UNIVERSTY OF PRETORIA

FACULTY OF THEOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

TITLE
SOCIAL IDENTITY COMPLEXITY AND
CONFLICT-RESOLUTION IN LUKE AND
ZIMBABWE

STUDENT: TOBIAS MAREVESA

STUDENT NUMBER: 18301942

SUPERVISOR: Dr ZORODZAI DUBE

 Dedication

I dedicate this thesis to my late parents, Prazeny and Jesinita. I wish you were still alive to
witness this academic feat.

ii
 Acknowledgements

I am thankful to several people who made this project a success.

First, I am thankful to my supervisor Dr Zorodzai Dube for his meticulous, vital academic

supervision and guidance towards the successful completion of this thesis. Dr Dube’s critical

scholarly supervision throughout this academic journey helped me to keep my eyes on the

ball.

Second, I am also grateful to the Department of New Testament Studies of the University of

Pretoria for the financial assistance, without which I could not have completed my studies.

Third, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to my wife, Kanganwiro, for her

inspiration, moral and spiritual support. In spite of her ill-health towards the end my studies,

she kept encouraging me to soldier on to the bitter end.

Fourth, I would like acknowledge the support that I got from my two children, Lisa and

Walter. On countless occasions they kept me company during the time I had sleepless nights

that characterised my academic Odyssey.

Fifth, many thanks go to Dr T. Moyo and Mr J. Moyo for editing this thesis.

Sixth, I am thankful to Great Zimbabwe University for giving me opportunities to consult

with my Supervisor.

Seventh, am forever grateful to God Almighty, who gave me power and strength to pull

through my studies.

iii
Abstract

This study uses social identity complexity theory to investigate complexity of identity in
Luke with focus on Luke 15 to determine how Luke solved social conflict. The discussion
from Luke is used as analogical or comparative discussion to solve complexity of identity in
Zimbabwe that has led to political violence and economic stagnation and the conflict-
resolution in Acts 15 and the Global Political Agreement in Zimbabwe. It is the purpose of
this research to identify the overlap and complexity identities within the early Christianities
especially in Luke’s community and to make a possible reconstruction of new identity
formation within the context of Zimbabwe using kerygmatic strategies of conflict-resolution
of the first century church in Acts 15. The social identity complexity as a theoretical
framework of this research helped to shed light on the conflict in Luke’s community and to
analyse data. Acts 15 has been taken as a case study to give some insights in the conflict in
the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) on how social identity complexity helped in bringing in
reconciliation to characters such as Peter and Paul. The factors that provoked conflict in the
first century church of the Jerusalem Council has been explored. The research argues that
there are kerygmatic strategies of conflict-resolution of the first century church in Acts 15,
which can be read alongside the Zimbabwean political situation. The study establishes that
there is need to bring warring parties on the negotiating table where issues pertaining to
careful debate, willingness to compromise, respect for others, and giving up one’s interest are
emphasised whenever there is a political or social impasse.

iv
 List of Abbreviations

Acc Accusative
AD Anno Domini
Adj Adjective
AfDB African Development Bank
AIPPA Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
ANE Ancient Near East
ATR African Traditional Religion
AU African Union
BCE Before Common Era
BSAC British South African Company
CCJP Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe
CE Common Era
CPCA Anglican Church of Province of Central Africa
Dat Dative
EFZ Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe
ESAP Economic Structural Adjustment Programme
EU European Union
Fem Feminine
Gen Genitive
GNU Government of National Unity
GPA Global Political Agreement
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
IMF International Monetary Fund
Ind Indicative
JC Jerusalem Council
JOMIC Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee
LXX Septuagint
Masc Masculine
MDC Movement for Democratic Change

v
MDC- A Movement for Democratic Change -Alliance
MDC-M Movement for Democratic Change – Mutambara
MDC-T Movement for Democratic Change –Tsvangirai
MHFC Matebeleland Highlanders Football Club
MT Masoretic Text
MU Mashonaland United
NANGO National Association of Non-Governmental Organization
Neut Neuter
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIV New International Version
NKJV New King James Version
Nom Nominative
NT New Testament
OAU Organization of African Union
ONHRI Organ on National Healing and Reconciliation Initiatives
OT Old Testament
Pass Passive
Perf Perfect
PF ZAPU Patriotic Front – Zimbabwe African People’s Union
PL Plural
POSA Public Order and Security Act
RBZ Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe
RSV Revised Standard Version
SA South Africa
SADC Southern Africa Development Community
SCT Self- Categorised Theory
SIA Social Identity Approach
SIC Social Identity Complexity
Sing Singular
SIT Social Identity Theory

vi
UN United Nations
UNSC United Nations Security Council
USA United States of America
USD United States Dollars
WB World Bank
WEF World Economic Forum
ZANLA Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army
ZANU PF Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front
ZBC Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation
ZCBC Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops’ Conference
ZCTU Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions
ZEC Zimbabwe Electoral Commission
ZIDERA Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act
ZIPRA Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army
ZNA Zimbabwe National Army

vii
 Table of contents
Dedication ..................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. v
Chapter 1: Introduction of the Study ......................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The problem/significance of study ................................................................................... 1
1.2 Motivation ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 The research gap and thesis .............................................................................................. 6
1.4 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 8
1.4.1 Social Scientific Perspectives Traced ........................................................................ 8
1.4.2 Deviant Perspective ................................................................................................. 11
1.4.3 Social Identity Approach Perspective...................................................................... 11
1.4.4 Identity and Narrative Process Perspective ............................................................. 12
1.4.5 Social Conflict Perspectives .................................................................................... 14
1.4.6 Canonical Conversation Perspective ....................................................................... 16
1.4.7 Legitimacy of Gentile Inclusion Perspective ........................................................... 18
1.4.8 Related Doctoral Theses .......................................................................................... 19
1.4.9 Historiography of Acts and Galatians Perspective .................................................. 20
1.5 Complementing Theoretical Perspective ....................................................................... 25
1.5.1 Historical Critical Method (form and redaction criticism) ...................................... 25
1.6 Theoretical Perspective: Social Identity Complexity ..................................................... 26
1.7 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 26
Chapter Two: Theoretical Perspective: Social Identity Complexity ....................................... 28
2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 28
2.1 Social Identity Theory .................................................................................................... 28
2.2 Self-categorisation .......................................................................................................... 30
2.3 Social Identity Complexity Theory ................................................................................ 32
2.4 Multiple crosscutting group memberships ..................................................................... 33
2.5 Background and results of social identity complexity ................................................... 34
2.5 Multiple in-group memberships: objective vs. subjective representation ...................... 37
2.5.1 Intersection .............................................................................................................. 38
2.5.2 Dominance ............................................................................................................... 39

viii
 2.5.3 Compartmentalisation .............................................................................................. 41
2.5.4 Merger ..................................................................................................................... 42
2.6 Complexity: Group features and group membership ..................................................... 46
2.7 Tolerance ........................................................................................................................ 47
2.8 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 48
Chapter 3: Luke’s Community: location, and Identity Complexity ........................................ 49
3.0 introduction .................................................................................................................... 49
3.1 Location of the community of Luke ............................................................................... 49
3.1.1 Ephesus .................................................................................................................... 49
3.1.2 Corinth ..................................................................................................................... 53
3.1.3 Antioch .................................................................................................................... 55
3.1.4 Significance of Antioch ........................................................................................... 58
3.2. Date(s) ........................................................................................................................... 60
3.2.1. The early date (60s CE) .......................................................................................... 60
3.2.2. Intermediate date (80-90 CE) ................................................................................. 60
3.2.3. Late date (110-150 CE) .......................................................................................... 61
3.3 Background: The Jewish-Gentile identification ............................................................. 62
3.4 Identity Complexity in Luke’s Community ................................................................... 64
3.4.1 Hellenistic/Gentile Community ............................................................................... 65
3.4.2 The God-Fearers ...................................................................................................... 68
3.4.3 Jewish Christians ..................................................................................................... 70
3.5 Social Issues in Luke’s Community: Material Possession as boundary maker ............. 71
3.6 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 74
Chapter 4: Historiography and Social Identity Complexity in Acts 15 ................................... 75
4.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 75
4.1 The Literary Structure of Acts 15 .................................................................................. 75
4.1.1 Acts 1-5: The Earliest Stage of the Primitive Church ............................................. 76
4.1.2 Acts 6-7 The Jewish Christian Hellenists ................................................................ 76
4.1.3 Acts 8-9, Samaria and Periphery Circle .................................................................. 77
4.1.4 Acts 10-12, The conversion of Gentiles into the Church ........................................ 78
4.1.5 Acts 13-14, Paul’s First Missionary Journey........................................................... 79
4.2 Reconstructing Events of Acts 15 from Social identity Complexity (SIC) ................... 80
4.2.1 Compartmentalised Identities: Acts 15: 1-5 ............................................................ 80
4.2.2 Merger Identities: Acts 15:6-21 ............................................................................... 87
4.2.3 Intersectionality Identities ..................................................................................... 102

ix
 4.2.4 Dominant Identities ............................................................................................... 108
4.3 Luke’s historiography and search for alternative Social Identity ................................ 112
4.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 115
Chapter 5 Social Identity Complexity and the Political Situation in Zimbabwe ................... 117
5.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 117
5.1 Background of Political Identities in Zimbabwe ......................................................... 117
5.2 Ethnic Identities in Zimbabwe ..................................................................................... 120
5.2.1 Ethnic Identities before the Colonial Era in Zimbabwe ........................................ 120
5.2.2 Ethnic Identities in the Colonial Zimbabwe .......................................................... 121
5.3 Compartmentalisation in Zimbabwean Politics ........................................................... 124
5.4 ZANU PF and MDC Intersectionality ......................................................................... 133
5.5 Identities in the New Dispensation in Zimbabwe ........................................................ 135
5.6 Emerging Inclusive Identities that go beyond Ethnic and Political boundaries: The birth
of GPA................................................................................................................................ 139
5.6.1 Emerging Inclusive Identities: Resolution with Compromise ............................... 142
5.7 Initiatives towards Political Inclusiveness in Zimbabwe. ............................................ 144
5.7.1 The GPA- Organ on National Healing, Reconciliation, and Integration............... 145
5.7.2 Civil Society Organisations ................................................................................... 146
5.7.3 The Church ............................................................................................................ 147
5.7.4 The Traditional Leadership ................................................................................... 149
5.7.5 The Shona Religion and Customs ......................................................................... 150
5.7.6 Academics ............................................................................................................. 151
5.8 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 151
Chapter 6 Conclusion: Transcending Boundaries.................................................................. 153
6.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 153
6.1 A Critical Reflection of Luke and Zimbabwe’s experiences ....................................... 153
6.2 Jan Assmann’s theory on memory and symbols of inclusivity .................................... 154
6.3 What is it to be inclusive and what symbols build inclusivity in the community of Luke
and that of Zimbabwe? ....................................................................................................... 156
6.4 Luke and Zimbabwe searching for alternative social identities ................................... 157
7.0 References ........................................................................................................................ 161

x
 Chapter 1: Introduction of the Study

1.0 Introduction

The study aims at investigating the use of social identity complexity of identities in Acts,

with special focus on Acts 15 to determine how Luke resolved the social tension as basis for

discussion regarding social cohesion in Zimbabwe. The complexity of identities in Luke was

an ideal context for conflict and even violence. Such a context, and how Luke addresses it,

could provide analogical lessons for dealing with a context where ethnic identities are

potential closets for tension and violence. This study is informed by the social identity

complexity theory in an attempt to unravel ethnic conflict in Luke and how he (Luke)

resolved the conflict. The ultimate goal was to draw parallels with the polarized Zimbabwean

context in order to contribute towards discourses of national reconciliation through

inclusivity.

This chapter explores perspectives in the discussion about the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).

Views from different scholars and positions are reviewed and analysed and in the process,

highlighting various interpretations and emphases. The chapter also focuses on the hypothesis

of the whole thesis by paying special attention to issues of the significance of the study,

research questions, hypothesis, research gaps and thesis. This chapter therefore puts the

reader into perspective by introducing the whole thesis.

1.1 The problem/significance of study

The study uses social identity complexity theory to explore identity complexity in Luke (Acts

15:1-35, hereafter Acts 15) as a resource from which to draw analogical lessons regarding

ways of dealing with ethnic conflict in Zimbabwe. Luke’s community is one of the several

1
early Hellenistic Christian communities that experienced ethnic conflict. The study explores

the overlap and complex identities within Luke’s community and to investigate how Luke

dealt with such ethnic conflict (Acts 15). Acts 15 is taken as a case study to give some

insights into the conflict in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) on how social identity

complexity may help in bringing reconciliation to ethnic identities represented by Peter and

Paul. The study has two major contributions: First, using interdisciplinary theories –social

identity complexity, the study seeks to demonstrate the usefulness of such theory in revealing

identity complexity in early Christian communities. Second, through revealing the ethnic

conflicts within Luke’s community, study brings out analogue tools in discussing about

ethnic tension in Zimbabwe.

1.2 Aim and Objectives

With reference to Acts 15, this study utilises the social identity complexity theory to examine

ethnic conflict with a view to open up discussion regarding ethnic conflict in the Zimbabwean

context. The following are the objectives:

a) To test the usefulness of the social identity complexity theory as a tool to explore

identity complexity in Luke’s community

b) To identify social group and social categories in Luke’s community

c) To explore how Luke addressed the issue of ethnic tension

d) To trace the main issue and aspects of ethnic and political tension in Zimbabwe

e) To use Luke’s narrative as comparative discussion platform upon which to discuss

about ethnic and political tension in Zimbabwe and possible solution.

2
1.2 Motivation

The question of the relationship between religion and politics has been a controversial issue

from time immemorial. The issue has brought so many divisions and conflicts among

religious groups the world over. It is against this background that this research investigates

the conflict in the community of Luke (Acts 15) with the lenses of social identity complexity.

The principles of conflict resolution from the community of Luke are applied to the

Zimbabwean political landscape. The aim of this research is, therefore, to investigate the

social identity complexity and conflict-resolution in Luke (Acts 15) and the politics in

Zimbabwe. It is also the purpose of this study to identify the overlap and complex identities

within the early Christianities, especially in Luke’s community, and to make a possible

reconstruction of new identity formation within the context of Zimbabwe using kerygmatic

strategies of conflict-resolution of the first century Church in Acts 15. Underpinning the

research impetus were the following overarching questions:

 What are the overlaps in complexity identities within the early Christianities in Luke’s

community?

 Which are Luke’s discursive approaches in conflicting identities through

reidentification and naming such as ‘Christians’ and ‘people of the way’?

 How can we construct new identity formation within the context of Zimbabwe using

Luke’s lenses?

 How is the conflict-resolution in Luke (Acts 15) related to the political situation in

Zimbabwe? These are the questions which this research sought to answer.

The Bible can be read using the lenses of social identity complexity in conflict-resolution in

the contemporary world. The hypothesis of this study is that Luke, in his community (Acts

3
15), provides analogical resource or narrative which deals with a context where there are

ethnic tensions and, in some cases, violence. The way Luke resolved the conflict in Acts 15

provides the basis for discussing political and ethnic conflict in Zimbabwe. In the

community of Luke, there was conflict between social categories which were the Jews,

Gentiles and Christians, and the conflict went on until the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15

where it was resolved. The crossing of social boundaries among social groups caused

conflicts. At the Jerusalem Council, James was the chairperson of the Council and leader of

the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:19; Dunn, 2006:240). What is evident in Acts 15 are the two

resolutions which were made at the Jerusalem Council in the context of conflict-resolution:

first, the issue of Jewish Christians demanding that Gentile Christians should be circumcised

and observe the Law of Moses in order to be saved (Acts 15; De Villiers, 2013: 144; Mahan,

2013: 43; Bock, 2007:15). The resolution of the conflict at the Council was made possible

because of the presentation of Peter’s experience with Cornelius in Acts 15, and Paul and

Barnabas’ testimonies of their mission to the Gentiles. The judgement that the Council made

that Gentiles should be accepted into the Christian community, on condition that they observe

the stipulations of the Apostolic decree, was instrumental in the conflict-resolution between

Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Apostolic decree was a legal document which was meant

to be a code of conduct for both the Jewish and Gentile Christians (Achtemeier, 1987: 83).

The second decision was based on four prohibitions in the Apostolic decree (Story, 2010:40)

namely; refraining from (a) things polluted by idols, (b) fornication, (c) what is strangled,

and (d) blood (Acts15: 20). Luke, the author of Luke-Acts, purported that the conflict

between Jewish and Gentile Christians was resolved, but this is investigated as the conflict

was never concluded. The study becomes important in that it examines and analyses whether

the conflict between the Jews and Gentiles was resolved at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts

15.

4
It is in this context of conflict-resolution (in Luke) at the Jerusalem Council that the

researcher became interested in reading Luke’s community (Acts 15) with the lenses of social

identity complexity in a bid to draw parallels with the Zimbabwean political situation. In

Zimbabwe, from the 1990s, the political and economic situation deteriorated sharply because

of the conflict which was between the ruling party; that is, the Zimbabwe African National

Union (Patriotic Front) (hereafter ZANU PF) and opposition parties (Raftopoulos, 2013: 68).

This resulted in hyper-inflation, retrenchment of workers (Muzondidya, 2013: 85), the

adoption of the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) (Mlambo, 1997:47),

food riots, and violence against opposition political parties during elections (Kanyenze,

2004:69). These foregoing issues motivated the researcher to find out more on the conflict

spiralling in Zimbabwe. The situation worsened in 2008 because of hyper-inflation,

unemployment, and shortage of food. In light of this crisis, Sachikonye’s (2004:10) advocacy

for a dialogue between all political parties in order to avert the political impasse becomes

significant in trying to resolve conflict.

5
1.3 The research gap and thesis

This thesis argues that there are few researches which have utilised interdisciplinary social

sciences perspectives such as social identity complexity theory which investigates the

complexity identities within early Christianities. The early Christian writer, instead of

presenting the story of Jesus in the formation of Christian communities, deals with internal

ethnic conflict. This study investigates social identity complexity in Luke as a lesson to

tackle ethnic and political tension or violence in Zimbabwe.

The construct of social identity complexity, as conceived by several scholars (Sufei, Ziqiang,

and Chongde 2015; Kok 2014; Schmid, Hewstone, and Al Ramiah 2013; Crisp, Turner, and

Hewstone 2010; Schmid et al.2009; Dube 2009; Cromhout 2009; Kirk 2005; Roccas and

Brewer 2002; Hebdige 2000), is used in this study as a tool to identify the overlapping and

complex identity within the early Christianities that can be utilised to interpret the historical

setting and issues of the first century Christianity and those of Zimbabwe.

The community of Luke, through the Book of Acts, shows the stages of development in the

growth of early Christianity (Haenchen, 1985 446; Scott, 1997: 205). In Luke-Acts, there is a

rapid movement of the gospel to different places and cultures, and how this escalated

conflicts and debates between Jewish and Gentile Christians. These disputes between Jewish

and Gentile Christians, in the community of Luke, can be reduced to issues of ritual, political,

and ethnic practices (Elmer, 2006: 7; Dibelius, 2004: 66; Scott, 1997:205).

Although the community of Luke and Jerusalem Council in Acts has received considerable

attention in Luke-Acts scholarship, there is no evidence of studies that focus on the social

identity complexity and conflict-resolution in Luke (the Jerusalem Council) and the

6
Zimbabwean political situation. However, De Villiers (2013:145), in his article, Communal

discernment in the Early Church, made some important contributions that this research

utilises. His contribution can be summarised as showing that the success of conflict-

resolution was the result of careful debate, respect for others, listening with an open mind,

willingness to compromise, giving up one’s interest, and willingness to allow others into

one’s safe haven. This research makes a unique contribution to the research on Luke-Acts by

applying social identity complexity theory to the Jerusalem Council and the Zimbabwean

political situation.

Studies such as those cited above have all examined Luke’s community in different ways.

They each make a significant impact on the understanding of the Jerusalem Council in Acts

15. However, the examination of the existing research on Luke-Acts is not exhaustive. The

recent monographs of Bauckham (2005) and Bockmuehl (2000); doctoral theses by Savelle

(2013) and Moulton (1999) and commentaries from Brown (2013); Pervo (2006); Dibelius

(2004); Witherington (1998) and Haenchen (1985), consulted here, give this research

adequate ground to argue that previous studies have not provided a comprehensive analysis

of the community of Luke (Acts 15). These studies can be beneficial to this research in that

the speeches of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, and the leadership of James are useful as

background information to the study.

