in conjunction with St. Pauls (Col 1:24) and his purpose (Php 3:10; cf. also 2Co 1:5; 2Co 4:10; 1Pe 4:13), would certainly seem to imply that the believers own sufferings for Christs sake may become a medium through which he may enter into close communion with his Lord.
Even this brief study will have revealed that the Gospel conception of the Christians communion with God is essentially different from that of the Quietist. Whether we have regard to our Lords example or to His teaching, whether we are thinking of the status of fellowship or of its conscious practice, the means by which the Divine communion is realized are not exclusively periods of secluded contemplation. In Christs own life upon earth the two elements of active and passive fellowship are signally combined. The sense of union with the Unseen Father, fostered in lonely retreat, is also intensified in moments of strenuous activity. In His thoughts for the lives of His followers, too, the consciousness of Gods presence is secured not alone by solitary worship, but also by the doing of the Divine will, by the earnest struggle to subdue the lower self, and even by active participation in the very sufferings of Christ. So the servant, as his Lord, must practise the communion of service as well as the communion of retirement (cf., again, Joh 17:15). The desire for the permanent consciousness of the more immediate Presence must be sunk in the mission of carrying to others the tidings of salvation (Mar 5:18-20 = Luk 8:38-39). It is but natural that in the moment of special revelation on the mountain the disciple should long to make it his abiding place (Mar 9:5 and ||); but his Master can never forget the need of service on the ordinary levels of life (Mar 9:14 ff. and ||). And the experience of the one is the source of power for the other (Mar 9:29, cf. Joh 15:4).
3. Our communion one with another.Just as our communion with God was seen to bear a close relation to our Lords communion with the Father, so our spiritual fellowship one with another rests upon the fellowship of each with Christ. As we had occasion to point out above, communion between any two persons is possible only in virtue of some element common to the natures of both. This common possession in the case of believers is the life, the self, which is called into being and ever progressively realized in their individual communion with Christ. The possibility of our spiritual fellowship with one another rests ultimately upon what He is and our relationship to what He is (see 1Jn 1:1-3, and especially 1Jn 1:7; cf. also 1Co 10:16-17). His Presence is the bond of union in which we are one, and in which we realize the oneness that we possess (Mat 18:20). Indeed, the two types of communionthe communion with God and the communion with our fellow-believersreact each upon the other. On the one hand, as we have just seen, our communion with men rests upon our communion with Christ; on the other hand, our Divine fellowship may be intensified (Mat 18:20 again and Mat 25:40) or impeded (Mat 5:23-24; Mat 6:15; Mat 25:45, Mar 11:25) by our relations with our fellow-men.
That our Lord looked for the unity of His followers is not open to question. He both prophesied it (Joh 10:16) and prayed for it (Joh 17:11 b, Joh 17:21). An intimate friend, clearly one of an inner circle of disciples and probably John himself, understood its attainment to be part of His purpose in dying for mankind (Joh 11:52). Moreover, it is natural to suppose that the desire to ensure it would contribute to His decision to found an organized society (Mat 16:18) and to institute an important rite (Mar 14:22 ff. and ||) for those who should believe in Him. The unity of His followers was even to be one of the grounds on which He based His appeal for the worlds faith (Joh 17:21 b). Of His wish for this unity, therefore, there can scarcely be reasonable doubt. But when we ask in what He meant the unity to consist, agreement is not so easily reached. The expression of His followers unity certainly includes kind and unselfish relations with one anothermutual honour and service (Mar 10:35-45 = Mat 20:20-28), mutual forgiveness (Mat 6:14, Luk 17:3-4), mutual love (Joh 13:34; Joh 15:12). It is exemplified further by participation in the common work (Joh 4:36-38). Another very special means of its realization, the Lords Supper, we have already indicated. Although this particular aspect of the rite is not actually revealed in the Gospel narrative itself, it will scarcely be questioned that one of the great truths which it both signifies and secures, is that of the fellowship of Christs followers. The sacred service in which the believer may realize communion with His Lord (see 2 above), is also a means by which he is to apprehend his oneness with all other believers (see 1Co 10:17).
