INSUFICIENCIA RENAL CRONICA

The intergroup and intragroup encounters in Acts 6-9 serve as a testing ground, helping to determine the relationship between the social identity formed by participation in the Jesus group, old social identities and the ‘other’. I will demonstrate that in this section the Spirit subverts normal (often exclusionary) identity processes in two ways. First, the Spirit orchestrates intergroup contact between the in-group and the ‘other’. This is essential to maintain the allocentric character of the community in the face of a willingness to settle into old exclusionary models of intergroup behavior and identity formation. Second, the Spirit maintains control of intergroup boundaries by serving as the primaryidentity markerfor this new social identity. During critical intergroup encounters, the Spirit arrives at precisely the moment human identity is in question. The Spirit is thus involved in far more than ‘mission’, the Spirit is involved in the fullincorporationof the ‘other’ into the community. This regularly results in a dual identity transformation that requires both former out-group membersand in-group members

to reorient their own social identity to reflect changes in group composition, a primary input for social identity.1

1_{Poole, et al. 2004:10.}

Acts 6.1-7: Subgroup Salience and Community Dysfunction

By Acts 6, the community is clearly an entitative social group, functioning with its own authority figures (the Twelve instead of the Sanhedrin), meeting in home and Temple (Acts 5.42) and organizing a system of poverty relief. The latter is evidence for the ongoing corporate expression of Spirit-empowered allocentric identity.2 _{It is thus surprising when full-blown intragroup conflict erupts in this}

community of solidarity. The primary cause of the conflict is the rise to primacy of ethno-linguistic subgroup identities.3 _{As with Ananias and Sapphira (and as will}

continue throughout Acts), when subgroup identities become primary the community inevitably malfunctions.

The growth of the community (reported in 6.1; cf. Acts 2.41; 4.44) results in a relatively large group that is socio-economically and linguistically inclusive, both factors with ramifications for identity formation. SIT demonstrates that large groups, in which relationships are less personal, are frequently less effective at fostering intragroup loyalty.4 _{Further, highly inclusive groups can prompt the}

reassertion of subgroup identity distinctions as an effort by group members to maintain positive identity.5 _{It is not implausible that the ‘Hebrews’ understood}

themselves, as native speakers of the ‘language of Israel’, to be the prototypical subgroup in the community, thus relegating the Hellenist widows to the wrong side of a Hebrew entitlement claim.6 _{Language is a particularly strong identity-forming}

agent in situations similar to that described in Acts.

Minorities who speak an international language of high status [Greek, in a Greco-Roman context] are advantaged compared to those who

2_{Seccombe 1978 argues against the contention that pre-70 CE Jerusalem had a formal charity system}

(a position held by Jeremias 1968, cf. Barrett 1994:310; Dunn 1996:81), suggesting evidence for a formal system is too late (m.Ketubbot13.1-2;m.Pesahim10.1;m.Shekalim5.6) or does not refer to general community charity (m.Ketubbot13.1-2;m.Shekalim5.6). The only general distributions of charity were crisis relief efforts (Herod’s importation of grain for famine relief ca 25 BCE [Antiquities

15.299-316] and Queen Helena’s disaster aid ca. 46 or 47 CE [Antiquities20.51-53]).

3_{The current consensus is that the Hellenist/Hebrew distinction should be conceived linguistically,}

with context determining the broader ethnic implications (Witherington 1998:242). This seems likely from an SIT perspective, which suggests that Diaspora identities often become more ‘conservative’ in the face of pressure to assimilate. For full discussions of the issue see Bock 2007:256ff; Esler 1987:139-142; Witherington 1998:240-247. For an effort to refute the Baur hypothesis see Hill 1992.

4_{Rabbie & Horowitz 1988:117-123.} 5_{Hornsey & Hogg 1999:543-550.}

6_{Cf. Luke 4.14-30. See Wenzel 2000; 2001; Weber, et al 2002; Wenzel, et al 2003; Waldzus, et al 2003;}

speak a language with less prestige value [e.g. Hebrew/Aramaic]. But within the boundaries of a certain territory – a commune, a country – the respective status of the languages used can be reversed.7

Diaspora Israelites gained advantage as fluent Greek-speakers. But the situation was the opposite in Jerusalem/Judea where Hebrew/Aramaic was the prototype. The Hebrew/Aramaic speaking widows were likely (though perhaps even subconsciously) favored by the Hebrew/Aramaic speaking leaders of the community based upon their common ethno-linguistic subgroup identity.8 _{Thus, Acts 6.1-7}

reflects an intragroup conflict of subgroup social identities, not a conflict of ideological or ‘theological’ positions. It is the first of several instances in which Luke will deploy the Spirit to chasten otherwise valid social identities.