The Zimbabwean conflict mainly involved three political parties, namely: ZANU PF under

Robert Mugabe; the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T) under Morgan Tsvangirai;

a the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-M) under Arthur Mutambara. The conflict

resulted in the signing of the Global Political Agreement on 15 September 2008, by Mugabe,

7
Tsvangirai and Mutambara as a power-sharing government document (Chipaike, 2013:17).

Scholars such as Raftopoulos (2013: xvi); Raftopoulos (2009: 222); Muzondidya (2009:

188); and Chung (2004: 243), among others, undertook significant research on the GPA in

Zimbabwe. However, these researchers have done research on the GPA from a purely

political perspective. This thesis seeks to make a social identity complexity analysis of

conflict-resolution from the strategies from Luke (Acts 15). It is, therefore, the purpose of

this research to use social identity complexity to explore the intersections and complexities of

the early church in Luke and try to construct new identity formation that can enlighten the

conflict-resolution process of the political situation in Zimbabwe.

1.4 Literature Review

The focus of this history of research is to review literature that focuses mainly on studies that

relates to the community of Luke, especially Acts chapter Acts 15. Views from different

scholars and perspectives are reviewed and analysed showing research gaps and each cited

study’s relevance to the community of Luke (Acts 15) and the political context of conflict-

resolution in Zimbabwe. The review traces the development of conflict between Jewish

Christianity and non-Jewish from the time of Baur (1878) up to the contemporary period.

This review takes into consideration the use of social scientific models in the interpretation of

New Testament studies. The history o does not claim to review all the literature related to the

community of Luke (Acts 15) and the political landscape in Zimbabwe, but is representative

of the contribution to the development of conflict in the Christian and non-Christian

communities.

1.4.1 Social Scientific Perspectives Traced

This research traces the trajectories in conflict in the early Christian identity formation and

8
how it was examined and studied in the past decades. The work of Baur (1878) is significant

because it gives a good background to this research. Baur (1878) unpacks the fact that the

early church was characterised by conflict based on ethnic lines between a Judean (Petrine)

group and a non-Judean (Pauline) group. The conflict which took place in the early Church

should be understood as a process of identity formation among the Christ movement.

According to Baur (1878), identity should be perceived as ethnicity and ethnic boundaries

made between groups. Circumcision and regulations concerning meals were ethnic identity

markers which were the major source of conflict among the two ethnic groups. Baur (1878)

argues that the split of these two groups started when there was a conflict between Hellenists

and Hebrews that resulted in the execution of Stephen. According to Baur (1878), the conflict

between Hellenists and Hebrews escalated on ethnic grounds; particularly on purity

regulations, namely, temple, meals and circumcision. This is evidenced by the tension in Acts

10-11 where Judeans were eating with non-Judeans while Acts 15 highlights a conflict based

on circumcision.

The views of Baur created a lot of debate. For instance, Baumgarten (1854) criticised Baur

for not considering the social implications for Jews leaving their identity as adherents of

Judean religion. He also argued that Paul’s demands that Jews should abandon their identity

as Judeans was not feasible and suggested, instead, that he could have been inclusive in his

approach. Baumgarten (1854) further contends that the question of either rejecting or

embracing some ethnic customs was not the major issue, but the social implication may have

been paramount in this paradigm shift. Ritschl (1857) responded by criticising Baur and

arguing that he (Baur) failed to identify more diversity in both Judean and non-Judean

Christianity. Ritschl (1857) proposes that Baur’s way of looking at the whole issue was too

simplistic and complex. It was simplistic because he failed to see diversity in both ethnic

9
groups, and complex in that he (Baur) could not bring unity within the apostolic Christianity.

A recent scholar (Campbell, 2006:16) notes that Baur “contributed enormously to the

tendency in the Paulinism of the last century and a half to denigrate the image of Judaism in

the New Testament.” The idea was to show the negativity of Judaism over, and against,

Judean Christianity. Accordingly, this view fuelled conflict between Judean and non-Judean

Christianity. The conflict culminated at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. In addition, Kelley

(2002:76) notes that:

For Baur, Christianity, despite its origins in the East, is the Western religion.
Consequently, his task is to define the essence of Christianity by purging it of
anything that smacks of Judaism or Orient, of nationalism, legalism, and
particularism.
This point of view, corroborated by the research of Weber (1897), is buttressed by Campbell,

argues that “...the long-term effect of depicting Judaism in a negative light” (2006:16) was

questioned by the majority of scholars such as Moore (1927). That the negativity of Judaism

came to the fore due to Baur’s contribution is however disputed by Moore (1927) who

identified the negative shift concerning Judaism and proposed his own reconstruction. This

perspective was re-examined by Sanders (1977:84) who, “...examined the prevailing view of

Paul as opposed to anything Judean in relation to the Reformation hermeneutics of Luther”.

The fact that Paul was misunderstood as a representation of Judaism drawn from his writings

might be historically incorrect. In Paul’s writings, he seems to portray Judaism as a legalistic

system where salvation is earned through good works. However, Dunn (1990:187) criticised

Sanders’ depiction of Paul as ‘only a little better than the one rejected’. In as much as Sanders

(1997) accepted Paul’s Judean ethnic identity, he argued that he forsook this identity in

preferring being ‘in Christ’. On the other hand, Dunn (1990) posits that Paul did not abandon

his ethnic identity and he did not criticise the Law. In the same vein, Dunn (1990) maintained

that Paul was concerned by the misuse of the Law which formed social barriers such as ‘the

10
works of the law’ and he preserved an exclusive ethnic purity.

1.4.2 Deviant Perspective

This discussion of the relationship between Paul and Judaism is important to this research

because the study of Paul, in relation to Judaism, leads to the element of early Christian

identity. This perspective has sparked further research between early Christianity and the

Hellenistic context. The other segment reviewed is the social location and social development

in early Christian identity. The major scholars who did substantial research on the social

location and social development are Judge (2008) and Kee (1980). Their research focused

much on describing the social circumstances in which Christianity developed. These scholars

realized that to understand identity formation was more than knowing ethnic boundaries and

diversity. It is against this background that many scholars, such as Sanders (1993) and Esler

(1998), began to utilize different models and perspectives from social psychology,

anthropology, culture, among others, to analyse the New Testament. In his book,

Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants, Sanders (1993) employed deviant theory to

analyse the connection or relationship between Jews and Christ-followers around 135 CE.

Sanders (1993:133) uses the lens of deviant theory to posit that, “...the control of deviance is

a form of boundary maintenance brought on by external or internal changes that cause an

identity crisis.” In his research, he concluded that the majority of Judeans removed deviant

Christians so that they could safeguard their social boundaries. It could be interesting to note

that if there were mainstream Christ-followers, they could, as well, have ordered deviant

Judeans out of their social group because they might not have accepted their message.

1.4.3 Social Identity Approach Perspective

The momentous scholar of our day is Esler (1998) who is the precursor of using social

11
identity approach (SIA) in the interpretation of New Testament studies. According to Baker

(2011:232), “[t]he social identity approach involves social differentiation based on group

membership and includes consideration of salient group norm, boundaries, and rituals.” Esler

(1998) used a number of elements of this approach to study Galatians, Romans, and the

Gospel of John. When Esler (1998) studied Galatians, he focussed on intergroup dynamics

and the differences were between in-group and out-group members. He proposed that Paul’s

primary aim in Galatians was to form and sustain the identity of the Christ-following group.

The Christ-following group that Paul addressed comprised of both Judeans and non-Judeans.

The identity was to be formed by making boundaries of these groups. His teaching was not

more of Christian freedom, but on group identity that draws boundaries between Judean out-

groups and his in-group readers.

Esler (2003) also studied Romans in a different way to that he did to Galatians. In his

approach to Romans, he focussed on intragroup dynamics and the growth of a broad in-group

identity. Esler (2003) argued that there was a deep-rooted conflict within the Roman

congregations between the Judeans and non-Judeans Christ-followers after the former went

back to Rome following the proclamation of Claudius. Paul, in Romans, tried to construct a

common in-group identity between the two social groups who were in that community. The

major aim was to create a broader scope of a Christian group identity, including both social

groups (Baker, 2011).

1.4.4 Identity and Narrative Process Perspective

In their recent study of the Gospel of John, Esler and Piper (2006) made a paradigm shift in

their study from identity and social processes to identity and the narrative process. The

approach that Esler and Piper (2006) used emphasised how audiences and texts relate to each

12
other to form identity. Esler and Piper (2006) argued, in their research, that the stories of

Lazarus, Martha and Mary, act as prototypes of the Christ-followers. With this kind of study,

one is persuaded to enter into the domain of characterisation in the Gospel of John. The two

scholars (Esler and Piper) managed to combine the prototypicality (an element of SIA) and

narrative theory.

Another scholar, Marolh (2008), also used SIA, when he analysed the epistle to the Hebrews,

with the aim of establishing its addressees and purpose. He propounds that the addressees

perceived themselves as a separate social group by the use of ‘us’ and ‘them’ right through

the epistle. In addition, he pointed out that the author of the epistle was able to connect to

both in-group (‘us’) and out-group (‘them’) to faith. The in-group (‘us’) are the faithful while

the out-group (‘them’) are the unfaithful. Marolh analysed and compared the persons of

Moses and Jesus in relation to a ‘shared life story and prototypicality’ (2008:78). He

concluded that the writer of Hebrews was able to incorporate the audience and Jesus into a

narrative whereby Jesus’ prototypical of Moses ‘shared common identity’, which is

faithfulness. Marolh (2008) concluded that the purpose of Hebrews could be comprehended

in terms of social action responding to the problem of the audience’s shared negative social

identity.

The reviewed literature, up to this point, reveals that social-scientific models, specifically the

SIA are useful in analysing the conflict processes in early Christian identity formation.

However, this thesis wants to go a step further by utilising social identity complexity in

examining the conflict in the community of Luke and applying it to the political situation in

Zimbabwe. It is important, at this juncture, to review literature that focuses on the community

13
of Luke.

1.4.5 Social Conflict Perspectives

1.4.5.1 Harmony Perspective

The Jerusalem Council could be understood as a model of a Spirit-led community in the

understanding of the text. This theory tries to draw some lessons from the Jerusalem Council

in the context of the hermeneutical process. The scholars who subscribe to this view are

Bockmuehl (2000:81); Green and Turner (2000:108). According to this view, the Jerusalem

Council is a model of how the Spirit directs Christian communities in the interpretation and

application of a text in the contemporary world. According to Arrington (1988:388), Acts 15

illustrates an “interplay of the text, experience, Pentecostal tradition, and reason under the

direction of the Spirit” that gives a significant hermeneutical design. This theory is important

to this research because it is the Spirit which creates a number of spiritual experiences that

impact on the decision at the Jerusalem Council, such as the conversions of Gentiles (the

signs and wonders done among them and the outpouring of the Spirit on Cornelius).It is the

same spirit that then directed James’s selection of a text (Amos 9:11-12) that supported the

inclusion of the Gentiles in the Christian community without circumcision (Thomas, 1994:41;

Green and Turner, 2000:108). However, it can be argued that how the Spirit directs the

Jerusalem Council through the text needs a closer examination, especially directing the

Jerusalem Council to one specific type of Old Testament text (Amos 9:11-12). What can be

questioned about Thomas’ (1994:42) theory is the time of the Jerusalem Council and its

context in terms of its historical flow. Can the same context of the first century be

successfully applied to the contemporary situation? The Jerusalem Council took place fifteen

to twenty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus (Wiarda, 2003:237). This research

would want to suggest that the first century context of the Jerusalem Council may provide

14
principles that can be applied to today’s world, precisely to the Zimbabwean political

landscape.

1.4.5.2 Progressive Revelation Perspective

The Jerusalem Council can be understood as a pattern for theological decision-making, based

on a concept of progressive revelation. This view has been advanced by Smith (1993:215)

who argued that time and progress was the major driving factors in the early Church’s ruling

with respect to circumcision. In addition, Smith (1993:242) went on to describe the Jerusalem

Council in the process of developing his case for using feminine language for God in worship

in churches. In his argument, the decision made by the Council, concerning circumcision,

parallels the decision that some churches of today have made to introduce feminine language

for God. Smith’s (1993:242) position is based on his concept of progressive revelation. He

argued that in the past, God’s revelation concerning the law was replaced by the new

revelation at the time of the Jerusalem Council. Similarly, the old revelation that exclusively

used male language for God should be removed to pave way for feminine aspects of God.

Smith’s (1993:242) view is not very clear in that it does not specify where the feminine

aspect comes in to the Jerusalem Council. While it may be accepted that there could be

progressive revelation, it is difficult to link it with the coming in of the female face. Smith’s

(1993:242) theory could be simplistic and narrow in that one aspect of the Jerusalem Council

episode could have been replaced by something new. This thesis argues that there are more

important issues which were dealt with at the Jerusalem Council than what Smith purports to

say. It can be argued that what was important at the Jerusalem Council was God’s purpose for

Gentiles to get salvation without circumcision.

15
The two perspectives presented above basically discuss the role and importance of the Holy

Spirit as a pattern of conflict-resolution on the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Different

scholars such as De Villiers (2013:132); Story (2010:37); Tyson (2008:110); Bockmuehl

(2000:81); Green and Turner (2000:108); Smith (1993:215) approached the Jerusalem

Council from different angles, but pointing to the same direction. For instance, De Villiers

(2013:132) stressed the concept of community discernment of the will of God as a very

important ingredient of conflict-resolution at the Jerusalem Council. This is related to what

Smith (1993:215) suggested, that the decision-making done at the Jerusalem Council was an

act of progressive revelation. De Villiers’ (2013:132) discernment of God’s will and Smith’s

(1993:215) progressive revelation are similar in that both need faith and the Holy Spirit for

them to take place. Both discernment of God’s will and progressive revelation facilitated the

resolution of the conflict at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 in a similar way. Story’s

(2010:37) approach to the Jerusalem Council can be summarised as (1) conflict, (2)

resolution, and (3) advance of the Christian message. This characterisation is comparable to

that of Tyson (2008:110) who proposes that the process of the Jerusalem Council could be

shortened as (1) peace, (2) threat, (3) resolution, and (4) restoration. Story’s (p 37) “advance”

is almost the same as Tyson’s (p 110) “restoration.” Bockmuehl (2000:81); Green and

Turner (2000:108) seem to be slightly drifting away from the said views by arguing that the

Jerusalem Council should be seen as a model that shows how the Holy Spirit directed the

Council in the interpretation and application of the text in the contemporary world such as the

political situation in Zimbabwe.

1.4.6 Canonical Conversation Perspective

Wall (2000:165) proposed that the Jerusalem Council could be an example of canonical

conversation. Wall (2000:166) explores a new approach of understanding the Jerusalem

16
Council from the perspective of “canonical conversation.” This theory highlights the concept

of “canonical conversation” in relation to the Jerusalem Council and the proceedings that

surrounded it, hence the construct of “Intercanonical conversation.” By canonical

conversation, Wall (2000:165) refers to the plurality in interpretation within the New

Testament and the disagreements reflected in it. The New Testament writers engage in

internal debates characterised by agreements and disagreements in interpretation. One would

ask, how would the Jerusalem Council come in as a model? According to Wall (2000:180),

the debates among the apostles found in Acts 15 show a model or pattern that is prevalent in

the New Testament for interpretational diversity. Wall (2000:182) further proffers that due to

the fact that there were debates among the delegates at the conference, it also follows that

there is debate among New Testament writers. This kind of unresolved conversation gives a

model for today’s contemporary issues such as Zimbabwe’s political problems.

However, one may question the authenticity of the link between the Jerusalem Council and

the canonical conversation which Wall (2000:165) suggests centred on the “disagreements”

and “unresolved debate.” It can further be asked if the narrative in Acts 15 is about

disagreements and agreements based on interpretation of the text or not. There were debates

before and during the Council, but the account seems to show signs of a growing consensus

(Savelle, 2004:450). The consensus implies a “win-win” decision for both groups; that means

each voice was heard and duly respected. Consensus is seen in Acts 15:5, “So we all agreed.”

The contribution of Savelle is relevant and useful to this research in that it articulates and

emphasizes unanimity of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Savelle, 2004:451).This is so

because we are told that the whole council becomes silent when Paul and Barnabas were

presenting their experiences among the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). James also referred to Peter’s

speech supporting what he had said and, so, showing signs of resolving the conflict by a

17
declaration of the decree. It can, therefore, be argued that the Jerusalem Council can be used

as a possible model for conflict-resolution in Zimbabwe.

1.4.7 Legitimacy of Gentile Inclusion Perspective

Talbert (1997:136) studied Acts 15, highlighting the legitimacy of Gentile inclusion into the

Christian community. He argues, “[l]uke’s first panel prepares the reader for the theological

and practical issues raised in the Jerusalem Council” (Talbert, 1997:137). In addition, he

traced the incidents in which the Gentiles were accepted into the Church from the Day of

Pentecost (Acts 2:5-12), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40), Paul’s mission to the Gentiles

(Acts 9:15) and Cornelius’ conversion (Acts 10:1-11:18) which is important for Acts 15.

Talbert (1997:138) observes that “the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles is followed by

the episode of Jerusalem approval.” The first chapters of the book of Acts were carefully

crafted by Luke to prepare his readers to look at the important decision of the Council. This

resonates with Conzelmann’s (1987:115) reference to the Jerusalem Council as “the greatest

turning point, the transition from the primitive church to the Jesus movement.” Conflict was

brewing from the introductory chapters of Acts until this very important Council (Acts 15).

Dunn (2009:195) also notes that “[l]uke had already prepared the ground to deal with this

potential crisis.” Talbert (1997:140) concluded that the issue of the Gentile-inclusion was

very important for both the Antiochene Church and the apostles in Jerusalem in as far as the

resolution of the problem and communicating it was concerned.

Achtemeier (1987:11) argued that the events leading to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

could be traced from Acts 11 which he refers to as the first conference where Peter had an

encounter with Cornelius and the visions he experienced which pointed to the acceptance of

18
the Gentiles without restrictions. Cornelius was converted to Jewish Christianity without

being circumcised according to the Jewish tradition. The circumcision party accused Peter of

not observing the Jewish customs when dealing with non-Jews, especially when he had table

fellowship with Gentiles (Achtemeier, 1987:13). What is significant at the conference of Acts

11 is that Peter played a pivotal role and an agreement was reached in that there were to be no

restrictions to the Gentile converts to be accepted into Jewish Christianity.

The second conference, according to Acts 15, resulted in the statement made by “some who

came down from Judea” to Antioch instructing people that if they did not observe the Mosaic

customs they would not be saved (Achtemeier, 1987:14). A delegation that included Paul and

Barnabas was sent to Jerusalem to discuss the issue. When they reached Jerusalem, they

faced resistance from traditionalists who argued that circumcision and the Law of Moses

were necessary conditions for Gentiles to be accepted in the early Church.

1.4.8 Related Doctoral Theses

There are two PhD theses related to this study. The first one was done by Savelle Jr (2013)

who researched on: ‘The Jerusalem Council and the Lukan perspective of the law in Acts.’

His thesis focused on the Jerusalem Council incident in Acts 15 as giving a significant

literary and dogmatic understanding of Luke’s perception of the Mosaic Law. He established

that this point of view demonstrated to be disjointed concerning the connection of the Mosaic

Law to a Christian. This research is related to Savelle’s thesis in that it also looked at the

Jerusalem Council as a starting point. However, this thesis focuses on a possible application

of the Jerusalem Council as a model to the Zimbabwean political environment.

19
Moulton (1999) wrote the second thesis titled: ‘The use of the Davidic Covenant in Acts 15.

The thesis focused on the debate between classic and progressive dispensationalism, centred

on the use of the Davidic Covenant as used in 2 Samuel 7, Amos 9 and Acts 15. He argues

that classic dispensationalism is the restoration of the collapsed tabernacle of David that

denotes the renewal of Israel in the millennial kingdom only. Progressive dispensationalism

refers to the Davidic assurance in two ways: (1) partly in the church, and (2) in the millennial

kingdom. Moulton (1999) supports the classic dispensationalism by arguing that the Davidic

Covenant was not changed in Amos 9 and Acts 15 and that Jesus Christ was not seated on a

divine Davidic seat but on His Fathers’ throne. This thesis focused on the words borrowed by

James from Amos 9 when he declared the decree. This research is different from Moulton’s

because it explores conflict-resolution on the Jerusalem Council in relation to the political

situation in Zimbabwe while Moulton (1999) deals with the dispensationalism debate.

Moulton’s thesis is useful to this research because it is used as background information to the

study.