While, however, it is plain that in Christs teaching the communion of Christians is at once attested and secured by means like these, it is disputed whether He designed their unity to be simply a spiritual or also an external one. Three important passages may be very briefly considered. (1) Joh 10:16 affords no support to the upholders of an external unity. The true rendering is unquestionably, They shall become one flock ( Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ; cf. Tindale and Coverdale), and not, There shall be one fold (Authorized Version ; cf. Vulgate). The unity mentioned here is one that is realized in the personal relation of each member of the flock to the Great Shepherd Himself.(2) There is teaching a little more definite in Joh 17:11; Joh 17:21-22 In both these places our Lord makes His own unity with the Father the exemplar of the unity of believers. Reverence forbids any dogmatic statement as to the point to which this sacred analogy can be pressed. But Christs own words in the immediate context contain suggestions as to His meaning in using the analogy. It is noticeable that here also, as in Joh 10:6, the underlying basis of unity is the believers personal relation to Christ (and the Father). That they may be one, even as we are one, in Joh 10:22, is at once defined more closely in the words, I in them, and thou in me (Joh 10:23). The resultant unity is gained through the medium not of an external, but of a purely spiritual, condition ( , Joh 10:23). In the same way, in the statement of Joh 10:11, it is a spiritual relationship to God that will yield the unity Christ craves for His disciples. This unity will follow upon their being kept . It will be assured if their relationship to the Father is a counterpart of what had been their relationship to Christ (Joh 10:12), i.e. a personal relationship. Whatever, therefore, be the exact meaning which the analogy used by our Lord was intended to convey, His own language in the context appears to make it plain that it must be interpreted with a spiritual rather than with an external significance.(3) This conclusion derives not a little support from the incident of Mar 9:38 ff. When a definite test case arose, He declared the real fellowship of His followers to depend not upon any outward bond of union between them, but upon each bearing such a relationship to Himself as would be involved in His working . True, the man in question may not have been a nominal disciple of our Lord, but that in His view he was a real disciple is distinctly stated (Mar 9:40). This instance, therefore, may be regarded as a practical application on the part of Christ Himself of the teaching under consideration; and thus it strongly confirms the interpretation that we have put upon it. It would be outside the scope of the present article to consider arguments for or against the corporate unity of Christians drawn from other sources, some of which are very strong and all of which must, of course, be duly weighed before a fair judgment on the whole question can be reached. But so far as the subject-matter before us is concerned, we find it hard to resist the conclusion that such external unity formed no part of the teaching of Christ and the Gospels.
One word must be added. The communion of saints joins the believer not merely to his fellow-Christians upon earth, but also to those who have passed within the veil (cf. Heb 12:1). This aspect of communion is not emphasized in the Gospels, but there are indications that the fellowship of believers upon earth was linked in the thought of Christ to the yet closer fellowship of those beyond death. At any rate, it is worthy of notice that in instituting the sacred rite which, as we have seen, at once witnesses to and secures our communion one with another, our Lord carefully pointed forward to the reunion that will take place in the world to come (Mat 26:29; note ); and that in a few suggestive words He represented the earthly gathering as incomplete apart from its final consummation in the heavenly kingdom (Luk 22:16). See further artt. Fellowship, Unity.
Literature.DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , s.v.; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, ii. 151 ff.; Weiss, NT Theol, ii. 367 ff.; Beyschlag, NT Theol. i. 217 ff.; Herrmann, Com. of the Christian with God; Maclaren, Holy of Holies, chs. xvi.xix.; MacCulloch, Comparative Theology, 216, 254; Stearns, Evidence of Chr. Experience, 179; Strong, Historical Christianity, 11; Westcott, Historic Faith, 123, 247; McGiffert, Apostles Creed, 32, 200; Expos. Times, iii. 197, v. 464 (R. F. Weymouth); Tasker, Spiritual Communion.
H. Bisseker.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Communion
COMMUNION (Gr. koinnia).In EV [Note: English Version.] koinnia is tr. [Note: translate or translation.] communion in only 3 passages (1Co 10:16, 2Co 6:14; 2Co 13:14), while it is frequently rendered fellowship (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] 12, RV [Note: Revised Version.] 15 times), and twice contribution or distribution (Rom 15:26, 2Co 9:13 [RV [Note: Revised Version.] has contrib. in both cases; AV [Note: Authorized Version.] contrib. in the first passage, distrib. in the second]). But it is communion that brings us nearest to the original, and sets us in the path of the right interpretation of the word on every occasion when it is used in the NT.
Koinnia comes from an adj. which means common, and, like communion, its literal meaning is a common participation or sharing in anything. Similarly, in the NT the concrete noun koinnos is used of a partner in the ownership of a fishing-boat (Luk 5:10); the verb koinnein of sharing something with another, whether by way of giving (Rom 12:13, Gal 6:6) or of receiving (Rom 15:27, 1Ti 5:22); and the adj. koinnikos (1Ti 6:18) is rendered willing to communicate.