Luke’s narrative context makes it evident that he is not ‘papering over’ a more vigorous dispute, but that this is a critical dysfunction within the community.9

This incident, like that of Ananias and Sapphira, is a threat to the group’s shared identity, to its public reputation for sharing goods and to the neediest members of the group itself.10 _{Luke stands within the broad biblical tradition in expressing}

particular concern for the plight of widows.11 _{When it comes to the neglect of the}

Hellenist widows, ‘the church finds itself in an unholy alliance with unjust judges (Luke 18.1-8), hypocritical scribes (Luke 20.45-47), and an exploitative temple system (Luke 21.1-6)’.12 _{In light of Acts 4.32-5.11, it is likely that the apostles}

themselves bore responsibility for the injustice – perhaps an unsurprising factor given the apostles’ tendency to have difficulty with various categories of ‘other’.13

7_{Giles, et al 1977:312.}

8_{The imperfect tense of παραθεωρέω indicates a chronic problem and the passive voice may indicate}

the powerlessness of the aprototypical Hellenists.

9_{Many suggest Luke ‘papers over’ a more serious intragroup conflict here (Conzelmann 1987:44;}

Dunn 1996:80,inter alias). Tannehill 1990:81 suggests that Luke is only ‘exaggerating the ease with which they were solved’.

10_{Tannehill 1990:80; Wall 2002:114.}

11_{Luke 2.36-38; 4.25-27; 7.11-17; 18.1-8; 20.45-47; 21.1-4. Exodus 22.21-24; Deuteronomy 10.17-19;}

14.29; 24.17; 26.12; 1 Kings 17.8-24; 2 Kings 4.1-7; Isaiah 1.17, 23; 10.2; Jeremiah 5.28 LXX; 7.6; 22.3; 49.11; Malachi 3.5; Ezekiel 22.7; Psalm 68.5; 93.6; 146.9.

12_{Spencer 1994:729.}

13_{Luke 9.48-50, 51-56; Acts 8.14-17; 9.26; 11.1-3. Spencer 1994:729: The Twelve show ‘disturbing}

traces of trivializing widows concerns’. Fitzmyer 1998:344; Wall 2002:115; and to a lesser extent Johnson 1992:105 assign culpability to the Twelve.

The Spirit and the (Fractured) Life of the Community

Luke’s narrative presentation is elegantly simple but at first glance disappointingly brief.14 _{The Hellenists ‘complain’ (6.1: γογγυσμός) against the}

Hebrews because of a malfunction of widow-care. The Twelve make a value judgment regarding time management, but then act decisively to delegate authority for redressing the grievance. There is no evidence that the apostles, once alerted to the issue, assumed that the service of the widows was of minor importance.15 _{To the}

contrary, the ministry of both the word and the table are called διακονία, thus

ἀρεστός (6.2) is a ‘priority choice about observing the call of God versus a moral

choice of right, wrong, and sin’.16

The essential point is that Luke is not concerned with how the problem is addressed, or even what (in great detail) constituted the problem, but he is concerned with who is best equipped to manage the intragroup conflict.17 _Luke

showed himself capable of describing the mechanisms of intragroup poverty relief in Acts 4.32ff, but here Luke is concerned only with the selection criteria for the seven – criteria that are strikinglydifferentthan the criterion of social homogeneity employed by Peter in Acts 1.21-22 (cf. Luke 9.49-50). In this case, the mediators of the intragroup conflict are to be ‘seven men of good repute (μαρτυρουμενός), full of

the Spirit (πλήρεις πνεύματος)and of wisdom’ (Acts 6.3).

Luke characteristically uses μαρτυρέω as a passive participle to demonstrate

that someone is ‘of good repute’ within his or her community.18 _{Those of ‘good}

14_{Spencer 1994:716 notes that scholarly interest has focused more on structural than pastoral}

concerns, especially with regard to hierarchy among community officials.