1.4.9 Historiography of Acts and Galatians Perspective

In studying the Jerusalem Council, some scholars such as Bock (2007:486); Jervell

(1998:486), have been interested in whether the Council took place in Jerusalem or it was

Luke’s creation. The issue of the historicity of the Jerusalem Council is a subject of much

discussion in the Luke-Acts scholarship. There are various perspectives suggested by

different scholars such as Jervell (1998:486) on whether the Jerusalem Council occurred or

not. Witherington (1998:90) has rightly argued that it is difficult, in the New Testament, to

discuss the relationship between Galatians 2 and Acts 11:30; 12:35 and 15. It is important to

link the passages indicated above because they are the basis for either accepting or

repudiating the Council’s historicity. Bock (2007:486); Jervell (1998:403) are of the view

20
that technically, the Jerusalem Council should be called a consultation. Their argument is that

it is not a Council because the meeting was engaging ecclesiastical issues as well as apostles

and the Jerusalem congregations. Other scholars such as Bruce (1990:329) go a step further

in saying that there was no conference in Jerusalem, but a consultation as Paul admits in

Galatians 2. According to this view, due to the fact that there was just a consultation, the

Lukan apostolic decree is, therefore, a theological section that wanted Jews to keep their

tradition. It appears a number of scholars such as Jervell (1998); Williams (1990) subscribe to

this view. They argue that whenever Acts contradicts with Pauline letters, we follow the

letters because it is Paul who writes them himself. It is probable that this school of thought

questions the reliability of Luke’s history that is characterised by defensiveness and

apologetic tendencies.

The first solution to the problems raised above is that the Council took place in Jerusalem as

recorded in Acts 15. The Gentiles at the Council were made to observe the Law and to be

circumcised. Bock (2007:487) suggested that circumcision was a covenant obligation that

was practiced before the Mosaic Law and in the tradition. This was the Abrahamic covenant

that was supposed to be followed by all the people of God. However, this view appears

unlikely because there is no evidence that the Gentiles were compelled to be circumcised and

to observe the Mosaic Law before the Jerusalem Council.

Paul and Barnabas had a different view altogether. They argued that Gentiles should not be

circumcised; that they do not need to become Jews for them to become Christians (Bock,

2007:488). Paul was advocating his famous doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus, not by

21
the works of the law. It was difficult for a single social group to resolve the problem alone

without other communities. Therefore, the Council was convened in Jerusalem.

Schnabel (2004:1008); Barrett (1998:xxxviii-xxxix); Witherington (1998:440) posit that the

Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15, could be the same conference that Paul

describes in Galatians 2:1-10. They propose that it is historically sound to link the Jerusalem

consultation of Galatians 2:1-10 and Paul’s famine-relief visit of A.D. 44. Their argument is

based on the fact that, in Galatians, there is no mention or reference to the decree. Another

point is that the Council recorded in Acts 15 came as a result of the coming of the Jewish

Christians to Antioch, challenging or forcing the Gentiles to observe the Mosaic Law. The

Council in Galatians was a result of the people who came to Antioch from James’ group, who

were creating conflict among Peter, Barnabas and, probably, Paul. According to Bock

(2007:491), there is a tricky difference between the Paul is presented Act 15 and Galatians 2.

The Paul in Acts15 was prepared to compromise, but the Paul in Galatians 2 could not accept

that there was a council in Jerusalem. The absence of the decree in Galatians might not be

much of a train crush because it is probable that Paul could have had his own approach of

being sensitive to the “weaker” brother. Paul did not make reference to the decree even in

Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10 where they appeared to have been relevant. The differing

portraits of Paul in both Acts 15 and Galatians 2 seem to be rather odd. Nevertheless, Paul’s

silence might have been caused by that he (Paul) had his own desires in handling such

questions. This explanation admits to the fact that there was a council (Acts 15) in Jerusalem

as it is recorded in Acts 15. It is probable that Paul was deliberately silent about it and

decided not to tell the truth about what actually took place at the council. The context in

which Paul presented this was apologetic because he was defending his apostleship. So he

ended up overstressing his apologetic stance.

22
Jervell (1998:404); Fitzmyer (1998:539); (Marshall (1980:244-45) favours the view that

Acts11:30 is equal to Galatians 2 not that Acts 15 is the same as Galatians 2. Marshall

(1980:244) argues that what we have in Galatians 2:2 was a private meeting with Paul and the

three pillars James, Peter and John. The situation in Acts 15 is different in that the meeting

was public and large. He also argued that Galatians 2 did not make any reference to Acts 15

(Marshall, 1980:245). According to him, it is difficult to consider that Paul could leave the

decree in Galatians 2:1-14 as it is in Acts 15. The strength of this argument is that it is likely

that the decree was passed in Acts 15 after Galatians was written hence its silence. Bock

(2007:488) argued that it is probable that the basic agreements were done in Acts 11:30, but

these agreements were made public in Acts 15 when Paul was not there. It is difficult to go

by this argument because Paul was supposed to be present in the council of Acts 15 so that he

could make a compromise to the resolution. There is also a probability that Paul was present

at the council in Jerusalem. However, Paul probably walked out of the council before it ended

may be in protest because he was not in agreement with the deliberations of the meeting. It

could be that the minutes that were made were not known to him.

Williams (1990:257-59) rejects the connection which could be there between Acts 11:30 and

Galatians 2. He argued that the connection is questionable because in Acts 11:30 apostles are

not referred to but are mentioned in Galatians 2. Another objection by Williams is why it is

that Titus is only mentioned in Galatians 2 but not in Acts 11:30 (Williams, 1990:256). One

may question why the major issue of controversy in Galatians 2:11-14 were dietary issues

and not circumcision? According to Williams (1990:258), Barnabas in Acts 11:30 appears to

be a leader of Paul but the situation changes in Galatians 2. According to Bock (2007:490),

23
the objections made by Williams (1990) might be answered. He suggested that Luke could

have had a literary aim of discussing the problem of Gentiles in greater detail in Acts 15

where the conflict was resolved. This may also imply that not all the information in Acts 11

(Paul’s) visit was discussed by Luke. His major focus was to report on the efforts he had

made on relief. The primary advantage of equating Acts 11:30 and Galatians 2 could be that

there is a reason why Galatians did not include the decree because it was before Acts 15.

However, its major weakness is that it distorts Pauline chronology in a very clear way.

Basing on the arguments presented so far, it is justified to argue that the council in Jerusalem

took place. An analysis of the views given above shows that both texts referred to an

occasion which took place in Jerusalem. It is possible to argue that all the text referred to in

this discussion have the same major characters who were involved namely, Paul, Barnabas,

Peter, and Jewish Christians. Witherington (1998:91) supports the view that the Jerusalem

Council occurred; he argues that all the texts appear to have been dealing with that same

issue. The issue at stake was whether Gentiles could be accepted into the Christian

community without observing the Mosaic Law and being circumcised.

In a counter narrative, scholars such as Williams (1990:256) question the historical reliability

of Luke’s argument that the history in Acts is apologetic. He argued that Luke had the

tendency of defending Christianity as a religion on its own that was not a subversive

movement that could threaten, in any way, both the Roman and Jewish authorities. William’

(1990:256) suggests that the Council could not have happened because of Luke’s historical

unreliability. This thesis would agree with Witherington’s (1998:91) argument that the texts

24
in question fit well in Pauline chronology and that the Acts 15 conference occurred seventeen

years after Paul was converted; probably around AD 49/50.

1.5 Complementing Theoretical Perspective

1.5.1 Historical Critical Method (form and redaction criticism)

Historical critical method is used to ground the study in its historical context; looking at

authorship, place and redaction. As a complementary theoretical perspective it views the

Jerusalem Council as an event which was written by Luke. It is probable that the Jerusalem

Council event could have originated from Paul or Peter, with the view to resolving the

conflict within the early Church. It could have been used as an analogous story that provided

reconciliation in the early Church.

1.5.2 Narrative Criticism

Narrative criticism used to determine how the story in Act 15 fits into the overall narrative

discourse of Luke. This theoretical perspective views Acts as a book that contains stories and

that these stories can be analysed as ordinary literary works. When this theoretical

perspective was introduced by scholars such as Chatman (1975:275), conservative scholars

could not accept it because they argued that the proponents were advocating for a scenario

where they wanted to take the word of God as a work of fiction. However, scholars such as

Keegan (1985); Powell (1990); Green (2010), among others, saw the ushering in of narrative

analysis as a positive development in the interpretation of New Testament for it brought new

insights in the area. In this thesis, narrative criticism would be beneficial in that the Jerusalem

Council would be seen as a story told for a purpose.

25
1.5.3 Reader response Criticism 0773900240
Using reader-response criticism, I am interested in how the story resonated with Luke’s

audience but also how it is discursively appropriated in Zimbabwe. Reader response theory

is different from other theoretical perspectives which focus mainly on the author or the

discourse of the story. Reader response focuses on the reader and the audience and their

activities in a story. This theoretical perspective is important in this research because it helps

to understand the ideology from which the story was told. It is from this perspective that

forms the basis of using the story as resonating with the Zimbabwean experience.

1.6 Theoretical Perspective: Social Identity Complexity

This thesis uses social identity complexity as its theoretical perspective. The said theoretical

perspective is developed in chapter two of this thesis.

1.7 Conclusion
The reviewed studies each examined the Jerusalem Council in a different way. They each

make a significant impact in the understanding of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

However, the examination of the existing research on Acts 15 is not exhaustive. The recent

monographs, doctoral theses and commentaries consulted here will give this research

adequate ground to argue that present studies have not provided comprehensive analysis of

the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. These studies can be beneficial to this research in that the

speeches of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, alongside the leadership of James, would be useful as

background information to the study. The debate, discussion, dialogue, respect of others,

willingness to compromise, resolution and implementation of the decision accepted at the

Jerusalem Council can be applied to the contemporary Zimbabwean political situation.

However, none of these studies directly explored the theme of conflict-resolution in Acts 15,

26
as it directly corresponds to the contemporary Zimbabwe’s political environment. This thesis

will try to address the inadequacy by making the Jerusalem Council a possible model of

conflict-resolution in Zimbabwe’s political situation. The next chapter focuses on the

theoretical frame work of this thesis.

27
 Chapter Two: Theoretical Perspective: Social Identity Complexity

2.0 Introduction
In the previous chapter I surveyed various theoretical perspectives regarding Acts 15 which

ends with adopting social identity complexity as a plausible theory. This chapter develops

social identity complexity by looking at its development, main proponents and tenets. Social

identity complexity explains the several cross-cutting group memberships, group features,

and tolerance. A brief historical development of the method is discussed focussing on social

identity theory (SIT) and social categorisation theory (SCT).

2.1 Social Identity Theory

Studies on intergroup behaviour reveal that people develop two standard identities which are

“a personal self and a collective self” (Tajfel and Turner, 1986:7). The “personal-self”

involves characteristic information regarding an individual, while the “collective-self”

integrates information concerning the groups they belong to. This chapter uses “identity,”

mainly with reference to social identity (Roitto, 2009:17). In this case, self identity refers to a

person’s individuality as belonging to a group or organisation, for example, “l am a

Christian.” Social identity can also refer to an individual’s identity, for example, “l am

Tobias.” In addition, it can refer to a group or a movement as a whole, that is, “Israel is the

people of God.” Another important term that this research uses is norm. According to Esler

(2003:20-21), norms are “identity descriptors.” Bar-Tal (1998:94) also acknowledges that,

“norms regulate group members’ behaviour without being considered as characteristic of a

specific group.” In this chapter, the word “norm” is used instead of “identity descriptor.”

Based on the views of Esler (2003) and Bar-Tal (1998) the term norm is used in this study as

cognitions about good behaviour, attitudes and goals which are shared and accepted by a

group.

28
Social identity theory by Tajfel (1882) and self-categorisation theory by Turner (19877) are

two theories which discuss intergroup activities and the social individuality of the group.

Social identity complexity may be perceived as developing from the two named theories. It

came on the scene to cater for the weaknesses of the Social Identity Theory and self-

categorisation theory. Roccas and Brewer (2002) are the precursors of Social identity

complexity theory that shows how persons handle the various groups which they relate with.

In the following section, social identity theory and self-categorisation are explained giving

the historical background and the development of social identity complexity theory.

Social Identity Theory was developed by Tajfel and Turner (1986:88) to explicate intergroup

behaviour. David (2015:145) further simplified it by arguing that a person’s idea of self

emanates from the group to which an individual belongs. A person cannot have an individual

selfhood, but may have a variety of identities which are related to the groups to which they

belong. An individual may behave in diverse ways in changing social situations with regard

to the groups they belong to; these groups may include family setup, nationality, the

neighbourhood they live in among others. When an individual perceives himself as part of a

group, he becomes an in-group member for them. Other groups that an individual does not

belong to are out-group members. These are processes that provide and create the in-group

and out-group approach. Brewer (1991:476) separated personal identity and social identities

in his discussion of SIT. Brewer (1991:476) explained personal identity as the “individuated

self- those characteristics that differentiate one individual from others within a given social

context” and social identity as “categorizations of the self into more inclusive social units that

depersonalise the self-concept.” Therefore, social identity brings the connection and is

flanked by an individual’s psychology and the arrangement and role of social groups.

29
SIT focuses on unfairness, injustice, and with intergroup activities such as conflict,

cooperation, social change, among others (Meyer, 2014:10). Tajfel and Turner (1982:10)

view SIT as composed of three aspects namely; “a cognitive component (self-categorisation);

an evaluative component (group self-esteem) and an emotional component (affective

commitment).” This discussion leads to a small section on self-categorisation. SIT is

beneficial to this research in that the researcher can comprehend issues that contribute to

unfairness, injustice, intergroup conflict, group polarisation among others in the context of

Luke’s community and then in Zimbabwe’s political landscape.

2.2 Self-categorisation
SIT argued that the relations between groups were characterised by the interaction of

cognitive, motivational, and socio-historical considerations. After the death of Tajfel in 1982,

Turner and friends went on to improve the cognitive aspect of the theory (Turner, 1987:120).

In this regard, they (Turner and friends) moved beyond the intergroup focus of SIT to

intragroup processes. Turner (1987:120) proposed that SCT and SIT share almost the same

hypothesis and methods and that came from the same principles and theoretical perspectives.

Turner (1987:120) and friends also suggested that there were recognisable similarities

between the theories and what some critics now call them ‘social identity perspective’ or the

‘social identity approach’ when referring to both SIT and SCT. However, it should be noted

that these two approaches have dissimilar focus and emphases.

Self-categorisation theory is a theory that explains a person’s categorisation as a member of a

specific group. “Self-categorised is a precondition for all other dimensions of collective

identity” (Meyer, 2014:10). People either categorise themselves into particular social

identities or are categorised in specific categories by birth such as national identity. People

30
are categorised into social identities, for example, professor, student, Zimbabwe African

National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU PF), Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)

among others. When individuals are aware of the categories which they belong to, they

understand themselves better, and are able to characterise properly their behaviour with

regards to the groups they would belong to. This research is interested more in a person’s

categorisation with regards to several groups and the prominence of different social identities

recognized. Roccas and Brewer (2002) aptly argue that;

[c]ontext is important with regards to social identities being mutually

exclusive in self-categorisation, and if one single social identity is salient in a
specific setting, then social categorisation will dominate self-categorisation
and the categorisation of others with regards to the group in that situation.

Multifaceted social identity is based on two things: being aware that there are more than a

single group (in-group) categorisation and several group categories may never come together.

Brewer and Pierce (2005:98) contend that “social categories can be represented by the

prototypes or characteristics of the group or they can be represented in terms of the category

boundaries that determine who are considered group members.” People vary in the way they

see the prototypes of the groups in which they are at the same time as members are

comparable to each other and showing the same features. There are attributes such as

attitudes and conduct which distinguish one group from the other thus highlighting intragroup

likenesses as well as variances. Hogg and Reid (2006); Brewer and Pierce (2005) argue that

prototypes conform to the meta contrast principle in which the apparent proportion of

variations in a group (in-group) features are not as much as the variations that exist among

the set of other variations.

31
2.3 Social Identity Complexity Theory
SIC theory, which has roots in social-psychology theory, was developed by Roccas and

Brewer (2002) from social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1986) to study group processes

(Kok, 2014:1).The inadequacy of SIT in analysing multiple group dynamics led to the

emergence of social identity theory. SIT could be used to interrogate ancient group dynamics

and identity formation but could not be used to analyse several group memberships or fluid

identity formation. (Kok, 2014:1).

SIC is relatively new method of interpretation in the New Testament Studies and Roccas and

Brewer (2002) became the precursors in the development and application of SIC theory in the

studies of the “dynamic multifaceted nature” of early Christian identities. Roccas and

Brewer (2002:90) explicate the SIC theory as “a new theoretical construct that refers to the

nature of the subjective representation of multiple group identities.” It explains how a person

with several in-group characteristics identifies by not just a person who identifies

independently, except how various identities are instinctively jointly to give an all-

encompassing picture of a person’s in-group membership. This may also mean that for an

individual to have multiple social identities, certain virtues must be developed such as

openness to change, universal values, and tolerance for diversity. In this sense, Schmid et al.,

(2009:109) argue that an individual may inhabit several overlapping social identities, where

an individual who might be sharing memberships beyond the totality of the characteristics

perceived as in-group , and those that do not share any identities with anyone may become

out-group members.

From a social-scientific perspective, New Testament scholars such as Tucker and Baker

(2014); Kok and Van Eck (2012) argue that in the ancient Mediterranean societies people had

32
solidly group-oriented individuals. The group-oriented society has a dominating role in as far

as the social identity of a person is concerned. It is against this background that this

theoretical perspective is seen as instrumental in understanding the boundaries that inhere

between the in-group and out-groups in the community of Luke. The perspective identifies

particular groups such as Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, implying that there could

be inclusive and exclusive social boundaries. Utilising this theoretical framework helps in

understanding how Jewish Christians during the time of Paul constructed their particular self-

social identities and how the outsiders understood them.

2.4 Multiple crosscutting group memberships

Social identities are based on nationality, religious affiliation, race, language, gender,

political affiliation, ethnicity, sexual orientation, among others. Before the study of Roccas

and Brewer (2002), the research on social identities focused mainly on in-group

categorisation, but there was very little research on categorisation of several identities for

insider and outsider constructions. A number of researchers are developing an interest on SIC

theory whose studies consist of SIC level and the way they are related to out-group

perceptions (Tucker and Baker, 2014; Miller, Brewer and Arbuckle, 2009; Brewer and

Pierce, 2005), respect, in-group partiality, and multiplicity.

SIC theory focuses on multiple group memberships which differ in the degree of complexity.

SIC can be found in two similar subsections namely; overlap complexity and similarity

complexity (Kok, 2014; Miller et al., 2009; Brewer and Pierce, 2005; Roccas and Brewer,

2002). Overlap complexity refers to the prejudiced insight into real overlap in terms of

figures among diverse categories. This implies that a person can see a variety of social

identities overlapping and the complexity degree transfers to the level of overlap connecting

33
the features of people’s groups as well as those of group membership (Schmid et al.,

2013).High complexity is contrary to the depiction of each in-group as different from the

other with regards to its features and membership. For instance, a person can categorise

himself/herself in terms of social identity as an apostle and Gentile Christian. If this person

only views individuals who are Gentile Christians as belonging to his/her in-group, then it

can be presumed that his/her social identity can be simple. But, other people might want to

create a distinction that not all apostles are Gentile Christians and that not every Gentile

Christian is an apostle. Therefore, according to Meyer (2014); Schmid at el., (2013), these

individuals have a multiple and complex social identity formation. SIC theory is beneficial to

this study because it identifies the overlap and complex identities within the early

Christianities especially in Luke’s community.

2.5 Background and results of social identity complexity

Other important aspects which Roccas and Brewer (2002) talk about are the precursors and

results of SIC theory. They (Roccas and Brewer) argue that there are primarily three issues

that influence a person’s demonstration of multiple group identities and these are as follows:

 experimental,

 personal attributes

 situational factors.

Experimental issues or features refer to the organisation of a society and the resemblance

among groups. Miller et al., (2009) propounded that people are surrounded by individuals

who resemble each other and who are socialised by family, school and society and are more

or less similar to each other. These experiences form the level of SIC theory. An individual’s

direct social situation is not as sophisticated as that of society in a holistic way. The local

34
arrangement inspires a configuration of great similarities and overlap among in-groups and

therefore the social identity becomes simple. This refers to similarities between groups or

categories that make people to easily cross boundaries, for instance, Gentiles and Christians,

man and woman, ZANU PF and MDC among others. Roccas and Brewer (2002:96) rightly

argue that “different or special conditions are necessary to create the awareness of one’s

identity complex”.

According to Schmid at el., (2013), research has revealed that SIC theory might be more

complex in societies that are greatly diverse culturally when compared to stratified societies.

Nevertheless, even staying in a multicultural society that might not instantly result in high

sophisticated social identity. Luke’s cosmopolitan context may be analysed using the insights

of SIC. Norms in multicultural societies might alleviate the degree of complexity because

groups in this type of society may be more dominant and thereby affect the behaviours of

individual’s self-categorisation. Uniqueness of groups might affect the degree of complexity.

For instance, the level of social status of Gentile Christians’ in-groups might influence how

members may self-categorise and this may result in modest representations.