1. Koinnia meets us first in Act 2:42, where RV [Note: Revised Version.] as well as AV [Note: Authorized Version.] obscures the meaning not only by using the word fellowship, but by omitting the def. article. The verse ought to read, And they continued stedfastly in the apostles teaching and the communion, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. And the meaning of communion in this case can hardly be doubtful. The reference evidently is to that having all things common which is referred to immediately after (Act 2:44 f.), and the nature and extent of which St. Luke explains more fully at a later stage (Act 4:32 to Act 5:4). It appears that the communion was the regular expression for that community of goods which was so marked a feature of the Christianity of the first days, and which owed its origin not only to the unselfish enthusiasm of that Pentecostal period and the expectation of the Lords immediate return, but to the actual needs of the poorer Christians in Jerusalem, cut off from the means of self-support by the social ostracism attendant on excommunication from the synagogue (Joh 9:22; Joh 9:34; Joh 12:42; Joh 16:2).
2. The type of koinnia in Jerusalem described in Act 2:1-47 seems to have disappeared very soon, but its place was taken by an organized diakonia, a daily ministration to the poor (6:1, 2). And when the Church spread into a larger world free from the hostile influences of the synagogue, those social conditions were absent which in Jerusalem had seemed to make it necessary that Christs followers should have all things common. But it was a special feature of St. Pauls teaching that Christians everywhere were members one of another, sharers in each others wealth whether material or spiritual. And in particular he pressed constantly upon the wealthier Gentile churches the duty of taking part in the diakonia carried on in Jerusalem on behalf of the poor saints. In this connexion we find him in 2Co 8:4 using the striking expression the koinnia of the diakonia [the communion of the ministration] to the saints. The Christians of Corinth might have communion with their brethren in Jerusalem by imparting to them out of their own abundance. Hence, by a natural process in the development of speech, the koinnia, from meaning a common participation, came to be applied to the gifts which enabled that participation to be realized. In Rom 15:26 and 2Co 9:13, accordingly, the word is properly enough rendered contribution. And yet in the Apostolic Church it could never be forgotten that a contribution or collection for the poor brethren was a form of Christian communion.
3. From the first, however, communion undoubtedly had a larger and deeper sense than those technical ones on which we have been dwelling. It was out of the consciousness of a common participation in certain great spiritual blessings that Christians were impelled to manifest their partnership in these specific ways. According to St. Pauls teaching, those who believed in Christ enjoyed a common participation in Christ Himself which bound them to one another in a holy unity (1Co 1:9, cf. 1Co 1:10 ff.). In the great central rite of their faith this common participation in Christ, and above all in His death and its fruits, was visibly set forth: the cup of blessing was a communion of the blood of Christ; the broken bread a communion of the body of Christ (1Co 10:16). Flowing again from this common participation in Christ there was a common participation in the Holy Spirit, for it is from the love of God as manifested in the grace of Christ that there results that communion of the Holy Ghost which is the strongest bond of unity and peace (2Co 13:14; cf. 2Co 13:11, Php 2:1 f.). Thus the communion of the Christian Church came to mean a fund of spiritual privilege which was common to all the members but also peculiar to them, so that the admission of a man to the communion or his exclusion from it was his admission to, or exclusion from, the Church of Christ itself. When the Jerusalem Apostles gave the right hands of communion to Paul and Barnabas (Gal 2:9), that was a symbolic recognition on their part that these missionaries to the uncircumcision were true disciples and Apostles of Christ, sharers with themselves in all the blessings of the Christian faith.
4. We have seen that in its root-meaning koinnia is a partnership either in giving or in receiving. Hence it was applied to Christian duties and obligations as well as to Christian privileges. The right hands of communion given to Paul and Barnabas were not only a recognition of grace received in common, but mutual pledges of an Apostolic service to the circumcision on the one hand and the heathen on the other (Gal 2:9). St. Paul thanks God for the communion of the Philippians in the furtherance of the gospel (Php 1:5), and prays on behalf of Philemon that the communion of his faith may become effectual (Phm 1:6), i.e. that the Christian sympathies and charities inspired by his faith may come into full operation. It is the same use of koinnia that we find in Heb 13:16, where the proper rendering is forget not the welldoing and the communion. Here also the communion means the acts of charity that spring from Christian faith, with a special reference perhaps to the technical sense of koinnia referred to above, as a sharing of ones material wealth with the poorer brethren.
5. In all the foregoing passages the koinnia seems to denote a mutual sharing, whether in privilege or in duty, of Christians with one another. But there are some cases where the communion evidently denotes a more exalted partnership, the partnership of a Christian with Christ or with God. This is what meets us when St. Paul speaks in Php 3:10 of the communion of Christs sufferings. He means a drinking of the cup of which Christ drank (cf. Mat 20:22 f.), a moral partnership with the Redeemer in His pains and tears (cf. Rom 8:17). But it is St. John who brings this higher koinnia before us in the most absolute way when he writes, Our communion is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (1Jn 1:3, cf. 1Jn 1:6), and makes our communion one with another depend upon this previous communion with God Himself (1Jn 1:7, cf. 1Jn 1:6). Yet, though the koinnia or communion is now raised to a higher power, it has still the same meaning as before. It is a mutual sharing, a reciprocal giving and receiving. And in his Gospel St. John sets the law of this communion clearly before us when he records the words of the Lord Himself, Ablde in me, and I in you (Joh 15:4). The communion of the human and the Divine is a mutual activity, which may be summed up in the two words grace and faith. For grace is the spontaneous and unstinted Divine giving as revealed and mediated by Jesus Christ, while faith in its ideal form is the action of a soul which, receiving the Divine grace, surrenders itself without any reserve unto the Lord.