15_{This opposes the common view that calls waiting on tables ‘trivia’ (Fitzmyer 1998:344); a ‘humble}

task’ (Penney 1997:65 fn 11); one of the ‘lower tasks’ in the community (Lienhard 1975:232); or that sees Stephen’s subsequent preaching as the ‘real’ reason for Luke’s narration of Spirit-influence in the 6.3 (Cho 2005:132).

16_{Bock 2007:259; cf. Johnson 1992:106. ἀρεστός (cf. Acts 12.3) appears to carry the sense of ‘pleasing’}

or ‘satisfactory’ for Luke. καταλείπω (Acts 6.2) carries the sense of ‘leave behind’ or ‘forsake’, and is

used by Luke to speak about leaving one place or item behind in favor of another (Luke 5.28; 10.40; 15.4; 20.31; Acts 18.19; 21.13; 24.27; 25.17). The Twelve recognize that they cannot, given the size of

the community, adequately perform both διακονίαι.

17_{Acts 6.1-7 is difficult to understand within the ‘Spirit of prophecy’ paradigm. Cho 2005:132}

wriggles free by claiming that being ‘full of the Spirit and wisdom Stephen was initially appointed as an inner server (human organization), and then becomes a powerful missionary as a witness (Spirit working) which is a more dominant feature than the former’. This grossly misunderstands the high value that Luke places on ‘menial’ tasks like serving the marginalized (cf. Luke 4.18-20; 9.46-48; 22.24- 27).

18_{Cornelius is ‘of good repute’ because of his benefaction to the Israelite community (10.22). Ananias}

repute’ are clarified, epexegetically, to be those most clearly marked by the Spirit

and wisdom. Cho is wrong to claim that the apostles’ mandate is evidence that ‘not allthe members of the community’ have been ‘filled and used by the Spirit’.19 _Luke’s

use of totalizing adjectives with regard to the Spirit has prepared us to expect that all who submit to Jesus’ lordship are given the Spirit.20 _{In the case of Acts 6.3,} πλήρης + defining genitive indicates that Spirit-fullness is the ‘quality [that] clearly marks the person’s life or comes to visible expression in his or her activity’.21

In Lukan terms, the criterion for judging whether it is appropriate to speak of someone as “full of the Spirit” is… whether the community of Christians felt the impact of the Spirit through that person’s life and saw the Spirit’s graces and gifts regularly expressed

through him or her.22

The requirement that those chosen be marked by the Spirit results in seven designees, all native Greek speakers and even one proselyte, who wereaprototypical

relative to Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Israelites, including the Twelve.23

Those suited to handle a crisis of identity in the community are those who are most marked by the Spirit. Luke has already demonstrated that the influence of the Spirit results in an expanded ethnic horizon and an allocentric turn toward the ‘other’.24 _{Likewise, the Spirit-filled seven are capable of reaching across the ethno-}

linguistic subgroup boundary in a way similar to Barnabas (also πλήρης πνεύματος ἀγίου) in Antioch (Acts 11.24). Here again the presence of the Spirit resists (in this case, ‘Hebrew’) claims to entitlement based upon subgroup prototypicality, but instead extends the benefits of the group to the ‘other’.

Acts 6.7 (‘the number of disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem’) indicates that the community was restored by the Spirit-filled seven. Characteristic for Luke, based upon Acts 2.42-47 and 4.32-5.16, is the notion that proper community

19_{Cho 2005:132 emphasis original. Cho concludes by suggesting, oddly, ‘the conflict between the}

“Hellenists” and “Hebrews” in the church simply shows the different status of the spirituality of the members of the community’.

20_{Cf. multiple uses of ‘all’ in Acts 2.4; 4.31; cf. 2.38.}

21_{Turner 1996:167. Luke usually usesπίμπλημι for short-term episodic Spirit events and} πλήρης/πληρόω for the gift of the Spirit received at conversion (Turner 1996:167-169).

22_{Turner 1996:169, emphasis original.}

23_{Israelites often had Greek names (Bauckham 2006:ch 4), but only Stephen and Philip were common}

Israelite names (Bock 2007:261).

function inevitably results in group expansion.25 _{Also characteristic is the emerging}

fact that Spirit-filled figures are best able to address group identity issues. The fact that ‘a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith’ (Acts 6.7), especially given the likelihood that priests were high identifiers with the Israelite ἔθνος,

highlights the fact that despite the community’s developing distinctiveness, its identity was nota prioriin conflict with Israelite ethnic identity.26 _{Ethno-linguistic}

identity is chastened and shown to be inappropriate (and potentially destructive) as a primary identity. Yet Pentecost demonstrated that, properly nested within the superordinate identity arising from membership in the Jesus group, ethno-linguistic identity is robustly affirmed by the Spirit.