People who can open up to situations which are beyond their individual experiences and

endure vagueness in outlining insider and outsider boundaries are probably bound to develop

an additional multifaceted social identity representation. Tucker and Baker (2014); Miller et

al., (2009) are of the view that a person’s beliefs, values, and intelligence work together to

regulate SIC levels.

35
According to Roccas and Brewer (2002:91), situational factors such as “distinctiveness,

cognitive load, stress, mood and in-group threat,” may result in influencing people’s SIC.

The magnitude of contact and distinctiveness was also investigated by Schmid et al.

(2009:109) when they said, “threats serve as antecedents to social identity complexity and

their results confirmed a correlation between the factors.” Schmid, et al.’s (2009) and Miller

et al., (2009) confirmed the hypothesis and the researches done by Roccas and Brewer’s

(2002).

Sufei, Ziqiang, and Chongde (2015:429); Meyer (2014); Verkuyten and Martinovic

(2012:1166); Roccas and Brewer (2002:89) refer to similarity complexity as the sameness of

categories. It can also be described as a level at which a person sees different groups to be

interrelated because of the original characteristics such as “attitudes, behaviours and

characteristics that define one group from another” (Meyer, 2014:14). For instance, a Gentile

Christian may assume that most Gentile Christians are apostles and that being a Gentile

Christian is just the same as being an apostle. Therefore, higher resemblance of complexity as

well as the understanding these groupings similarly lead to a low SIC.

According to Kok (2014); Sabanathan et al., (in press), some individuals might have several

groups which they belong to while others may have a few. Paul could be a good example

here, he was a Jew who persecuted Jewish Christians, was converted to become a Jewish

Christian, then an apostle to the Gentiles and had dual citizenship. So Paul had a variety of

groups to which he belonged. Other groups are more complex than others. The study by

Roccas and Brewer (2002) reveals that individuals whose SIC level is high might hold

negative perceptions of out-groups. It is significant to note the organisation of several socially

36
defining qualities for the reason that “representation of one’s in-groups had effects not only

on the self-concept but also on the nature of relationships between self and others” (Roccas

and Brewer, 2002:88). At this juncture, it is important to consider several ways in which

multiple group loyalties are structured and represented by people.

Sufei, Ziqiang, and Chongde (2015); Roccas and Brewer (2002) agree on another significant

feature which is the degree of overlap which exists among a variety of societal categories in

the biased depiction of an individual’s several group allegiances. In other situations, it could

be an objective degree of overlap. In some instances, there are other groups that are deeply

embedded within each other.

2.5 Multiple in-group memberships: objective vs. subjective representation

According to Kok (2014:2), “multiple in-groups can also be presented subjectively or

objectively in ways which the overlap between the different groups is not partial in nature.”

The overlap among various groups differs from being extensive to just a partial overlap

(Sufei, Ziqiang, and Chongde, 2015; Knifsend and Juvonen, 2014). For example, it is an

important aspect to consider in this research situations where the insiders and the outsiders

are considered as having an identical class like a Jew who stays in Jerusalem. In such

situations, identification is perceived as simple but in others where overlap is complex, the

social identification might become equally sophisticated. In agreement, Roccas and Brewer

(2002:89) argue that whilst an individual may evades minimizing the subjective fullness of

insiders in an easy way as discussed previously, but relatively identifies that in-group

personalities might not overlap, after that an individual’s social identity might be complicated

as well as comprehensive in outlook. Social circumstance may generate contexts where

peoples’ social identities relate to various, “non-convergent social identities as seen variedly”

37
(Meyer, 2014:17). For example, a black Zimbabwean pastor may have his specialized

distinctiveness as a pastor highlighted in other societal situations. In some contexts, this

pastor’s insider membership could be viewed as outsider membership when his nationality is

highlighted. Meyer (2014:17) argues that “an individual’s subjective representation of their

multiple in-group membership may vary in relation to the objective in-group overlapping

memberships”. Roccas and Brewer (2002:90) proposed that persons might utilise patterns of

identity representation namely: intersection, dominance, compartmentalisation, and merger.

These elements are further explicated below.

2.5.1 Intersection
Intersection is a model that describes in-groups as the crossroads of several group

memberships. Through intersection, a person can at the same time have an appreciation of

multiple identities, but “in the process maintain a single in-group representation by defining

the in-group as the intersection of the multiple in-groups” (Kok, 2014:2). Anyone who cannot

uphold the shared identity becomes the out-group. For example, a female Jewish Christian

can describe her main social identity with regards to the multiple combinations of both

gender and religious affiliation, an identity shared only with other female Jewish Christians.

This perspective helps in understanding that Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, but he

maintained his identity as a Jew. In this case, Paul had multiple identities, but he maintained a

single in-group representation. It can be pointed out that social identity constructs a socially

differentiating pattern because of its exclusive nature which results in the limited nature of

the constructed in-group boundaries (Kok, 2014:2; Meyer, 2014:19; Tucker and Baker, 2014;

Schmid, Hewstone, and Ramiah, 2013:136; Roccas and Brewer, 2002:90). The intersection

model of in-grouping is comparable to the “conjunction/dissimilarity” prototype as discussed

by Roccas and Brewer (2002), whilst Schmid, Hewstone and Ramiah (2014); Kok (2014:2)

38
described it as “social exclusion” pattern. Those who fit into the wide class of the group,

while not sharing that particular intersection are called out-group members. Constructing

social identities thus becomes very simple and individuals who follow this type of social

identity construction are likely not to be inclusive in nature. Such individuals may be likely to

be exclusive and tend less to go beyond social boundaries (Kok, 2014); Tucker and Baker,

2014; Roccas and Brewer, 2002). This theoretical perspective helps the research to

understand the social exclusion pattern in both the community of Luke and in the inclusive

government in Zimbabwe. It is therefore important to interrogate how these social groups

viewed themselves and how they related to each other. The intersection model can be

diagrammatically shown in Figure2.1 (a) as adapted from Roccas and Brewer (2002:90).

Figure2.1 (a): Intersection

2.5.2 Dominance
In the dominance model, an individual can accept one major group identity where some

probable group identities could be minor. Roccas and Brewer (2002:90) suggest as follows:

This model, the in-group is defined as those who share membership in the primary in-
group category; all other category memberships are essentially not social identities at
all but simply aspects of the self as a member of the primary group. In other words,
alternative social identities are embedded within the primary group identification (as
sources of intragroup variation) but not extended to those outside that in-group.

A Jewish priest who sees his professional identity as a priest of a synagogue as his major

social identity perceives some priests of other synagogues as in-group members. A Jewish

39
priest’s identity is a man who studied at a prominent Jewish institution of higher learning.

These are other qualities of a priest who stays at a synagogue and his professional identity

becomes his dominant social category. His social identity does not extend to other men who

graduated from a prominent Jewish University. When an individual’s social identity obtains

preference over others, one may categorise some persons with a view of their membership in

a particular category. An individual belonging to a dominant category may be perceived as

in-group and persons that cannot be part of the category can be referred to as out-groupers

(Roccas and Brewer, 2002).This is similar to what Meyer (2014:19-20) described as

“category dominance” model of relating to multiple categorised others. Roccas and Brewer

(2002:90) brought in a different perspective and described complete dominance as

“hierarchical” pattern of multiple categorisations. In this regard, any individual who falls out

of a dominant category is perceived to be an outsider irrespective of some other identities one

could have. Even inside an in-group category, additional differentiation might be seen on the

basis of some joint identities. For example, a female Jewish priest might think she is nearer to

some female priests (just for argument’s sake) more than to the male, but tends to relate more

to male priests than to the females who are not priests. Therefore, in this model, one social

identity is dominant. This can be represented diagrammatically as in Figure 2.1(b) adapted

from Roccas and Brewer (2002:90)

Figure 2.1(b): Dominance

40
2.5.3 Compartmentalisation
When an individual has more than one group identity, it becomes important for one to have a

social group that forms that person’s social identity, several identities can be stimulated by a

process Roccas and Brewer (2002:90) call “differentiation and isolation.” Expressed

differently, an individual might have several social groups which could be significant to

him/her at the same time and which form and define that individual’s social identity (Kok,

2014:3). According to this representation, social identities are situation- specific. In other

contexts, an individual’s group membership develops mainly on the basis of his/her social

identity whilst some group identities may become a dominant identity in some different

environments. As a result, contexts will define the identity that will be dominant on a

particular individual. An individual can assume different social identities in accordance with

the demands of the social context. In Zimbabwe for instance, because of the cultural belief

systems, a number of Christians are Christians during the day but during the night they are

traditionalists. In the Shona traditional belief system, a sizable number of people are caught

up in situations that result in two different social identities which, in a number of ways, do

not overlap. For example, the son of a traditional Shona person who predominantly stays in

town will assume two group identities, the one he has in town and the other one reserved for

the rural areas where his/her parents live, a situation which Kok (2014:3) refers to as ‘taking

off a western hat’ and ‘putting on his African hat.’ The perspective helps in understanding the

role which Joseph Barnabas played when he was tasked by the Jerusalem church to go and

supervise Paul’s mission to the Gentiles in Antioch. Barnabas had to ‘take off a Jewish hat’

and ‘put on a Gentile hat’ while in Antioch. This illustrates clearly the issue of

compartmentalisation. Roccas and Brewer (2002:91) understood this phenomenon and

explained it thus: “(W)ith this mode of identity structure, multiple non-convergent identities

are maintained, but the individual does not activate these social identities simultaneously.”

Situations will define which identity that will become clearly noticeable.

41
According to Roccas and Brewer (2002:91), it is not just that identity can be contextually

specific, but that it can also be mutually exclusive as well. Kok (2014:3) rightly contends that:

The interesting nature of the group dynamics is that in a specific context, where a
particular social identity is activated and more dominant, a person might treat others,
who in another context might be in-group members, as out-group members.
Therefore, contexts define boundary markers among personalities that are, to a greater

degree, equally exclusive in outlook. Could the theory explain the tension between Peter and

Paul at Antioch?

Roccas and Brewer (2002) in their research established that individuals utilising this

approach tend to react in a positive way to those people who may happen to share in-group

identities than those who only share one of these social categories. This perspective helps this

research in understanding and analysing the negative compartmentalisation of both Peter in

the community of Luke and the former president Mugabe in the government of national

unity. This compartmentalisation model is illustrated in Figure2.1 (c) adapted from Roccas

and Brewer (2002:90).

Figure2.1 (c): Compartmentalisation

2.5.4 Merger
The merger is the last and final SIC model in which non-convergent group membership is at

the same time seen and incorporated in the largely all-encompassing form. Within merger

42
model, in-group recognition may be stretched to those who could give out whichever

individual’s significant social category memberships. According to Roccas and Brewer

(2002:91), “social identity is the sum of one’s combined group identifications.” In other

words, this refers to the totality of an individual’s combined in-group characteristics that

leads to all-encompassing and multiple social identity which is multifaceted outlook. For

example, a Jewish priest’s classification by men as a social group goes beyond the social

category of a priest as well as non-priest, and his identification with priests goes beyond the

boundary of the gender divide. Yet, all identity groups could be also significant beyond

contexts. Kok (2014:4) correctly states that: “In this model, social identity transcends single

categorical divisions between people… [T]he more social identities the person has, the more

inclusive the definition of in-group becomes…” This is in agreement with cognitive

consistency theorists who understood merger pattern as comparable to ‘transcendence’

(Roccas and Brewer, 2002:91). Could the merger model be useful in analysing and exploring

Paul’s inclusive social identity complexity in relation to Tsvangirai and the community of

Luke as well as the inclusive government in Zimbabwe respectively? The merger model is

illustrated in Figure 2.1(d) adapted from Roccas and Brewer (2002:90).

Figure 2.1 (d): Merger

All these models discussed above namely; intersection, dominance, compartmentalisation,

and merger are approaches of ‘inconsistency resolution’ and can likely be approximately

43
rationally complex in outlook. An individual with a higher level of SIC might be prone to

“differentiate and integrate” differing perspectives (Kok, 2014:4). Whenever there is neither

variation nor multiplicity stifled, complexity becomes easy and this results in a lower SIC. In

the intersection model discussed above, diversity is not complex in outlook. Meyer (2014:20)

rightly argues that intersection suppressed the variations by dropping the complexity to a

simple and exclusive social in-group identity formation. SIC theory helps in the application

of different models of identity representation that are intersection, dominance,

compartmentalisation, and merger in conflict-resolution in the community of Luke and the

GPA in Zimbabwe’s political landscape. These models of identity representation can be

useful in understanding the community of Luke in which multiple in-group representation can

be structured.

Dominance is the second model that was discussed above, and it can be perceived as a

simplified strategy in that it stifles variation and possesses social specific categorisations that

dominate others. Variations could be stifled with “suppression and domination” (Kok,

2014:4; Meyer, 2014:21). In the compartmentalisation model, there is a higher degree of SIC

because the perspective does not distinguish the variation as well as complexity of yet the

major problem is that of maintaining the group categories apart since “these conflicting

identities are not really reconciled or integrated but rather kept separate” (Roccas and

Brewer, 2002:92). Kok (2014); Meyer (2014) Roccas and Brewer (2002) agree that the

merger model has the highest level in SIC and this is because of two reasons: (1) the model

distinguishes the conflicting exclusive social identities, however (2) it focuses not simply on

differentiation but as well as on integration within an all-encompassing social identity. What

can be observed from the findings of the above-mentioned researchers is that the environment

44
of the social categories has a bearing on the level of complexity. This might be so when a

small group is represented by a dominant social identity. For example, when mixed races stay

in an affluent suburb of Arcadia in Harare, they might be a small group but may be perceived

as a dominant social identity group. This model may not be as complex as a model of

intersection that has more inclusive categories.

In a way, domination appears to be to a greater extent more complicated than intersection

which is, to a smaller extent, integrative. The same can be said of compartmentalisation

where an individual who has extremely compartmentalised identities can characterise them in

a specific situation in such a manner that it can be greatly “exclusive and dominating.” As

indicated in Table 2.1, such a model of compartmentalisation is less inclusive compared to

the other model of dominance. When an approach such as compartmentalisation, which is

low in outlook and where a variety of categories cannot ‘spill over’ into a variety of domains,

the model might appear to be functioning as a merger when in actuality it cannot be, “because

an integrated and complex identity that transcends boundaries is not really represented”

(Tucker and Baker, 2014; Roccas and Brewer, 2002:92). Roccas and Brewer (2002:92) made

a pertinent observation when they said, “individuals may adopt different modes of identity

representation at different times…”

45
The four models of the degree of social identity complexity can be summarised as in Table

2.1.

TABLE 2.1: Level of social identity complexity

Pattern: scheme of controlling Level of complexity

complexity

Intersection Least in social identity complexity

Dominance lower in social identity

complexity

Compartmentalisation high in social identity complexity

Merger greatest in social identity

complexity

2.6 Complexity: Group features and group membership

The models which are in Table 2.1 are different degrees of complexity. It can be observed

that dominance and intersection have low-complexity representation whilst

compartmentalisation and merger have high complexity.. People with low social personality

complexity may possess several identities individually and mutually clustered as distinct in-

group demonstration (Meyer, 2014; Roccas and Brewer, 2002). The individuals who have

high social identity complexity recognise variances among in-group categories.

Social categories may as well be perceived with regards to category boundaries (Tucker and

Baker, 2014; Brewer and Pierce, 2005). Roccas and Brewer (2002:94) rightly argue that

“therefore when an individual perceives a high overlap between the members of their groups

they will have a less complex social identity”. It can be observed that both scopes which are –

46
“group characteristics and group memberships” – may be perceived as guides for supposing

that various in-groups could be perceived as distinct and as integrated social identities.

2.7 Tolerance
Schmid et al. (2009); Roccas and Brewer (2002); Brewer and Pierce (2005); carried out a

research which revealed that a higher complex social identity formation results in higher

acceptance of outsiders. Tolerance or forbearance could be built with several identity

formations however, for the sake, of this research the meaning given below can be construed

as belonging to secondary theories. Ferrar (1979) suggested that tolerance should be

understood in terms three definitions which are:

(i) Adjustable studied inclinations to the beliefs and practices of a group, that allows non-

authentic assessment of specific people or followers.

(ii) Acceptance of a variety of practices and beliefs.

(iii) Allocation of diversity of privileges and rights.

According to Esmer (2010:134), tolerance can be defined as “the acceptance of differences

(religious, ideological, physical, cultural and so on) without in any way judging them and

without implying a hierarchy.” Esmer (2010) carried out a neighbour test for tolerance on

four groups of people namely, sexual tolerance, religious tolerance, socio deviance tolerance

and ethnic tolerance. Esmer’s study was done in a plural society where he derived his

definition of tolerance.

People who have a high SIC have an increased consciousness that outsiders may be insiders

in a different context. A person might reduce the amount of probability to support the

inclination of the in-group while recognising that insider memberships can partly overlap in

some in-groups resulting in increasing tolerance of out-groups (Roccas and Brewer,

47
2002).When the insiders and outsiders overlap, the philosophies of cognitive balance will be

realised as a person being a member of an in-group “on one dimension and an out-group

member on another experiences cognitive inconsistency, as they are evaluated positively on

the one dimension but negatively on the other” (Brewer and Pierce, 2005). This inconsistency

may result in people within out-group and those being judged in the in-group in a positive

way overall. Therefore, based on this ground, rational and inspirational issues result in people

having a higher SIC to be more tolerant, and to have less favouritism towards in-group

members and to be positive towards out-group members.

2.8 Conclusion
In this chapter, social identity complexity theory was defined, interrogated and justified as a

suitable model for this thesis. The chapter highlighted the historical development of the

theoretical perspective from social identity and social categorisation theories. It also focused

on how social identity complexity explains various cross-cutting group membership and

group features. It is important to note that this research does not claim that all other

theoretical perspectives are not useful. Malina (1982:237) is right in saying; “there is no

model to help understand all models, just as there is no one language that one could learn to

be able to understand all languages.” The above-mentioned “theoretical perspective” does not

claim to be comprehensive on its own in interpreting the problem under study. Rather, the

implied perspective uses insights of the previous methodological perspectives in its

interrogation of the problem under study. The next chapter focuses on the location and

identity complexities within Luke’s community.

48
 Chapter 3: Luke’s Community: location, and Identity Complexity

3.0 introduction
The previous chapter deployed the social identity complexity as a theoretical perspective of

this research and this chapter examines the location and identity complexity within Luke’s

community. It is guided by the question: What complexity of identities existed in Luke’s

Antiochean community? After exploring the various ethnic identities in this chapter, the next

chapter (chapter 4) uses social identity complexity to understand Act 15. In other words, this

chapter specifically focuses on the social boundaries that were found in the community of

Luke and these are; Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians and, God-fearers, the rich and

poor, and those who stayed in urban and village areas.

3.1 Location of the community of Luke

The location of the community of Luke is fraught with several explanations and arguments

ranging from places like Ephesus, Antioch, to Corinth. Scholars such as Moxnes (1994:380);

Esler (1994:26) are not agreed on the specific city that constituted Luke’s community. For

instance, in the Gospels there is a particular community for each author and these come in the

form of the Marcan, Matthean and Johannine communities. This is different from Luke who

has a variety of communities rather than a particular community. Among the possibilities

advanced about the location of the community of Luke is Ephesus which is discussed below.

3.1.1 Ephesus
Ephesus is a probable community of Luke. There are several reasons that have been proffered

by scholars to suggest that Ephesus is one of the probable communities of Luke. The first

argument advanced by Moxnes (1994:380) says that the community of Ephesus exhibits an

49
environment which is in the Hellenistic diaspora of the Roman Empire. It is likely that the

community was composed of both gentile and Jewish Christians. It is also plausible to argue

that in Luke’s community the majority of Gentiles had not been transformed to become

Christians but could have been familiar with Jews in their synagogues. Keener (2012:428) is

probably right in contending that Luke was writing to social and religious groups which were

acquainted with the knowledge of Jesus’ proclamation of the gospel; otherwise he could have

explained such terms like ‘the Kingdom of God’ And ‘Son of Man’ (Esler, 1994:26). Moxnes

(1994:380) have argued that Luke had a particular city in his mind and that this could have

been Ephesus.