J. C. Lambert.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Communion
Communion, a fellowship or agreement, when several persons join and partake together of one thing (2Co 6:14; 1Jn 1:3); hence its application to the celebration of the Lord’s supper as an act of fellowship among Christians (1Co 10:16); and it is to this act of participation or fellowship that the word ‘communion’ is now restricted in the English language, the more familiar application of it having fallen into disease.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Communion
See FELLOWSHIP.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Communion
With God
– General references
Psa 16:7; Joh 14:16-18; Joh 14:23; 1Co 10:16; 2Co 6:16; 2Co 13:14; Gal 4:6; Phi 2:1-2; 1Jn 1:3; Rev 3:20 Fellowship
– Instances of:
b Enoch
Gen 5:22; Gen 5:24
b Noah
Gen 6:9; Gen 6:13-22; Gen 8:15-17
b Abraham
Gen 12:1-3; Gen 12:7; Gen 17:1-2; Gen 18:1-33; Gen 22:1-2; Gen 22:11-12; Gen 22:16-18
b Hagar
Gen 16:8-12
b Isaac
Gen 26:2; Gen 26:24
b Isaac, in dreams
Gen 28:13; Gen 28:15; Gen 31:3; Gen 35:1; Gen 35:7; Gen 46:2-4
b Moses
Exo 3; Exo 4:1-17; Exo 33:9; Exo 33:11; Exo 34:28; Num 12:8
b Joshua
Jos 1:1-9; Jos 6:2-5; Jos 7:10-15; Jos 8:1-2; Jos 20:1-6
b Gideon
Jdg 6:11-24
b Solomon
1Ki 3:5-14; 2Ch 1:7-12
Of saints
– General references
1Sa 23:16; Psa 55:14; Psa 119:63; Psa 133:1-3; Amo 3:3; Mal 3:16; Luk 22:32; Luk 24:17; Luk 24:32; Joh 17:20-21; Act 2:42; Rom 12:15; 1Co 10:16-17; 1Co 12:12-13; 2Co 6:14-18; Eph 4:1-3; Eph 5:11; Col 3:16; 1Th 4:18; 1Th 5:11; 1Th 5:14; Heb 3:13; Heb 10:24-25; Jas 5:16; 1Jn 1:3; 1Jn 1:7 Fellowship
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Communion
“a having in common (koinos), partnership, fellowship” (see COMMUNICATE), denotes (a) the share which one has in anything, a participation, fellowship recognized and enjoyed; thus it is used of the common experiences and interests of Christian men, Act 2:42; Gal 2:9; of participation in the knowledge of the Son of God, 1Co 1:9; of sharing the realization of the effects of the Blood (i.e., the Death) of Christ and the Body of Christ, as set forth by the emblems in the Lord’s Supper, 1Co 10:16; of participation in what is derived from the Holy Spirit, 2Co 13:14 (RV, “communion”); Phi 2:1; of participation in the sufferings of Christ, Phi 3:10; of sharing in the resurrection life possessed in Christ, and so of fellowship with the Father and the Son, 1Jo 1:3, 1Jo 1:6-7; negatively, of the impossibility of “communion” between light and darkness, 2Co 6:14; (b) fellowship manifested in acts, the practical effects of fellowship with God, wrought by the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers as the outcome of faith, Phm 1:6, and finding expression in joint ministration to the needy, Rom 15:26; 2Co 8:4; 2Co 9:13; Heb 13:16, and in the furtherance of the Gospel by gifts, Phi 1:5. See COMMUNICATION, CONTRIBUTION, DISTRIBUTION, FELLOWSHIP.
“having in common,” is rendered “have communion with (the altar),” –the altar standing by metonymy for that which is associated with it — in 1Co 10:18, RV (for AV, “are partakers of”), and in 1Co 10:20, for AV, “have fellowship with (demons).” See COMPANION.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Communion
in a religious sense, refers chiefly to the admission of persons to the Lord’s Supper. This is said to be open, when all are admitted who apply, as in the Church of England; to be strict, when confined to the members of a single society, or, at least, to members of the same denomination; and it is mixed, when persons are admitted from societies of different denominations, on the profession of their faith, and evidence of their piety. The principal difficulty on this point arises between the strict Baptists and Paedo-Baptists.