Acts 8: Incorporating those who Identify Themselves with the God of Israel

Acts 8 narrates the incorporation of the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch, both of whom constitute a liminal social category best conceptualized as ‘those who desired to be joined to Israel’s God, but who were not permitted’. The intelligibility of the category arises from an understanding of the unique intergroup relations in view in Acts 8, as well as from an appreciation of Luke’s allusions to Isaiah 56.3-7 LXX to frame these incorporation narratives. Both of the essential incorporative functions of the Spirit,orchestrationandidentificationare displayed in Luke 8 in order to bring the ‘other’ into the group and thus to transform the social identities of both insiders and former outsiders.

Luke’s Socially Unique Samaritans

The intergroup relationship between Samaritans and Israelites is unique historically, in Luke’s narrative presentation and from an SIT perspective. Historically, from Israelite perspective, the Samaritans were syncretistic Assyrian re-settlers worshiping Israel’s God only to escape a problem with lion attacks.27

Samaritans, however, viewed themselves as descendents of Jacob and defenders of

25_{Bock 2007:261 suggests different groups ‘working together in a world… divided along ethnic lines’}

is a ‘powerful testimony’.

26_{The regular Qumran critique of the priesthood (‘the last priests of Jerusalem… amass money and}

wealth by plundering the people’ [1QpHab 9.4]) prompts fascinating speculation that potentially unscrupulous priests joined the community based upon the Spirit-empowered demonstration of economic self-sacrifice and concern for the ‘other’.

27_{See 2 Kings 17; Ezra 4.1-4. Josephus says that Samaritans claimed to be one with Israelites when}

Torah while understanding Israelites to be followers of Eli, a priest of defective lineage who established the Jerusalem cult as a rival to the legitimate national center in Shechem.28 _{While there are reasons to doubt the accuracy of each of these}

conflicting accounts, the important point is that they are essentially ethnic in nature, both dealing with issues of physical descent.29 _{This simple observation}

corrects approaches to the Samaritan/Israelite question hampered by only undertaking a comparison of ‘religions’.30 _{Samaritan and Israelite origin narratives}

reflect conflicting identities based upon contested claims to the same ethnic social identity: ‘true Israel’.31 _{This contested identity led to episodic violence that}

sometimes attracted Roman attention.32

The Samaritan/Israelite relationship is unique in Luke’s Gospel as well. Because I have discussed Luke’s special interest in Samaritans in chapter 5 (Luke 9.51-56; 10.25-37; 17.11-19), I will here only note that in Luke 17.18 Jesus calls the returning Samaritan leper a ‘foreigner’ (ἀλλογενὴς), the only deployment of this

term in the New Testament.33 _{The word appears in the LXX in three characteristic}

contexts: (1) in the prohibition against non-Israelite spouses; (2) in juxtaposition to things that are holy or that have access to the holy (e.g., theἀλλογενής cannot eat

food sacrificed in Israelite worship); and (3) theἀλλογενής is not permitted to walk

through the Temple courts.34 _{For Luke, the Samaritans are not quiteἔθνη, but they}

clearly are not Israel – they are another form of ‘other’. The ambiguity provided by

28_{Purvis 1968:88 fn 1.}

29_{Ethnic differentiation between Israelites and Samaritans existed well into the Rabbinic period.}

m.Kuttim6 teaches that Samaritans cannot marry into Israel because of ‘their bastards’.

30_{Pummer 1992:42, for example, focuses on ‘samaritanischer Religion’. Macchi 1994:43; 1999:241}

suggests Samaritans are best conceptualized as another branch of the worship of YHWH. Thornton 1996:130 calls the Samaritans a ‘religious community’. Luke does not focus on the cultic distinctives (Gerizim vs. Zion, Samkutty 2006:115). Schur 1995:289 properly understands the Samaritans as ‘a people, perhaps even a nation’.