However, scholars such as Riches (1993:234) propose that Luke could have been concerned

with the emerging churches which were scattered across the Roman Empire. If Riches’

(1993:234) suggestion is something to go by, it could be difficult to think of the community

of Luke as Ephesus alone. The major argument in Eslers’ (1994:26) could be his intention of

showing “particular relationships” involving Luke’s religious, theological, political, and

social setting. The connections created Christian social groups “of a certain type, all of them

being characterized by a quite circumscribed set of tensions within their membership and

with the world outside” (Esler, 1994:26). It is likely that these “tensions” could have been

sufficiently general in their outlook as to be located within a variety of the eastern side of the

Hellenistic cities in the Roman Empire. Esler (1994:34) thinks that the address by Paul to the

older people of the Church of Ephesus (Acts 20:17-35) might have implied that Luke had a

particular community in mind. Such a view finds credence especially when he refers to the

Ephesian Church as a “flock” where elders were the shepherds. He warned them that after his

departure “fierce wolves” would come and mislead the disciples. In this case, Ephesus could

be a community of Luke which Esler (1994) suggests. Esler (1994:26) refers to the warning

50
that Paul gave to the older people of the Ephesian Church that they should look after the flock

after his departure for ‘fierce wolves’ may come and mislead the community. The issue was

not just a general message to the community of Luke but that Paul had already predicted the

problems which Christians would experience in the years to come. It is in this context that

Luke orchestrates the idea of the ‘flock’ in light of the problems and troubles of his Christian

community. Luke in the Lukan community also establishes clear social and religious

boundaries between the community and the outsiders. This was a measure which was

instituted by Luke to keep away enemies who were coming from outside and crossing into

and threatening the community. But there were also problems which were coming from

within the Lukan community itself. The notion of separateness of the Christian community

was characteristic of the situation in the Gospel of Luke where Jesus taught: “[d]o not fear,

little flock, for the Father has been pleased to give you the Kingdom” (Luke, 12:32).

According to Esler (1994:26), the repeated use of the term “flock” is suggestive of the view

that the social groups were members of a small Christian community experiencing hardships

from within and without. It appears that Luke had a Christian community in mind although

this is disputed by others who argue that he had a variety of communities (Elmer, 2006:1-11;

Schnabel, 2004:265; Oakman, 1991:156; Theissen, 1982:50-70). However, Keener

(2012:430) contends that Ephesus might be a plausible community of Luke. There is a high

probability that Keener (2012:430) suggested this because it is in Ephesus where Luke

devotes more space about his mission activities in spreading the Gospel and it is where Paul

reached the climax in his ministry. In addition, it is in Ephesus where Luke’s grave was

discovered and if this claim is something to go by, one can safely say that it is a probable

community of Luke. According to Keener (2012:270) and Riches (1993:213), although

Paul’s mission had an ultimate aim of establishing a community in Rome, the major focus

was his ministry in Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia which was mainly in the Aegean region

51
which is recorded in Acts. Paul’s mission activities in Rome only receive insignificant space

which may not warrant it being a probable community of Luke.

The location of the community of Luke appears to be outside Palestine. This claim is

primarily based on the specific information that is found in Luke-Acts and other Pauline

letters such as 1Corinthians and Romans. According to Moxnes (1994:380), Luke’s

description of houses seems to depict a contrasting environment as well as whose way of life

from that of a village in Palestine. The environment appears to be in an urban setting. The

sayings of Jesus in Luke 12:10-13 appear to point to the future persecution which reflects an

environment in Hellenistic Diaspora. Luke used language which reflects the situation of a

Hellenistic city and not that which was ruled by the Roman rulers and the Jewish council in

Jerusalem. Consequently it is possible that the community of Luke might be a metropolitan

environment, probably in Ephesus.

Early Christian cities are known through archaeological excavations particularly in the

Mediterranean region. According to Freeman (2011:17); Moxnes (1994:381), a city should be

“interpreted” by understanding the type of buildings which include gates streets, statues ,

monuments, as well as market places . The spatial structure and organisation reflect the social

stratification of a city. Moxnes (1994:382) posits the view that at the centre of the city was

the temple and other important buildings for the administration of the city. He further points

out that in the central district of the city were other buildings like the theatre, baths and

gymnasium. All this evidence could simply be pointing to a city in the Roman Empire which

might be Ephesus as a community of Luke. There were also residential areas where the

Roman elite stayed. It can be argued that the type of houses in this community possibly

52
reflects those in Ephesus. In this city, there was also an area where the majority of the people

stayed. In addition, there were also people of different social groups who included slaves as

well as servants of the rich, shopkeepers, artisans and merchants, organised into associations

and usually found in designated roads especially in cities with seaports such as Ephesus

(Neyrey, 1995:258-259). In such seaports, there were aliens who were people who came to

Ephesus from different parts of the Mediterranean and Middle East (Moxnes, 1994:382).

3.1.2 Corinth
Corinth is also suggested as another credible location of the community of Luke. There are

also reasons that point to Corinth as a feasible community of Luke. Haenchen (1985:118);

Tyson (1984:104); Keener (2012:432) propose that Corinth is the plausible location for the

community of Luke because Christians appeared to stay there peacefully. Paul and Luke

probably arrived in Corinth in 52 CE during Paul’s second missionary journey. Paul

discovered that the political situation and history were quite different from that of Antioch.

Around the third century BCE Corinth was a great city which was characterised by economic

prosperity in the Greek world. The problem came when Corinth was colonised by Macedonia

around 222 BCE (Engels, 1990:15). During the Macedonian rule, Corinth suffered for about

100 years. The situation was worsened by the Romans who conquered Corinth resulting in

the killing of Corinthian men and the selling of women and children into slavery (Millis,

2010:21). This was orchestrated by the Roman general Mummius who literally plundered

Corinth. In about 44 BCE, Julius Caesar appeared on the scene and declared that Corinth

should be reborn as a Roman colony. The colonialists were sent to re-establish a brand new

city which had new political, religious and cultural structures. The city of Corinth got back its

glory and it returned to its original status of becoming the Roman capital in the province of

53
Achaea (Engels, 1990:16). It is in this context that Luke came to stay in Corinth because of

its peaceful environment and it became his operational base for his mission.

Corinth had a strategic location that facilitated good trade for those merchants who travelled

from Rome to the Aegean and Asia. The economic prosperity of Corinth was noted by Engels

(1990:18) who said: “Corinth is called wealthy, because of its commerce, since it is located

on the Isthmus and is master of two harbours, one which leads straight to Asia and the other

to Italy.” The geographical location of Corinth became a very important commercial link in

the Roman Empire and brought a lot of wealth and a number of people with different social

identities. The situation in Corinth appears to be complex to societies that are greatly diverse

culturally when compared to stratified societies. Religiously, the people of Corinth had two

gods namely; Aphrodite and Poseidon. These gods attracted a number of tourists from all

over the Empire. According to Engels (1990:99), Poseidon was understood as a sea god along

with earthquakes while Aphrodite was called a war god. According to Millis (2010:30),

another role of Aphrodite was in worship reflected by the nude images from her waist as she

bathed which shows that she was worshipped through sexual activities. This could explain

why there was a lot of sexual immorality which Paul was battling at the Corinthian

congregation (1Cor. 5:1ff).

According to Luke (Acts 18:12), when Paul arrived in Corinth he started preaching to the

Jews in synagogues. When he was rejected by the Jews he left the synagogues and went to

preach to the Gentiles. It is probable that Paul left the Jewish community because of their

insularity which might have resulted in conflict. After Paul left the synagogues, the Jews

attacked him (Paul) and they dragged him before the Roman proconsul, Gallio (Acts 18:12).

54
The Jews alleged that Paul was “persuading people to worship God in ways that were

contrary to the law” (Acts 18:13). However, the text is not very clear whether this was

referring to the Roman law or the Jewish religious law but chances are that the text could

have been referring to the Jewish law since it was the Jews who took Paul to Gallio. Gallio,

realising that the conflict was among the Jewish people themselves and that the matter was

not within his jurisdiction, ordered that, “see to it yourselves; i do not wish to judge of these

matters” (Acts, 18:15). Thus the community of Luke continued as it was before and Paul only

left Corinth after a considerable length of time.

Although there appears to be evidence that points to the community of Luke as being located

in Corinth, chances are that the similarities between Ephesus and Corinth as instanced by the

fact that both cities had two seaports. Therefore, it is possible that Ephesus might have been

referred to and not Corinth, as argued by Keener (2012:432).

3.1.3 Antioch
The position that I take is that Luke’s community was in Antioch. This is because a number

of scholars such as Harris (1985:266) argue “that Luke was a Greek physician who lived in

Antioch in ancient Syria.” Nonetheless, some scholars like Bart (1989:157) suggest that Luke

was a Hellenistic Jew. He further argues that the theology of Luke-Acts is characteristic of a

gentile Christian who was writing for a gentile audience. On the other hand, Bart (1989:158)

contends that it is plausible that Luke-Acts was written to a society which comprised both

Gentiles and Jewish Christians due to the fact that there is an emphasis on the gentile

mission. The community referred to here could be Antioch. This could be so because Antioch

was close to Jerusalem hence the Jewish population could have been significant against the

gentile Christians.

55
According to DaSilva (2004:371), there are several reasons why Luke’s community could

have been Antioch: because Antioch was the springboard for the mission to evangelise

Europe (Acts, 15:40; Acts, 16:11) and Luke was part of the delegation which evangelised

Europe. It is most plausible that Paul, Timothy and Silas who were co-workers of Luke were

residents of Antioch. DaSilva (2004:371) suggested that the author of Acts was Lucius/Luke

of Cyrene who was known as one of the prophets and teachers in Antioch (Acts, 13:1ff). It is

most likely that he was the Lucius of Romans 16:21. He was therefore a preacher who

preached to the Gentiles in Antioch and likely a companion of Paul in his second missionary

journey.

Dunn (2006:180) maintained that Lucius was not given his proper position and prominence in

Antioch. In this regard, he could not be Lucius of Cyrene who was a very important person in

Antioch. One can argue that the author failed to give the significance of name order during

the time of Luke. However, Paul gave Lucius prominence by putting him in the second

number of the eight whom he greeted in Romans 16:21-23. Therefore, this Lucius might not

be the Luke who was a resident of Antioch and a companion of Paul in his missionary

journeys.

DaSilva (2004:374) argues that it is possible that the author of Luke-Acts may have

mentioned his own name. If one may ask, why not? It is almost clear that the writer (s) of

Luke-Acts and other Gospels made self-references. However, some Gospel writers such as

Matthew and John were attributed to persons who were to name themselves in their books. In

addition, people like Josephus generally named themselves in their writings. But authors such

as Matthew, Mark, John and Luke-Acts did not name themselves and this was in tandem with

the style of Jewish literature that can be traced back from the Old Testament historical books.

56
This technique was probably meant to keep their readers and audiences focusing on the text

rather than on the authors.

It’s possible that Lucius was the author of Luke-Acts and was staying in Antioch. It becomes

possible that Antioch was the community of Luke. There is also a possibility that the author

was Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 13:1ff) who witnessed some events which he narrated as going

beyond the ‘we’ sections. Therefore, Antioch is most likely to be the community in which

Luke resided.

The most important aspect on the location of the probable communities of Luke examined

here is the geography. It appears Luke was more acquainted with the geography which was

from Jerusalem to Antioch. This could have been so because Antioch was closer to Jerusalem

than either Corinth or Ephesus. The close proximity of Antioch to Jerusalem made Jewish

Christians to greatly influence the Christians in Antioch more than those in Corinth and

Ephesus. The closeness of Antioch to Jerusalem also resulted in the Antiochene church being

under the authority of the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:25-26). Due to the strong influence of

the Jerusalem church to Antioch, Antioch became a breeding place for conflict based on

whether or not Christians as a social group should allow Gentile converts to cross their social

boundary markers to be circumcised and observe the Mosaic Law before they are accepted in

the Christian community. The conflict led to the convening of the Jerusalem Council (Acts,

15:1-35).

57
3.1.4 Significance of Antioch
Antioch was a significant city in the spread of the gospel in the diaspora and in the Roman

Empire. It was one of the most densely populated cities of the time and was highly

syncretistic religiously. Due to the fact that it was densely populated, there were serious

problems of diseases and inner strife. According to Strauss (2011:284), “Antioch was the

third largest city in the Roman Empire (after Rome and Alexandria) and some estimated that

its population was about 500,000.”

Another important element for Antioch was its cultural diversity. Antioch as a city shared a

number of characteristics which resembled an urban city of today. This attracted a number of

people from different countries with a variety of languages and cultures. These different

people were categorised into multiple social identity formations which included traders,

travellers and the residents of Antioch. These multiple social identities reflected the

community of Luke which is Antioch. The fact that there was a multiplicity of cultures in

Antioch makes it follow that there was also religious pluralism and tolerance. The

multiplicity of social identities and cultures brings in the identity complexity and overlaps in

social interaction within different social groups. As a way of maintaining peace and order in

Antioch because of the diversity in ethnicity, culture and religion, different social groups had

categorised themselves by building walls to keep each social group away from one another.

However, although these multiple social groups were categorised this way, there could have

been overlap complexities in this society. In this case, a member of each social category in

the community of Luke might behave in a different way with regard to the social group to

which they belonged which included the family setup, nationality and neighbourhood.

Otherwise, according to Rowe (2012:264), these walls generally acted as social boundaries

among these social groups. The Jews stayed within the confines of their own walls and so did

58
the Greeks and the Romans. The walls they built symbolised the differences in their social

identity and orientation although they stayed together in Antioch. Chances are that the

identities in the community of Luke, particularly in Antioch, were much more complex than

what one finds today. When Paul and Barnabas arrived in Antioch, they observed that there

was a very big wall which demarcated the Gentiles from Jews . From a social identity

complexity viewpoint, this meant the Jews had their own values, norms and centre of their

religious faith and law. These acted as their social boundary markers against other ethnic and

religious beliefs. The Jews perceived their own identity as divinely favoured by God. On the

other hand, the Greeks’ social identity was based on their great civilization and wisdom.

Their social boundary markers were centred on “gaining knowledge and cultivating the

human society” (Rowe, 2012:265). The last social group were the Romans. Their social

identity was mainly based on power. The complexity is evident when all the social groups

merge and have overlaps in social interaction.

This research subscribes to the view that the most probable community of Luke could be

Antioch probably because of its closeness to Jerusalem. This closeness resulted in the

Antiochene church being under the authority of the Jerusalem church. In addition, it emerged

in the discussion that Luke was well versed with the geography of Jerusalem and Antioch.

However, there was also evidence that the tomb of Luke was discovered in Ephesus and thus

implying that it was his community. The arguments for Antioch as a probable community of

Luke outweighed that of Ephesus and Corinth.

59
3.2. Date(s)
The proposed dates of Acts range from as early as 60 CE, intermediate 80-90 CE and a late

date 110 -150 CE. Various debates have been put forth to support the three suggested dates.

The proposed dates are an early 60 CE, intermediate 80-90 CE and a late date 110 -150 CE.

3.2.1. The early date (60s CE)

A number of scholars such as Keener (2012:384); Bock (2007:25) subscribe to the early date

of 60 CE. This school agrees that Acts was written by Luke the companion of Paul in his

missionary activities. Tyson (2011:105) suggests that when Paul arrived in Rome as recorded

in Acts 28 this could have happened in the range of 58-60 CE. However, the author of Acts

did not furnish information about Paul’s trial in Rome. This could imply that the book was

written before the trial of Paul. Proponents of this view argue that the “we sections” imply

that the author was an eye-witness in Paul’s missionary journeys. Tyson (2011:105) asserts

that the early date is preferred by many evangelical and conservative Christians who

emphasized the historical reliability of Acts.

3.2.2. Intermediate date (80-90 CE)

According to Tyson (2011:106), modern scholars prefer the intermediate dating of Acts.

These modern scholars such as Brown (2013:326); Marshall (2004:74); Witherington

(1998:50); Fitzmyer (1998:55) cite a number of factors supporting their position. They argue

that Acts did not record that the city of Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in 70 CE by

the Roman army. However, Goodspeed (1999:61) posits that Acts might not have been

written prior to 90 CE because the writer appeared not to be aware of the Pauline letters that

were not yet in circulation.

60
The proponents of this school are Brown (2013:326); Marshall (2004:74); Witherington

(1998:50); Fitzmyer (1998:55); Haenchen (1985:117)) who reject the view that the author

was an eye-witness and a companion of Paul. They argue that the author could have written

Acts in a later generation. In addition, the author did not record important issues about Paul;

for instance his epistles show that he maintained that he was a disciple and that to him this

apostleship was important. A list of credentials of being an apostle are listed in Acts 1:21-22

but, unfortunately, Paul is excluded. In addition, a list of apostles are also found in Acts 1:13

where Judas is replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:26) to show that Paul was not included among

them. Really, if Acts was written by Paul’s companion, he would not have excluded Paul

from an office which was very important for him.

3.2.3. Late date (110-150 CE)

A considerable number of scholars such as Pervo (2006:70); Walker (1998:78); Conzelman

(1987: xxxiii) date Acts between 110 -150 CE. Pervo (2000:70) asserts that there are three

factors to support this view. Firstly, Acts was not known prior to the very last part of the

second century so it cannot be dated before the second century. Secondly, it appears the

author used the Jewish Antiquities written by Josephus between93 and94 CE and so it could

not have been written before that date. Thirdly, Pervo (2000:72) further argued that current

research have challenged the view that the writer of Acts’ was not aware of the letters of

Paul. It is probable that Acts could have been written before other letters of Paul. But,

chances are that he was aware of them especially Galatians. The author then may have

written Acts to subvert Galatians. Walker (1998:78) observes that “these scholars draw

attention to the verbal and ideational similarities between Acts 15 and Galatians 2 and further

show the irreconcilability between Paul and Luke.”

61
However, the intermediate daters and the late daters agree, in principle, on the questionable

historical reliability of Acts. This research accepts any date after 80 CE because it was the

period when the Jesus movement was spreading its wings to different areas. It is probable that

they then created some narrative that would provide information on how this movement came

to be embraced by Gentiles. Dating Acts on or before 70 CE might be problematic because

Luke used Mark as a source in compiling his Gospel. Mark is generally dated around 64-65

CE. Then Luke could have been written after Mark presumably after 80 CE.

This research is indebted to the significant contribution made by Tyson (2011:108) who

argues that what used to be ignored by most scholars of the New Testament is the rise and

development of Marcion’s teaching. Tyson (2011:108) posits the view that Marcion gives a

historical context which the author of Acts is responding to.

3.3 Background: The Jewish-Gentile identification

From a social identity complexity perspective, the investigation of the community of Luke is

very important to this research because it provides the social identity formation of the Jewish

and Gentile Christians. A number of scholars such as, Elmer (2006:1); Schnabel (2004:654);

Witherington (1998:63); Oakman (1991:154); Esler (1994:24); Theissen (1982:58) have done

some researches on the possible social groups in the community of Luke. These studies were

not only done to make a reconstruction of the community of Luke but also to make an

understanding of the Luke-Acts writings and themes which reflect that community.

Dube (2015:1); Esler (1998: i) contends that almost immediately following Jesus’ death in

about 30 CE, the disciples of Jesus were identified as Jews. They probably simply regarded

62
themselves as a reformed social group within Judaism. It appears identity hostility emerged

when the growing Christian movement spread to non-Jewish territories and started to rope in

non-Jews into their fellowship without being sensitive to the Jewish culture. The conflict over

table fellowship in Galatians 2 provides a tip of an iceberg relating to the increasing

personality conflict involving the Hellenistic Jews and Jews. Hellenistic Jews were Jews who

stayed in the Diaspora, particularly in Greek cities in the Roman Empire such as Ephesus,

Antioch, Corinth and Ostia, Pergamon and Sardis in Asia Minor (Keener, 2012:385;

Freeman, 2011; Moxnes, 1994:383; Esler, 1994:32) and had assumed an ordinary way of life

in these urban areas (Esler, 1998: i). The Hellenistic Jews in the Diaspora had constructed

synagogues throughout the Empire in addition to celebrating inherent Jewish identity.

Nevertheless, with regards to the identity of the Jews in Jerusalem they viewed their Diaspora

counterparts with mistrust (Dube, 2015:2).

In the Gentile community, Paul converted a number of people. This implied that the Gentiles

had to be accepted into the Christian community which resulted in cultural and identity

conflict (Kok, 2014:5; Esler, 1998: ii). It appears that when Paul pronounced the ‘new Israel’,

he could have been alluding to the appearance of the Gentile Hellenistic Christian grouping

whose background as well as personality was not grounded in the Mosaic Law. This was in

addition to their relationship with Jerusalem but more on inherent belief in Jesus (Dube,

2015: ii; Nicklas and Schlogel, 2014:236). Thus, Paul brought a paradigm shift in identity;

one that fostered continuity with the history of the Jews while at the same time identifying

an exceptional personality of diasporic, multi-ethnic with mixed grouping (Dube, 2015: ii).

63
Dunn (2005:110); Sanders (1997), advocates of the emerging main model referred to it as the

‘latest perspective on Paul and they used insights from sociology. Conflict involving Jewish

and Gentile Christians surfaced when Jewish Christians refused to associate with Gentile

Christians due to their conviction in the concept of divine predestination and election. The

Jewish Christians refused to accommodate the Gentile Christians into Jewish Christianity.

Their (Jewish) premise in refusing to accept the Gentile Christians into their Christian

community was that they (Jews) believed that they were a divinely elected social group

which ought to exist in a unique social position characterised by observing the Jewish law as

their abiding worldview (Dube, 2015:2; Nicklas and Schlogel, 2014:236). The initial views of

Sanders (1977) were developed by Dunn (2005:110), by contending that maintaining and

observing the Mosaic Law was essentially entangled with Jewish identity configuration.

Observing the purity laws, circumcision, Torah dietary laws as well as Sabbath, were social

boundary markers that could not include Gentiles.

3.4 Identity Complexity in Luke’s Community

There are different views on the composition of the social groups in the community of Luke

(Bock, 2007:27; Esler, 1998:31). For some, the social groups in the community of Luke were

composed of: (1) predominantly Gentile Christians, (2) others think that they were both

Jewish Christians and predominantly Gentile Christians, and (3) while others presume that

there were predominantly Jewish Christians (Bock, 2007:27; Witherington, 1998:64; Eisler,

1994:31; Halvor, 1994:380). According to Esler (1994:31), a number of scholars support the

first view, a few go for the second, while virtually none subscribe to the third. There are

others who think that Luke was writing for a Jewish audience even though the gentiles were

the largest population in his congregation. This research subscribes to the second view which

reflects the situation as highly probable. One may hazard the view that the second opinion

64
may imply that the majority of Gentiles in Luke’s congregation might not have been

converted to Christianity but chances are that they could have been familiar with Jewish

synagogues.

3.4.1 Hellenistic/Gentile Community

In this community of Luke, other social groups can be referred to as out-group members to

the Jewish Christians who were generally considered as the in-group. The out-group

members had their boundary markers which were different from the in-group members. This

social group (community of Luke) believed in the doctrine of justification by faith which was

quite different from Jewish Christianity that believed in circumcision, observing the Torah

and paying allegiance to the temple in Jerusalem (Story, 2010:34). Its origin is found in Acts

11:19-16 where the Law-free mission to the Gentiles is enunciated. There are some scholars

such as Kim (2002:76); Koester (2000:96); Raisanen (1992:186) who argued that it was the

Hellenist Christians who started the Gentile mission before they were expelled from

Jerusalem. It may well be argued that these Hellenist Christians who were expelled returned

to Jerusalem at the Council in Acts 15. An analysis of the Lukan material shows that the

Hellenist Christians did not approach the Gentiles when they were in Jerusalem or during the

initial stages of their mission. It is possible that the Law-free mission to the Gentiles could

have started later after the execution of Stephen.

According to Elmer (2006:5), Hellenists (έλληνστάί) were a Greek-speaking social group that

at times clashed with the Hebrews; that is, the Aramaic-speaking Jerusalem Church members

over the distribution of food (Acts, 6:1-6). These clashes led to the appointment of seven

Hellenist Christian leaders. The Hellenist Christians did not regard the fundamental beliefs of

Judaism like the Temple, circumcision and the observance of the Torah as important

65
(Koester, 2000:98). This resulted in the execution of Stephen by Judaisers. The Stephen

group were scattered from Jerusalem to different parts of the region and, in this process, an

early form of Hellenistic Jewish “Christian” emerged giving them a new identity which was

independent from Jerusalem and the Temple (Jorg, 2012:456).

Another notable out-group member of the Hellenist Christian community was Joseph

Barnabas who was a prominent member of the Jerusalem community (Acts 4:36-37; 9:27). It

is not clear how Barnabas came to be involved in the Antiochene social group. Chances are

that Barnabas followed Paul in Antioch probably sent by the Jerusalem Church to supervise

Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. Elmer (2006:6); Schnabel (2004:658) contend that Barnabas

was connected with the Stephen group (Acts 13:1) which later defected to the Hebrew social

group when there was a split between them and the Hellenists. As a member of the Jerusalem

social group, Barnabas was sent to Antioch by the Jerusalem Church but got so excited to be

involved in the mission to the Gentles so much that he decided to join the Antiochene

community (Jorg, 2012:457; Elmer, 2006:6; Schnabel, 2004:659). Even though the

community of Antioch still had Jewish people, a new and unique form of identity emerged

with different identity markers such as Temple, Torah, and purity laws. In this community,

he became one of the leading figures who were involved in the mission to the Gentiles.

It is important at this point to consider how Paul was associated with the Antiochene social

group. Social identity complexities explain how a person with several insider identities

relates with a person who identifies autonomously and not how different identities

instinctively merge to give an all-inclusive picture of a person’s insider membership. This is

characteristic of the person of Paul who belonged to multiple group memberships because of

66
his inclusive approach to his gospel. In Galatians 1:11-17, Paul claims that his gospel of

justification by faith came to him through a ‘revelation from Jesus Christ’ and that he did not

receive it through any human involvement. Paul did not return to Jerusalem until fourteen

years later (Galatians 2:1). According to this view, Paul started his mission to the Jews but

they rejected his gospel and he then turned to the Gentiles in Antioch. In contrast, Schnabel

(2004:2659) contested this view by arguing that this reconstruction of events can only be

valid if the historical situation of the entire Hellenists is rejected. It can be pointed out that

this may create other problems because it lacks any solid logical justification.

It is not clear how Paul got acquainted with his mission to the Gentiles and specifically with

the Antiochene social group. One can suggest that it could have started in Damascus when he

was converted from being a persecutor of Christian communities to a preacher. The

Damascus event was critical to Paul because his conversion made him to change his social

identity and he also crossed his social boundary from being a persecutor to an apostle. This is

in agreement with Dunn (1997:251) who argued that the revelation that he got changed him

from being a persecutor to an advocate of a Law-free mission to the Gentiles. To this end, it

can be argued that there were two distinctive social groups within the primitive Church. On

the one hand, there were the Jewish Christian social group which resided in the Diaspora and

observed the Torah; on the other hand, there was a Hellenist Christian social group or Gentile

Christian social group with a Law-Free Christianity found in Antioch.

The composition of the community of Luke is important and quite influential in the Lucan

scholarship. This view argues that an examination of the writings of Luke shows that there

was a gentile audience which was being given the Gospel. This argument is based on the

67
premise that one can identify the “composition of Luke’s community by observing ...

significant pattern of emphasis among those people whom he singles out in his Gospel and in

Acts as sharing in the message of salvation” (Esler, 1994:33). However, the problem with this

view when considering Luke’s audience is that it may reveal that the beneficiaries of the

good news are portrayed not as former pagan idolaters but as Gentiles who were used to

attending synagogues with the Jews. Both social groups were brought together with the idea

of table-fellowship in their community. If one examines the events and contents in Luke-Acts

without comparing them with the letters of Paul, one may have a faulty conclusion because

the letters of Paul may act as a significant historical control for the events and development of

the early church. The composition of the community of Luke appears to be a mixture of both

Jews and Gentiles bound together in table-fellowship. The aim was probably to bring balance

and unity between the Gentiles and Jews in Luke’s community. This is the most convincing

view on the composition of Luke’s community in the Roman Empire because there were

more Gentile than Jewish Christians.

3.4.2 The God-Fearers

The God-Fearers is another social category that was found in the community of Luke. Esler

(1987:24) proposed that the Lukan community was composed of Jews and Gentiles but the

God-Fearers were slightly different from proselytes. The God-Fearers participated in ritual

requirements of the Law but they could not go another step in becoming circumcised. In fact,

they were not fully converted into Judaism. Collins (2000:269) suggested that in the Book of

Act, the phrases σεβομένοι τὸν Θεόν (Acts 17:4, 17) and φοβούμενοι τὸν Θεόν Acts

13:16, 26) technically mean ‘Pious Gentiles’. Esler (1987:36) refers to God-Fearers as people

who imitate Jewish customs such as worshipping God of Israel, observing the Sabbath, food

laws among others. They also visited Jewish synagogues and believed in monotheism.

68
However, God-Fearers had no clear social category because they did not have well-defined

social boundary markers. This helped to show the grey areas where the social boundaries

between Jews and Gentiles were not clearly visible.

There are a number of examples of God-Fearing Gentiles who were converted to Christianity.

Tyson (1992:67) argues that Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) is an example of a person who

loved God. Another example is the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-39) who came to Jerusalem

and worshipped in synagogues. The Ethiopian eunuch can be categorised as a God-Fearer but

was not circumcised in line with the Jewish customs. There are prominent people who are

included in Luke-Acts who are; the first Centurion or the Master of the sick slave (Luke 7),

the second Centurion (Luke 23:47), Cornelius (Acts 10:1-11:18), Lydia and the prison guard

(Acts16:14, 25-34) among others.

It is interesting to note how the early Church responded to the God-Fearers. This can be seen

in how the Jerusalem Council dealt with how Gentiles could be accepted into Jewish

Christianity without observing Mosaic Law. The Pharisees or the circumcision party argued

that the Gentiles could only be accepted into the Christian community only if they were

circumcised and observed the full requirements of the Torah. Both Paul (Galatians 2:12) and

Luke (Acts 11:2) agree on the conditions for the Gentiles to follow before they could be

accepted into the Christian community. After the deliberations at the Council, according to

Luke, they (Acts 15) agreed that the Mosaic Law and circumcision should not exist and be

forced on the Gentile Christians (Elmer, 2006:3). An Apostolic decree was passed and

circulated to different assemblies in Syria, Cilicia and Antioch, (Esler, 1997:97). It appears

the main aim of Luke-Acts was a process of convincing God-Fearers to embrace Christianity

69
without circumcision and observing the Torah. Luke may have wanted to show that God

wanted to restore his Kingdom by incorporating Gentiles. This is evidenced by the removal

of social and religious boundaries where Jews and Gentiles could share a meal without any

problems. In light of this argument, Esler (1997:155) notes that regardless of the social

boundaries between the Jews and the Gentiles on religious issues, Gentiles could visit and

worship in Temples and synagogue in Jerusalem.

3.4.3 Jewish Christians

The conversion of Cornelius and his family into Jewish Christianity is very important

because he is one of the earliest Gentile converts to join the Jerusalem community. Elmer

(2006:2-3) questions the credibility of the Cornelius conversion episode as not historical.

Notwithstanding the fact that this is not the focus of this research, this study holds that it

could be a historical event because he is also seen as one of the in-group members of the

Jerusalem community like, Peter, James and John. In addition, the Cornelius incident was

used by Peter as an argument to approve Paul’s mission to the Gentiles at the Jerusalem

Council in Acts 15. According to Acts 4:1-22 and 5:20-21, there are instances where

members of the apostolic circle of the community were harassed, persecuted, arrested, and

imprisoned at the instigation of fellow Jews. It is significant to note that the Jerusalem

community was characterised by their allegiance to the temple and the Mosaic Law. The

observance of the Mosaic Law and paying allegiance to the temple were social identity

markers that left out non-Jews. It is interesting to note that Cornelius had to cross the

boundary makers to join the other social group which had different social values and norms.

It is also significant to note that there were various Jews during Paul’s time who used explicit

boundary conservation strategies. According to Malina and Rohrbaugh (1992:2): “[T]his

would have influenced the social identity of Jews and would have been expressed in

70
favouritism towards those who belonged to the in-group”. For the Jews during this period, the

world existed with the Jews as a chosen nation on the one hand and other lesser nationalities

on the other. Their Jewish identity and perceived divine election was characterised by

holiness and separatism.

A deliberate exclusion of Jewish beliefs, customs and practises from the sources that Luke

used in writing his Gospel suggests that his community was not Gentile only but a mixture

that had Jewish people. The examples which are mostly referred to are Matthew 5:21-48

(provided these are from the pro-Matthew source), the conflict on the clean and the unclean

in Mark 7:1-23 and in different conflicts between Jesus and the rabbis (Esler, 1994:32). These

issues can be summarised as topics which are related to purity and the law. The evidence

provided above may not point to a predominantly gentile community in the community of

Luke but the inclusion of the issues of table-fellowship and law shed more light to the view

that the congregation was predominantly Jewish, with a minority of Gentiles. However, this

view is not convincing because the congregation could not be predominantly Jewish if the

community was in the Roman Empire.

3.5 Social Issues in Luke’s Community: Material Possession as boundary maker

Besides ethnicity, according to Grimshaw (1999:34), the social identity of the community of

Luke could be interpreted by its use of material possessions. The issue of material

possessions acted as a social boundary marker that excluded the out-group members of the

community who were poor. In this case, the community was composed of both urban and

rural areas and those who belonged to the urban areas became the in-group while those who

stayed in rural areas became the out-group members. Oakman (1991:152) contends that the

social groups that stayed in urban areas were rich while those who were in rural areas were

71
poor. The community which was located in large cities in the Roman Empire were the rich

people who had the mandate to help the poor (Walton, 2008). However, the poor were also

involved in the production of food for the rich people in urban areas (Grimshaw, 1999:34).

Kok (2014) argued that the in-group members always viewed the out-group members with

suspicion. The implication therefore is that the poor people who stayed in rural areas suffered

because their counterparts, the rich people, did not help them. The ability to possess land was

an important social identity or attribute for one to get better recognition in society (Philips,

2003). It can be pointed out that even though the poor possessed land, they did not get the

recognition they deserved in society because they remained poor.

There is a view which argues that the issue of the poor was not a central concern in the

community of Luke. In fact, Esler (1994:165) argued against the existence of a special

interest in poverty and riches in Luke-Acts. Esler (1994) further posits that the issue of

poverty and riches was just an inheritance that the author derived from his sources when he

compiled his book and these sources are Mark and Q. He opines that the theme was actually

borrowed from the Gospel of Mark. The notion raised by Esler (1994) may not be tenable

because even if the author used Mark as one of his major sources, it does not necessarily

mean that the author did not have his own interest in poverty and riches. It is highly probable

that the issue of poverty and riches was characteristic of the community of Luke which

resulted in the creation of two social groups based on material possessions.

Oakman’s (1991:162) social identity distinction between the urban landowners and rural

peasants is slightly different from Theissen’s (1982:160) study of the early Christian

societies. Theissen (1982) differs with Oakman (1991) in that he says the early Christian

72
society was not permanently settled in urban areas but was an itinerant social group in rural

areas. The social group moved into urban areas from their rural settlement. There emerged a

second social group in the form of the itinerant group which had its own skills for personal

sustenance. Notably, Theissen (1982:58) makes a “distinction between the rural itinerant

charismatics on the margins of society who leave family and house behind to wander the

countryside.” It is probable that these were the social groups which came into conflict with

each other in the Corinthian community.

Oakman (1991:160), in agreement with Theissen (1982:58), gave the difference between the

social groups in Luke-Acts based on the material possessions. He further contended that

Luke’s community was small, rural, and itinerant while Acts’ community was urban, very

large and they had to share their possessions in common. This could have been the Jerusalem

community where there was a conflict which started when Stephen was executed and it went

on until the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) where it was tentatively resolved as presented in

Acts.

There was also conflict between the rich and the poor in the community of Luke. From the

evidence in 1 Corinthians, there were tensions socially which existed involving the poor and

rich (Philips, 2003; Theissen, 1982). It could be that Luke was interested in meals, probably

because there were social conflicts which were prevalent in the community of Luke.

According to Moxnes (1994), “[w]hen Jesus encourages the invitation of the poor, maimed,

the lame, the blind” (Luke 14:13). His argument is not to say that the poor have to make an

invitation to the polluted which is in accordance with the purity laws. Alternatively, potential

visitors are received with respect to their societal locality as those who will be in the position

73
to reciprocate the invitation (Luke 14:14). In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus criticised the elite

saying; “[d]o not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or your rich neighbours

lest also invite you in return, and you be repaid” (Luke, 13:13). Luke is describing the

utilisation of generosity as a way of protecting and massaging the egos of the selected few of

a social grouping which was exclusive by observing and maintaining boundary lines against

out-groups. The exclusionary nature of the elite social group precipitated conflict within the

community of Luke.

3.6 Conclusion
The chapter revealed different social groups within Luke’s community and established that

the community of Luke was composed of a mixture of two social groups namely; Christians

and non-Christians who were coming from different social and religious backgrounds. The

location appears to have been outside Palestine which could probably be in Antioch because

of its proximity to Jerusalem. Luke was also a companion of Paul during his missionary

journeys and seems to have been aware of the geography of Antioch. Therefore, Antioch

could have been the most probable community of Luke. The social identity of the members of

the Lukan community was identified through material possession. Material possessions acted

as categories of identities within Luke’s community. The next chapter focuses on

demonstrating the use of social identity complexity on Acts 15.

74
 Chapter 4: Historiography and Social Identity Complexity in Acts 15

4.0 Introduction
In the previous chapter I explored the various social groups within Luke’s community and

this chapter, using the Social Identity Complexity theory (SIC), demonstrates:

The existence of various ethnic groups, their tensions and intersectionality

How Luke’s historiography in Acts 15 desires to present an imaginary merger identity

beyond compartmentalised identities.

In doing this, the chapter is interested in using aspects of the theory such as intersection,

compartmentalisation, merger and dominance. In exploring these identities, the chapter

reveals how Luke tried to argue for a collective identity that went beyond the ethnic and

social boundaries that existed in his community. This chapter also seeks to explore the

historicity of the Jerusalem Council, the literary structure of Acts 15 and to discuss whether

the Jerusalem Council took place or not. The chapter is not interested in the historicity of the

event but on how Luke presented complexity of identity and in using historiography as a

possible solution to identity complexity.

4.1 The Literary Structure of Acts 15

This section explores how 15 Acts: 1-35 fits into the overall structure of the book of Acts. In

the book of Acts there are stages of development in the early period of the church. The first

chapters of the book of Acts were carefully crafted by Luke to prepare his readers to look at

the important decision of the council. This resonates with Conzelmann’s (1987:115)

observation when referring to the Jerusalem Council that “it is the greatest turning point, the

transition from the primitive church to the Jesus movement.” During the development of the

church, there were geographical and cultural expansions that resulted in debates and conflicts.

75
4.1.1 Acts 1-5: The Earliest Stage of the Primitive Church
The resurrection of Jesus and the Pentecost were events which showed that the final

dispensation was over. It meant that God had become active and present in the lives of the

followers of Jesus. The actual disciples or the people of the way and other converts were

Hebrews/Jews who were still present in Jerusalem. The followers of Jesus or “the people of

the way” were still under the tenets and practices of Judaism. The Judeans had recognized

and regarded the complexity within Jewish social and religious identities of an emerging

movement. DaSilva (2004:359) noted that the Jews had seen a new religious identity (faith)

but thought that it was a continuation of God’s salvific plans through the history of Israel.

Scott (1997:209) argued that Jews thought that Jesus was the Messiah who brought the “age

of fulfilment”. In such a scenario, the Jewish Christians followed the values and norms of the

Jewish people which implied that there was inclusion in the new social identity (faith).

4.1.2 Acts 6-7 The Jewish Christian Hellenists

In this section, there is the first conflict which is witnessed in a homogenous community. In

Acts 6:1-6, two social groups emerged from the major cultural division of Second Temple

Judaism. These social groups were Jewish Christians and Hellenistic Christians. The Jewish

Christians were particularistic and exclusive while the Hellenistic Christians were more

inclusive in their outlook. Scott (1994:209) argued that the cultural difference caused the

Hebraic Jewish Christians to identify the dangers and implications of the new social category

(faith) which was emerging. In addition to the point raised by Scott, it can be argued that the

Hebraic and Hellenistic Christians were meeting separately because of the differences in the

languages of the two social groups. To make matters worse, Stephen’s speech caused further

conflict when he attacked the fundamental social boundary markers of Judaism (the

sacredness of the temple and the city of Jerusalem) and introduced a “theology” of the Jewish

Hellenistic Christians (DeSilver, 2004:361; Acts 7:48-50). This resulted in the execution of

76
Stephen. His execution marked the beginning and expansion of missionary work beyond the

boundaries of Jerusalem (Acts 1:8) leaving the Jerusalem Church in isolation.

4.1.3 Acts 8-9, Samaria and Periphery Circle

At this stage of the development of the Church, the Hebraic Jews as a social group became

stricter against fellow Jews who even believed what they believed. Samaritans as a social

category had nothing to do with the Jews and had hostile relations towards them for centuries.

According to Scott (1997:210), Samaritans were better than the Gentiles because they were

racially closer to the Jews as they were circumcised and observed the Mosaic Law. DeSilver

(2004:364) noted that God had a plan to restore the house of David and the Samaritans

responded positively to the preaching of the apostles. According to Luke, Philip spearheaded

the evangelisation of the Samaritans. In response, the Jerusalem Church had to task Peter and

John, the most influential members of the twelve disciples, to supervise Philip’s work. Peter

and John were convinced that what Philip was doing was a good work of God as evidenced

by the Holy Spirit which the Samaritans had received.