31_{Cf. John 4.12.}

32_{SeeSamaritan Chronicle, ch. 34, lines 648-658 (Stenhouse 1985). Samaritans rejected all Scriptures}

beyond their version of the Pentateuch and replaced Jerusalem with Gerizim in the Pentateuch (Hjelm 2000:91). Josephus derogatorily referred to Samaritans as Cutheans (Antiquities9.288, 290; 10.184; 11.19-20, 88, 302; 13.256) or Shechemites (Ant11.342, 344, 347) and modified his Torah retelling with anti-Samaritan polemic (Thornton 2006). For episodes of violent conflict, see

Antiquities18.29-30; 20.118-136; cf. Sirach 50.26; 2 Maccabees 6.2; Matthew 10.5. See Samkutty 2006:80-81 for Rabbinic depictions.

33 _{αλλογενὴς was the boundary-marking term in the Temple court of the non-Israelites: μηδένα} ἀλλογενῆ εἰσπορεύεσθαι.

34_{Genesis 17.27; Exodus 12.43; 29.33; 30.33; Leviticus 22.10, 12f, 25; Numbers 1.51; 3.10, 38; 17.5; 18.4, 7;}

1 Esdras 8.66f, 80, 89f; 9.7, 9, 12, 17f, 36; Judith. 9.2; 1 Maccabees 3.36, 45; 10.12; Job 15.19; 19.15; Sirach 45.13; Ps. Sol. 17.28; Joel 4.17; Obadiah 1.11; Zechariah 9.6; Malachi 3.19; Isaiah 56.3, 6; 60.10; 61.5; Jeremiah 28.51; 49.17; Ezekiel 44.7, 9; Daniel 1.10.

the term ἀλλογενής reflects a sentiment akin to m.Kuttim 1, which highlights the simultaneous similarity and distinction. ‘The usages of the Samaritans are in part like those of the non-Israelites, in part like those of Israel, but mostly like Israel’.

Social Similarity and Intergroup Conflict Intensity

The contested identity between Israelites and Samaritans leads to a unique intergroup relationship from an SIT perspective as well. Because intergroup distinctiveness is essential to positive identity and can only be maintained through intergroup differentiation, intergroup similarity can, under certain conditions, be experienced as a threat to in-group identity.35 _{This is less the case for unimportant}

or relatively trivial identities.36 _{But for important (especially primary) social}

identities, intergroup similarity can lead to an increased drive for group distinctiveness, especially for high identifiers under conditions of intergroup competition.37 _{The drive for distinctiveness is heightened when there is overall}

pressure toward social assimilation and where groups have close proximity and regular interaction.38

This proves to be a helpful frame for understanding the tension between Israelites and Samaritans, both of whom experienced identity threat from the assimilationist pressures of Hellenization, who had close geographical and social proximity and who made mutually exclusive claims to the same identity.39 _{Such a}

fundamental clash of primary identity narratives can be fertile soil for intractable intergroup conflict.40 _{Commenting on the modern day Israeli-Palestinian conflict,}

Rouhana and Bar Tal note that

Each national narrative is in a way based on a fundamental negation of the other’s. For the Israelis, to accept the central piece of the Palestinian narrative that Palestine was indeed populated by indigenous people who were gradually and systematically dispossessed and replaced by newcomers means that the Jewish sate was born in sin. Thus, the Israeli narrative denies this Palestinian account. For the Palestinians, to accept the central part of the Zionist

35_{Jetten, et al 2004:862.} 36_{Moghaddam 1988:112.}

37_{Moghaddam 1988:113; Tajfel & Turner 1981:41; Jetten, et al 2001:622.} 38_{Grant 1993:43; Jetten, et al. 2004:846.}

39_{Hjelm 2000:11.}

narrative that the Jews are not to be seen as newcomers but a people returning to their own homeland – albeit after 2,000 years – means that Palestinians were aliens in their own land, a view that they by definition reject… Conflict and identity support each other in a mutual fortification process.41

This comment sheds valuable light on the nature of the Israelite/Samaritan relationship. The acknowledgement of the identity claim of the ‘other’, for each group, results in the negation of the in-group’s identity claim. From an etic perspective the socio-cultural differences between the groups appear insignificant, but from an emic perspective, ‘it is the perception of subjective differences rather than objective status that matters to groups’.42 _{Historically, for Samaritans and}

Israelites, these perceptions led to violent conflict that was episodic rather than