According to DeSilva (2004:264), the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch was significant in

Luke’s theme of rebuilding the house of David because it was prophesied by Isaiah (Isaiah

56:3-5). The Ethiopians were not as close to the Jews as the Samaritans racially but they were

in some way connected. Both Jews and Ethiopians are connected because of the relationship

between Queen of Sheba and Solomon (1Kings 10:1-13). Jews and Ethiopians accepted that

the Queen of Sheba bore a son for Solomon. The presence of the eunuch in Jerusalem

suggested that he could have been a God-Fearer or a proselyte. DeSilva (2004:364)

acknowledges that the acceptance of the Samaritans and an Ethiopian by the Jerusalem

community shows how the new movement was going beyond the ethnic and cultural

77
boundaries of the historic Israel. The missionary expansion of the gospel also went to the

Jews in the coastal plain of the land of Israel which was highly polluted by constant contact

with the Gentiles. Scott (2004:212) has pointed out that the Jewish social group that had been

polluted were removed from Hebrew worship and the temple. Other Jews actually doubted

their purity and no longer wanted to associate with them. The conversion of Saul on his way

to Damascus to persecute Christians was significant in the geographical and cultural

expansion of the gospel. When he returned to Jerusalem after conversion, he was not

accepted by the Jerusalem Church. Paul, who had acquired a new social identity as a

Christian, had to relocate to Antioch where he started a new ministry with a new emphasis.

Paul acquired a new theme that was justification by faith in Jesus and not by the works of the

Law.

4.1.4 Acts 10-12, The conversion of Gentiles into the Church

The conversion of Cornelius was a significant episode in the development of the early

church. As a Roman centurion, Cornelius could have been a “God-Fearer”. Both Cornelius

and Peter experienced visions which pointed to Cornelius’ conversion. When Cornelius was

in prayer, an angel told him that God will send Peter to him. He was told the actual place

where he would meet him (Acts 10:3-6, 10-16). Peter had a vision which was full of the

dictates of the kosher laws and Jewish traditions. The primary focus of the vision was on

which animals were clean and unclean for him to kill and eat. Peter went to Cornelius’ house

and he managed to convert them. Peter explained in Acts 10:28 his desire to break his social

and religious boundaries in order to reach the Gentiles because of God’s directive. DeSilva

(2004:366) rightly argued that Luke had a significant point to make based on the Cornelius

event and it was that God did not discriminate between Jews or Gentiles. This episode made

it possible for Gentile Christians to co-exist and continue to fellowship with the people of

78
Israel. There was inclusion of Gentiles in Antioch. This attracted the attention of the Church

in Jerusalem and Barnabas had to be sent to go and supervise Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.

Barnabas became so captivated with what he found there that he stayed longer than

anticipated. It’s not clear whether Barnabas gave a report to the Jerusalem Church which had

sent him. It is probable that a famine relief to Jerusalem was organised by the Antiochean

Church. One may argue that it is likely that Barnabas could have returned to Jerusalem during

this visit. The people of Jerusalem (believers) were experiencing famine and persecution

which was orchestrated by King Herod Agrippa 1 (Acts 12:1-3). James was executed during

the persecution and Peter was arrested but he escaped.

4.1.5 Acts 13-14, Paul’s First Missionary Journey

The missionary journey undertaken by Paul and Barnabas was a first step towards a massive

cultural, geographical and racial expansion of the spread of the gospel. These two apostles

were sent out on this missionary to work with a racially mixed church (Acts 13:1). On their

missionary journey, they preached to the Jews first but the majority of their converts were

Gentiles. DeSilva (2004:366) suggests that Luke in Acts emphasises that the missionary

activities were initiated by the Holy Spirit to spread the gospel to the Gentile world. Many of

the converts, mainly Gentiles, were accepted in the Christian community not on the basis of

the requirements of Judaism but on the basis of justification by faith in Jesus. Paul and

Barnabas made a report on their return to Antioch highlighting the nature of their message

and who their converts were. Luke in Acts wanted to show that Christianity developed within

Judaism (DeSilva, 2004:367). Therefore, Christianity according to Luke, was a continuation

of the Jewish faith but this time with Gentiles being included in God’s plan. The issues

discussed above are events which led to the convening of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

79
4.2 Reconstructing Events of Acts 15 from Social identity Complexity (SIC)
This section explores Acts 15:1-35 from a social identity complexity perspective. Major

sections to be considered are 1-5, 6-21, and 22-35. First to be considered are verses 1-5. This

section presents the problem that led to the council with verses 1-2 focusing on the situation

in Antioch whereas verses 4-5 deal with the arrival of delegates in Jerusalem. Section 6-18

focuses on the discussion and the resolution that was made by the delegates at the council.

The last section to be investigated is 22-35 and this comprises the writing (22-29) and

sending of the letter to different congregations with representatives (30-35).

4.2.1 Compartmentalised Identities: Acts 15: 1-5

This group probably comprised Judaisers who were strict observers of the Mosaic Law. The

Judaisers believed in the centrality of other specific laws like circumcision, observing the

Sabbath and the Passover. Peter is a very important character to consider when examining the

compartmentalisation identities in Acts 15. Peter in Acts and Galatians is presented as a

leader of the early Church. He was a Jew who belonged to a major ethnic Judean section of

the Christ-following movement (Kok, 2014). As a leader, Peter was very particular about the

values and norms of the group he belonged to. Peter knew very well the dietary laws of the

Jews; that Judeans could not share the same table with non-Jews (Freeman, 2011:17). This

social phenomenon was regulated by the Jewish Law (Mosaic Law Acts 15). For the Jews,

there were just two worlds; that is the world of the Jews and that of the non-Jews. At the

Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 which took place in 48/49 A.D. (Keener, 2012; Story, 2010).

Paul and the Jerusalem apostles made an agreement that it would not be necessary for Gentile

converts to be circumcised and observe the Mosaic Law before they were accepted into the

Jewish Christianity (Hansen, 2010:69). If this agreement had not been done, there could have

been two different Christian communities, one led by Peter, James and John (Jerusalem

Church) and a Gentile Church (Antiochene Church) headed by Paul. In these two

80
communities the Gentile Christians were a minority. The Jerusalem community comprised

mainly of the Jewish-Christ followers or people of the way.

Peter is a character that activated multiple identities and conveyed those identities

contextually. Peter could have interacted with the Gentile believers according to the needs of

the context thus showing some evidence of social identity complexity and inclusivity that

went outside the Jewish exclusive social identity boundaries. But when pressure mounted

from the Jerusalem church, Peter had no choice but to revert to another exclusive social

position. In this case, Peter appears to have compartmentalised his social identity according

to the requirements of a specific situation. Kok (2014:7) rightly asserts that “[o]ne moment he

could act as the inclusive ‘Antiochean Peter’ and the next he acted as the exclusive

ethnocentric ‘Jerusalem Peter’ which seems to have been the dominant identity at that point

in time”. When the pressure escalated from his exclusive ethnic social group, Peter showed

the ‘implicit hierarchy in his own social identity’ (Kok, 2014:7). It was a great opportunity

for Peter to correct the representatives from Judea, but he did not. Instead, Peter chose his

social identity as a Jew to take precedence and excluded those he had socialised with in the

recent past and he erected social boundaries between him and them. These were events which

were brewing the conflict at Antioch between Paul and the Jewish Christians that necessitated

the convening of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 (Witherington, 1998; Schnabel, 2005).

The major reason for convening the conference in Jerusalem was to try and resolve the

conflict between these two social groups. The said conflict was based on the requirements

that the Gentiles had to observe... before they could be accepted into the Jewish Christian

community.

81
The Judean social group had some overlaps with the Hellenistic Jews especially on observing

the Mosaic Law, circumcision, and dietary laws. The Judaisers and Hellenistic Jews could

also worship in synagogues. However, Hellenistic Jews were not as strict as Judaisers in

observing the Mosaic Law. In addition, the God-Fearers were another social and religious

category which had some overlap with Judaisers. God-Fearers were different from Gentile

Christians. God-Fearers worshipped with Judaisers in synagogues but they were not fully

converted into Judaism as they avoided circumcision. In this case, the Judaisers became the

major social category within these mentioned groups. While the Jewish Christians, Gentiles

Christians and God-Fearers remained primary groups in other contexts. Jews activated a

number of identities and demonstrated those identities contextually among Hellenistic Jews,

Gentile Christians and God-Fearers.

At the Jerusalem Council, the major conflict was caused by the crossing of social identity

markers which were the requirements for Gentile admission into salvation. The other element

that precipitated conflict was the social boundary marker of the observance of the Law of

Moses (15:5). The Pharisees at the Jerusalem Council did not only demand the Gentiles to

adhere to circumcision but also to cross their social boundaries to follow the stipulations of

the Torah. This caused conflict between the Gentile and Jewish Christians because it was

very difficult for Gentiles to break their social boundary markers in order to follow the

Jewish Law. The problem hinged on circumcision as a necessary prerequisite for Gentile

Christians to be accepted into Jewish Christianity as a social group. According to Story

(2011:39), this conflict started in Antioch where certain men from Judea advocated the

upholding of the norms and values of Jewish identity and these taught that circumcision was

the gateway to salvation for Gentile Christians. In Acts 15:1, the phrase “… some men

coming down from Judea…” could mean those who came to Antioch from the James party

82
(Gal 2:12). These men could have been Judaisers who might have come to Antioch to enforce

their values and norms as a social group. They also wanted to maintain their social and

religious boundaries against the Gentiles. The other possibility could be that there could have

been “false brothers secretly brought” in Galatians 2:4 probably to spy on Paul’s mission to

the Gentiles (Keener, 2014:2211; Pervo, 2009:370; Bock, 2007:545; Bruce, 1998:268;

Witherington, 1998:450; Haenchen, 1971:443; Metzger, 1975:426). In verses 1-5, Metzger

(1971:426) posits that the Western text introduced a variety of changes to these verses; for

example, in verse 1, (άπό της αϊρέσεως τών Φαριαίίων, Ψ 614 1799 2412 syrhmg). In addition,

“the practice of Moses” (τώ έθει Μωΰσέως) has exegetical problems. According to Pervo

(2009:371); Bock (2007:494); Witherington (1998:450), this phrase is in a dative case of

cause and effect or rule which means “because of the custom of Moses” or “according to the

custom of Moses.” The phrase may refer to Jewish tradition, but this is not certain because

the command to be circumcised was coming directly from the Law given in relation to the

Patriarch of Abraham (Gen. 17:10-14). The Law of Moses and circumcision were the social

identity markers which were meant to keep the Gentiles excluded from the Christian

community. The exclusiveness of the Jews against the Gentiles shows their

compartmentalisation. Keener (2014:2221);Story (2011:38); Bruce (1998:286) argue that this

phrase has been widely used by Luke in verses like Luke1:9; 2:42; 22:39; Acts 6:14; 15:1;

16:21; 21:21; 25:16; 26:3 and 28:17 in light of “the whole of the cultic law attributed to

Moses.” Pervo (2009:372); Segal (2001:64); Witherington (1998:450); Haenchen (1971:443)

also pointed out that there are a variety of views within Judaism and Jewish Pharisaism

concerning the place of Gentiles in God’s plan. It can be pointed out that Luke may have

wanted to be inclusive in both his Gospel and Acts. Luke could have wanted to put the

Gentiles in God’s universal salvific plan. However, there is no agreement on either policy or

status of the Gentiles in salvation history.

83
There was tension and debate (στάσεως και ζητήσεως) because Paul and Barnabas did not

agree with the Judeans on their approach to the Gentile mission (Keener, 2014:2222; Bock,

2007:495; Story, 2010:42). According to social identity complexity, the tension here could

have been caused by two social groups which had different social norms and values which

each group wanted to uphold. The use of the verbs which promote dissension is echoed by

Danker and Gingrich (1983:185) who suggested a number of words with a similar meaning

which include uprising, riot, revolt, rebellion, strife, discord, and dispute. A critical analysis

of these words reveals that there was conflict and strife at Antioch. According to Keener

(2014:2223); Bock (2007:495); Witherington (1998:443), because of the intensity of the

conflict, they then decided to go to Jerusalem for a conference over the issue. The solution to

the problem could not come from Paul and Barnabas and those who opposed them but from

the apostles and elders (άποστόλους καί πρεσβυτέρους) who would adjudicate on the crucial

question of the Jew-Gentile relationship.

There are debates on the texts concerning the movement of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch

to Jerusalem. The Western text is different from the B-text. According to the B-text, certain

unknown people “arranged” (έταξαν) for Barnabas and Paul to go to Jerusalem (Metzger

1971:427). That the B-text seems to support Paul may imply that it originated in Antioch.

That means the B-text could have been in the same social category of inclusivity and

pluralism. In the D-text, the envoys from Jerusalem “ordered” (παρήγγειλαν) Barnabas and

Paul to go to Jerusalem and present their case to the apostles and elders. The D-text could

represent the Jerusalem church probably because of its exclusiveness. Therefore, it is not

clear whether or not the envoy from Jerusalem had the mandate to do so. There is a

probability that the B-text could be reflecting Paul’s views whereas the D-text reflects the

position of the Jerusalem church (Metzger 1971:437). The implication of this disparity

84
between the two texts is that there probably were different values and norms between each

respective social group.

Paul and Barnabas were journeying (διήρχονο) (which is in the imperfect tense showing

incomplete action) to Jerusalem, passing through Phoenicia and Samaria, reporting

(έκδιηγέομοι) their mission to the Gentiles. The term “report” (έκδιηγρέομαι) sets the tone

for the Jerusalem Council which was to follow. Bock (2007:495); Pervo (2009:372) call this

journey a “campaign trip” for the upcoming council. They (Paul and Barnabas) were

probably campaigning because they wanted the outcome of the Jerusalem Council to favour

the Gentile mission.

Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem and were received well received (παρεδέχθησαν) by

the church, apostles, and elders. It is probable that Paul and Barnabas had a good reception in

Jerusalem because both had a Jewish background. They were welcomed back home. So they

belonged to the same social category. The use of (άπό) shows the agent (B C 36a

94 307 326 431 1175): which implies that reception was by means of the church (Keener,

2014:2223; Pervo, 2009:374; Bock, 2007:496; Witherington, 1998:453; Fitzmyer, 1998:545).

Paul and Barnabas made a report (άνήγγειλαν) on “all that God had done through them.” The

use of (άνήγγειλαν) in the aorist tense indicates they had completed their evangelisation. The

good reception was from the rest of the church but others had to rise up (έξανέστησαν) in

protest against Paul and Barnabas. According to Bock (2007:496), the party which

complained was probably the Jewish believers who had a Pharisaic background. The term

“party” (αίρέσεως) could refer to a smaller group with a different social category and

religious beliefs (Keener, 2014:2224; Bock, 2007:496). This social group made two demands:

85
First, those Gentiles should be circumcised and second, that they should keep the law as

indicated in verse 1. Luke uses the term (δεί) which means it is necessary for Gentiles to keep

the law thus implying that such compliance is a divine necessity (Bock, 2007:496). The

Pharisees thought that Gentiles should be Jewish proselytes. The Pharisees were a social

group which was stricter than other Judaisers in observing the Mosaic Law. The Pharisees’

utterances show that they were not prepared to see their social boundary markers being

destroyed by accepting the other the Gentile social group. The Pharisees probably did not

want the Gentiles to be in their social category. However, the deliberations of the council

ushered in a new dispensation by approving Gentile mission without circumcision and

observance of the law.

Acts 15:5 reiterates the problem which was introduced in verse 1 but with some more detail

similar to Gal. 5:2-3 where Paul asserts that circumcision should be observed as part of the

law (Keener, 2014:2224; Bock, 2007:495). Therefore, all the laws had to be observed for one

to be saved. The views of the Pharisees could be rooted in the claims made in Gen. 17:10-14

and Deut. 5:28-33 which emphasise the importance of observing the law (Fitzmyer,

1998:546). The other element that precipitated conflict is the social boundary marker of the

observance of the Law of Moses (15:5). The Pharisees at the Jerusalem Council did not only

demand the Gentiles to adhere to circumcision but also to cross their social boundaries and

follow the stipulations of the Torah. This shows the exclusiveness of the Pharisees towards

the Gentile Christians.

In this section, it was observed that from the Maccabean period (Macc.1:10-15), Jews

remained focused on their social boundary markers by keeping the law. Nevertheless, the

86
question to be asked is whether the Gentiles could have faith in Jesus and still continue to

observe the Torah for them to get salvation. The question is not whether Gentiles should be

accepted in the Christian community, but the precise requirements for their inclusion. Would

the Gentiles assume a new social identity if they were accepted in the Jewish Christian

community? This section emphasised compartmentalisation by Judaisers against other social

groupings. The next sections (6-21) examine the deliberations of the resolution of the conflict

from a merger perspective.

4.2.2 Merger Identities: Acts 15:6-21

This section comprises three social groups who presented what brought them to the

conference in Jerusalem. What is also evident is that all the three social groups in this section

have a Jewish background, but now represent different social categories. Peter, a Jew by

birth, and was a leader of the twelve disciples of Jesus. At some point he was the leader of the

Church during its inception (Acts 2). However, it’s not clear how James took over the

leadership of the Church in Jerusalem. Both Paul and Barnabas had Jewish background. Paul

was actually a teacher of the law which implied that he was a more conservative Judean. As

the Christian movement developed, especially when Paul appeared on the scene, more and

more Gentiles were converted. Paul’s voice of inclusivity was insignificant since the

movement was in its infancy (Kok, 2014). Paul’s personal development and his social

identity were typified by plurality and social identity complexity. Though Paul’s historicity

is not very clear, there is however general agreement in Acts that he grew up in Tarsus as a

Diaspora Jew (Acts 22:3). At a later stage, he went to Jerusalem where he was educated

under Gamalial, a well known teacher of oral law (Neyrey, 1995). A few years after the death

of Jesus Christ, he had an experience on the way to Damascus which radically changed his

life (Kok, 2014). He experienced some form of revelation which changed his social identity

87
and a sense of inclusiveness (Acts 9; Karyakina, 2014:106-114). It can be argued that Paul’s

social identity may have been complex precisely because of the diverse environments which

influenced his life. Paul himself argued that he once embodied an exclusive Judean identity

as shown by what he said in Philippians 3:4-6. After his conversion, he could see the

boundary lines between insiders and outsiders. While in Antioch, Paul assumed a new social

identity different from Judaism. Paul’s approach in his gospel changed from being (Torah

observant) exclusive to (Law-free gospel) which is inclusive. The change in Paul’s approach

in his gospel created conflict between the Antiochean and the Jerusalem Church. The conflict

led to the Jerusalem Council being convened in order to resolve the problem.

James was a representative of Judaism as a social group. James belonged to a social group

which was exclusive of non-Jews. He was the leader of the Jewish Church in Jerusalem.

These three social groups, represented by Peter, Paul and Barnabas and James, overlapped in

that they all debated, deliberated and agreed on how to accept the Gentiles into the Christian

community. It can be noted that the three groups were recognized at the same time at the

Jerusalem Council and they were inclusive in their approach to the problem.

The section of Acts 15:6-21summarises the debate which was characterised by a series of key

speakers namely Peter (15:7b-11), Barnabas and Paul (15:12), and James who resolved the

matter (15:13-21). The debate resulted in the formulation of the apostolic decree. This section

shows the plurality and social identity complexity among Peter, Paul and Barnabas on the one

hand and James on the other. Barrett (1998:709) correctly notes that the wide-ranging spread

of the gospel to the Gentile world was a result of the Council’s decision. It is also Luke’s

88
major concern to restore the house of Israel in both the gospel and Acts. God had a salvific

plan to include both Jews and Gentiles.

In Acts 15:6, after (πρεσβΰτεροι) 614 1799 2412, syrh Ephraem added the words (σΰν τώ

πλήθει) meaning with the congregation. The gloss could have been necessitated by verses 12

and 22 where there is reference made to “assembly” and “the whole church” (Metzger,

1971:428). The elders and apostles met to deliberate over the question of how the Gentiles

could be accepted into the Christian community. The issue at stake was to be inclusive and

plural rather than drawing social boundaries between elders and apostles on one side and

Gentiles on the other. The text literally talks of “looking at the matter” (ίδείν περί τοΰ λόγου

τοΰτου) (Keener, 2014:2230; Bock, 2007:499). The entire community engagement in solving

the problem is reminiscent of Acts 6:1-2.

Peter made his presentation to the council by giving his purview of the Cornelius incident.

The Cornelius event shows that Peter had already crossed his Judean social and religious

boundaries in order to minister to him (Cornelius). According to Bock (2007:499), this was

the third time that Luke made reference to the event thus showing its significance (Acts10;

11:1-18). Peter stood up to make his speech after much debate (ζητήσεως). The repetition of

the Cornelius event signifies that it was important for the Church to accept Gentiles in the

Christian community. This debate probably denotes a real conflict and an exchange of words

which was characterised by dissension and strife. The debate reflects an opportunity for

compromise where the social groups could give and take views on their social and identity

boundaries. Metzger (1971:428) argues that in order to give Peter’s speech more credibility

different Western witnesses added before or after Πέτρος, “in the (Holy) Spirit” (έν πνεΰματι,

89
D; + άγίώ 614 1799 2412 syrhmg Tertullian Ephraem). The Western witnesses supported

Peter’s inclusive approach to the Gentile Christians which was started by the Cornelius

incident. In his speech, Peter goes to the “days of the beginning” (άφ’ ήμερών άρχαίων)

which may imply the start of the earliest events regarding Gentiles. It is possible that Peter

was referring to the original plan of God. Luke embraces an inclusive universal salvation of

both Jews and Gentiles. In this scenario, Peter makes it clear that God welcomes both Jews

and Gentiles in his Kingdom. This removes the man-made social and religious boundary

markers which existed between Jews and Gentiles. Peter’s presentation laid a foundation for

inclusivity and plurality at the Jerusalem Council.

Peter also indicated that the idea of bringing Gentiles into the Christian community was

divinely initiated. There is a change to first person pronoun (έν ΰμίν έξελέξάτο ό θεός, D Ψ

326 614 629 2412 it67 vgww) which appears to indicate that it was more in agreement with the

church’s politeness for Peter to define God’s choice as from “us [the prophets]” than from

“you [the whole church]” (Metzger, 1971:428). From a social identity complexity viewpoint,

for Peter to appeal to the idea of the Holy Spirit as the initiator of the removal of the social

and religious boundaries between Judeans and Gentiles was a way of pushing for the

acceptance of the Gentiles into the Christian community. It is also probable that Peter, being

a Jewish Christian, did not want to be seen as someone initiating the acceptance of the

Gentiles into their movement. The Textus Receptus rearranged the words in a normal way

following E H L P 049: ό θεός έν ΰμίν έξελέξάτο (Metzger, 1971:428). The use of ‘God

chose’ (έξελέξάτο) Peter to minister to the Gentiles, occurs few times in Acts (1:24; 13:17;

Keener, 2014:2233); Bock, 2007:500). Peter was an apostle who brought Gentiles to faith

without being circumcised and they were filled with the Spirit. The implication is that if the

Gentiles were not accepted the Spirit could not have descended and dwelt in them. It is the

90
Spirit which destroyed the boundaries which existed between the Jews and Gentiles. The

noun (εΰαγγέλιον) is used for the first time in Acts and is used for the second time in Acts

20:24 (Bock, 2007:500). The noun was used by Peter to show how Gentiles responded to the

Gospel as faith. Peter concluded that God equally accepted both Jews and Gentiles which was

similar to what he had said to Cornelius in Acts 10:34-35. Peter also made it clear that there

was no distinction between Jews and Gentile in as far as salvation was concerned.

Peter in verse 9 begins by posing a rhetorical question; “[w]hy do you test God?” (Τί

πειράζετετόν θειόν). The expression “to challenge” was used in Mt 4:7 and Lk 4:12. Using

the term ‘challenge’ could imply a situation in which the Jews were testing or contesting God

in not accepting the Gentiles into the Christian community. In addition, the narrators, through

James’ speech, understand that the prohibitive hassle is a practice of “harassment”

(παρενοχλεί). Johnson (1992:226) translated this word harassment as “cause trouble,

difficulty, and annoy.” The words ‘testing’, ‘challenging’, harassing God were used by Peter

to argue that Judeans should not test God by forcing Gentiles to observe the Mosaic Law. It

was God’s plan to include the Gentiles in the Christian community without observing the

Law. Peter cautioned the Jews (Pharisees’ party) not to test God through this rhetoric

question because God had cleansed their hearts without circumcision. According to Peter,

circumcision should not be a prerequisite for Gentiles to be accepted into the Christian

community. Bock (2007:501); Barrett (1998:717); Fitzmyer (1998:547; Exod. 17:2; Num.

14:22; Acts 5:9), the question of testing God was a stern warning to the Pharisees’ party

because those who grumbled could not continue to follow and trust God.

91
The demand which was expressed by Jewish traditionalist can be viewed as a “yoke (ζυγός)

that neither we nor our fathers have been able to obey” (15:10). The same complaint is also

found in v. 28 as a “burden” (βάρος) (Keener, 2014:2235; Bock, 2007:501; De Villiers,

2013:146; Barrett, 2002:719; Haenchen, 1987:429). According to De Villiers (2013:146), the

Jerusalem church did not want to “burden” the Gentiles with the requirements of Jewish

Christianity for them to be accepted into the Christian community. The burden and yoke were

the Jewish social and religious boundary markers which were imposed on Gentiles to observe

against their will. These expressions may probably reflect the time and environment in which

Acts was written. It can also be argued that the harsh sense of “yoke” and “burden” are used

in a similar way as in Mt 11:28-30; 23:4. However, scholars such as Keener (2014:2236); Le

Cornu and Shulam (2003:823); Gaventa (2003:216); Jervell (1998:292) view the idea of the

yoke (ζυγός) positively. These above- mentioned scholars believe that Peter did not denigrate

the law but meant that the law be yoked together as one and kept. The implication is that both

Jews and Gentiles were equally to benefit from the grace of God (Keener, 2014:2237; Bock,

2007:501). Scholars such as Witherington (1998:454); Barrett (1998:719) and Bruce

(1998:290) do not agree that the yoke should be understood positively but argue that it should

be viewed figuratively. The idea of the yoke should indeed not be viewed as positive for the

Gentiles because of the preceding context where the Pharisee’s party was challenging God by

demanding that the Gentiles observe their social and religious boundaries of the law and

circumcision. Such a sentiment sounds or reflects Pauline in its outlook.

Peter concludes his presentation by recognizing that the salvation of the Jews was based on

the grace in Christ. So there was no need to create social and religious boundaries for the

Gentiles. The implication was that salvation was not as a result of the works of the law as the

Pharisee party insisted. The grace of the Lord Jesus meant that He opened a new social

identity for both Jews and Gentiles to experience God’s blessings. Therefore, the law as a

92
social and religious boundary had no place in salvation. Peter advocated unity, inclusivity

and plurality of all social groups who were at the conference. The Gentiles had a new social

identity of having faith in Jesus. In this case, Peter wanted to transcend social boundaries that

went beyond the ethnic borders. The implication was that both Jews and Gentiles should

equally benefit from the grace of God (Keener, 2014:2237; Bock, 2007:501). Peter was the

first delegate at the conference of Jerusalem to break the Jewish social boundaries and

approve the inclusion of the Gentile Christians into the Jewish community. This could have

been precisely because of the vision which he had received from God in Acts 10:1ff where he

was ordered to kill and eat animals that were on a white sheet. This may be interpreted as

God ordering Peter to also preach to the Gentiles as he was an apostle for the Jews.

According to Keener (2014:2234); Bock (2007:502); Bruce (1998:291), Peter disappears

from the scene from this point in the book of Acts thus paving the way for Paul’s missionary

work.

In order to boost the prestige of Peter, some Western witness (D syrh with * Ephraem) added words

at the beginning of the verse συνκατατεθεμένων δέ τών πρεσβυτέρων τοίς ΰπό τοϋ Πέτρου

είρημένοις (“And when the elders assented to what had been spoken by Peter”) (Metzger,

1971:429). The use of an ingressive aorist (έσίγησεν) shows the silence of the assembly after

Peter’s presentation (Bock, 2007:502). It is possible that the delegates were surprised by the

way Peter articulated issues in his presentation for the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Jewish

community. In this case, Peter had pushed a motion of plurality and inclusivity with the

Gentiles. Peter’s speech created fertile ground for Paul and Barnabas’ presentations to the

council.

93
This is where Barnabas and Paul made their presentations and contributions to the council.

Paul and Barnabas’s social identities overlapped while they were in the Gentile communities

where they were ministering. They reported how God used them to perform signs Acts 2:22,

43) among the Gentiles. According to Barrett (1998:721), the fact that miracles were

performed among the Gentiles shows the divine approval for their (Gentiles) inclusion into

the Christian community. Barnabas and Paul’s social identity was complex because they

mingled with a variety of social group memberships. Bock (2007:501) argues that it is this

incident and Acts 15:25 where Barnabas is named first.

In Acts 15:13 James, who upheld the values and norms of Jewish Christianity in Jerusalem,

had the chance to address the conference and support Peter in removing Jewish social identity

boundaries for the Gentiles to be part and parcel of the Christian community. According to

Keener (2014:2244); Bock (2007:502); Barrett (1998:722); Fitzmyer (1998:552), James’ use

of (μετά) and the infinitive shows the timing of his presentation after Peter. James made

reference to Peter by his Jewish name, Simeon. The reference may imply that they were in

the same social category as Jews. Fitzmyer (1998:553) is of the idea that in the original

source this could have been Simeon Niger of Acts 13:1. However, this connection may not be

tenable because there is no evidence to corroborate this claim. James supported Peter’s

speech by using the verb narrate (έξηγέομαι) in the same way the noun narrative (διήγησις) is

used in Luke 1:1. James stressed that God had received the Gentiles (λαβείν έξ έθνών) in His

kingdom and that they would be evangelising to the whole world. In the presentations of

Peter, Paul and Barnabas and then James, there seems to be overlaps and agreement in as far

as the inclusion of the Gentiles is concerned. The acceptance of the Gentiles into the

Christian community was divinely initiated. It was God who was removing the social

boundary markers that were there between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

94
James’ use of the term “people” (λαός) is significant because it is often used to refer to the

people of God (Acts 7:34; 13:17) as in this context. The term people could connote both Jews

and Gentiles as the people of God. However, in the Old Testament it was used to refer to

Israel (Deut., 26:18-19; 32:8-9; Ps. 134:12; Keener, 2014:2244; Bock, 2007:504; Bruce,

1988:291). In this context, the term people may also mean a restoration of the people of Israel

with Gentiles included. According to Barrett (1998:742), it could have been used to refer to

Gentiles in the same way it was used to refer to Israel. The phrase “people for my name” is

not in the LXX, but is used many times in the Palestinian Targum and this could suggest

traces of an idiom which was commonly used in Jewish contexts even if its reference to

Gentiles is surprising. Another significant term is έπισκέπτομαι (visit) which refers to the

messianic visitation which God directed (Luke 1:68, 78; 7:16; 19:44; Bock, 2007:503). This

passage argues that ‘the people of God’ could be a new social identity which God had

created, the church. According to Keener (2014:2244); Bock (2007:503); Jervell (1998:394),

the passage is not completely about Israel, but it shows the rebuilding of the Davidic house

and the establishment of the new kingdom which Jesus started. It may be pointed out that it is

difficult to move away from Israel opting for the rebuilding of the House of David because its

difficult to separate the two. Luke appears to be focusing his gospel on everybody in the

world and this is inclusive of the Gentiles.

James argues that the teaching of the prophets agrees or matches with the inclusion of the

Gentiles into the Christian community. The verb (συμφωνουσιν) literally means “share the

same sound” (Bock, 2007:503; Fitzmyer, 1998:554). This should be understood in the

context of the fulfilment of the prophets. This is in agreement with what Peter said in his

presentation to the delegates at the conference (Keener, 2014:2246; Story, 2010:53; Bock,

2007:503; Jervell, 1998:395; Witherington, 1998:458). This term was also used in Luke with

95
reference to Ananias and Sapphira’s agreement to deceive the church (Acts 5:9). James’s

quotation matches Amos 9:11-12 with verse 12 of the Masoretic Text (MT thereafter) which

refers to Edom and its judgement as well as its inclusion during the restoration of David’s

rule (Story, 2010:53; Pervo, 2009:374; Bock, 2007:503). As Fitzmyer (1998:555) notes:

“Yahweh promises the prophet that the Davidic line will be restored, and God’s people will

inherit what is left of Edom and other nations will be called God’s people.” In the Septuagint

(LXX thereafter) all the people looked forward to the rebuilding of the kingdom after the

restoration of the Davidic house. In this sense, Edom may refer to all humanity (Keener,

2014:2247, 2254; Pervo, 2009:375; Bock, 2007:504; Witherington, 1998:459; Haenchen,

1985:448). The major difference is that in the MT a social group of people is conquered and

unified but in the LXX all people are pursuing inclusivity, integration, plurality and

incorporation which are in tandem with merger model.

It appears there is wordplay between these two sets of words; possess and seek, and Edom

and Adam because of their similarity in sounds. Keener (2014:2254); Story (2010:53); Pervo

(2009:375); Bock (2007:504); Witherington (1998:459); Haenchen (1985:448), note that the

changes in Hebrew words made a shift from the LXX which misread the verb “possess”

(yaras) for the verb “seek” (daras) and Edom to Adam. It is probable that the similarities in

these words may have caused confusion with translation of the Hebrew. According to Le

Cornu and Shulam (2003:833), this wordplay is called “al tikri.” Story (2010:53) and Bock

(2007:504) argue that the LXX is nearer to the original Hebrew whereas the MT could have

been corrupted. However, Witherington (1998:459) views this as a possibility but one that is

unlikely. Witherington (1998:457) calls this form “deliberative rhetoric.” James could have

used the shortest version of the LXX and adhered to the Jewish practise of avoiding citing the

MT by using alternative texts. From a textual critical approach, it can be argued that the

96
shorter the text the closer it is from the original. Story (2010:54) and Pervo (2006:376) agree

to accept the LXX contrary to Haenchen (1985:448) who claims that the Jewish Christians

would not use such a text.

James considerately cited the LXX in his debate knowing that the Gentiles would identify

with it. According to James, the restoration of the house of David and Jesus’ messianic

arrival led to the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Christian community. The Gentiles were

now benefiting from being categorized together with Jewish Christians. The Gentiles had

assumed a new social identity in the Christian community. According to Bock (2007:505);

Parsons and Pervo (2005:214); Bauckham (2005:138), the reference to “nations” is in

agreement with verse 14 where the Jewish link-word technique gezerah Shewa resurfaces

again in the Amos text. The phrase, “called by my name” meant that the Gentiles were also

part of the Christian community and God was actively involved in their life by calling them

to faith (Keener, 2014:2252; Pervo, 2009:376; Witherington, 1998:459). The new way of

accepting the Gentiles in the Christian community was revealed from the old promise in the

Old Testament. The use of the phrase “known from old” (γνωστα άπ’ αίώνοος) recalls Isaiah

45:21 which implied that the Old Testament texts also talked about Gentile inclusion as

God’s plan.

The debate at the council, led by James, centred on a compromise decision so that there

would be inclusivity that would remove the social boundary markers between Jewish and

Gentile Christians. This would enable Jewish and Gentile Christians to fellowship together.

In his presentation, James begins by (διό έγώ κρίνω) which means “I therefore judge”. This

interpretation is disputed by Keener (2014:2259); Story (2010:55); Pervo (2009:376). The

97
suggested meanings range from “I therefore conclude…,” “I therefore decree” to “I judge”.

The weaker suggestion would be, James “makes a recommendation;” in a stronger way, “he

pronounces a decision” (Pervo, 2009:376). What works in the favour of the weaker

suggestion is the use of the verb in other situations in Acts such as Acts 13:46; 16:15; 28:8

(Fitzmyer, 1998:556; Haenchen, 1985:449). From a social identity complexity dimension,

whichever translation is rendered here is not a big question. The issue is that James’

proclamation or conclusion ushered a new dispensation of social identities which was

characterised by inclusivity that transcended boundaries. It also brought overlap of identities

among different ethnic and social groups and led to the adoption of the Apostolic decree by

the conference. The most probable translation would be in agreement with the context that

the pronoun “we” should be appropriate for the recommendation and the subject “write” is

missing. Other translations usually such as NIV, NRSV, NAB, and NJB usually add “we.”

Therefore, the decision was made by the council with the authority of James as a leader.

James argued that the Gentiles who turn to God should not be burdened with Judean social

boundary markers of the Mosaic Law. The verb (παρενοχλέω) means “unnecessary trouble or

difficulty” (Bock, 2007:505). In this context, James was in agreement with what Peter said in

verse 10. It is quite interesting to note that Peter and James were at the forefront of the

integration of the Gentiles and Jewish Christians when they used to be exclusive as Judeans.

The council through James requested the Gentiles to be sensitive to the four most offensive

things to the Jews namely, pollution, immorality, strangled things, and blood matters. The

things which were itemized as requirements were not prerequisites for salvation but

conditions that facilitated fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Adhering to the

prohibitions would reduce cultural and ethnic conflicts which existed for a long time between

Jews and Gentiles. The use of the verb (άπέχω) means “avoid contact” with something

98
(Keener, 2014:2260; Story, 2010:55; Instone-Brewer, 2009:304; Bock, 2007:505). The four

prohibitions are known as the “Apostolic Decree” (Instone-Brewer, 2009:304). The list of the

prohibitions mentioned above shows the exegetical problems and there are also variations in

Acts 15:20, 15:29, and 21:25. Acts 15:29 has minor variations from Acts 15:20, but Acts

21:25 has other variations.

Acts 15:20 άλισγημάτων τών είδώλων πορνείας πνικτού αϊματος

Acts 15:29 είδωλόθυτων αϊματος πνικτών πορνείας

Acts 21:25 είδωλόθυτον αϊμα πνικτον πορνείαν

According to Park (2010:279), some manuscripts tried to synchronize these three lists. For

instance, minuscule (945, 1739, 1891) adjusted the order of ‘blood’ in 15:20 from the fourth

to the second. The number of ‘strangled things’ in 15:29 changes from plural to singular to

become “the second, the third, the fourth items the same in the three lists” (Instone-Brewer,

2009:304). Savelle (2004:450) and Metzger (1994:382) have asserted that the number of

‘things strangled’ can be found in a variety of manuscripts such as P74, Ac, ‫א‬c, E H L P Ψ

049 056 1 33 88 and many others. However, scholars such as Keener (2012:2276); Park

(2010:279); Bock (2007:506); Metzger (1994:382) would prefer to view the variants

approved in NA27 and UBS4 as closer to the original as they are shorter than the rest.

The decision at the Jerusalem Council was a way of opening doors for fellowship between

the two social groups, the Jewish and gentile Christians. That is why some scholars such as

Haenchen (1985:442) and Story (2011:50) describe the decision at the Jerusalem Council as a

“watershed” and a “turning point” respectively because it sought to resolve a long standing

99
conflict between Jews and non-Jews. The decision destroyed the social and boundary markers

that existed for decades between Jewish and Gentile Christians. There was therefore a

development of an attitude of inclusivity that “transcended boundaries instead of drawing

boundaries” (Kok, 2014:7). This is evidenced by what Paul said in Galatians 3:28 where he

underscored that: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave or master, there is

no longer male or female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus”. In this context, Luke was

concerned about the issue of social cohesion and inclusivity that went beyond the social and

other boundaries that became a possibility through Christ. In this community, Luke was

suggesting that the community was now a brand new created entity where man-made

boundaries had been removed. The new community was characterised by faith. The removal

of the old social boundary lines which were between Jews and Greeks, slaves and master

brought a new integrated social order (represented by a merger model) which took

cognisance of God’s mega plan for a new creation (Galatians, 6:15). There was social identity

complexity because of the removal of the social boundary markers. For the first time ever,

table fellowship was possible between the Jewish and Gentile Christians.

This section, Acts 15:22-29, is where the Jerusalem Council resorted to writing a letter to

Antioch, Syria and Cilicia announcing its resolution pertaining to the inclusion of the

Gentiles into the Jewish community. There was a new vision that symbolised the heart of a

new community where boundaries had been transcended for the benefit of all the people. The

letter was written by the Jerusalem Council to different assemblies announcing a new

structure of unity that rejected social and cultural barriers from the past that divided people

from each other. The use of άδειφοι adeiphoi, (brethren) and adelphois (brothers) in the letter

is significant. This is the first time that this title is used to address the Gentiles in the book of

Acts (Jervell, 1998:400). The implication is that there was a new social and religious order in

100
the community of Luke where Gentiles were taken as having a new social identity and were

being included in the Christian community. The Jerusalem Council paved the way for the

inclusion of Gentiles in the Jewish community. The decision at the Council was reached after

careful debate, respect for others, listening with an open mind, willingness to compromise,

giving up one’s interest, and willingness to allow others into one’s safe haven. There is a

repeatedly used expression “it seemed good” (edoxe) in verses 22, 25 and 28 in the letter in

reference to the judgement that was made by the Council. The decision was based on both

human and divine testimony which was in tandem with the doctrine of the Old Testament.

What was now important was the implementation of the decision. The initial step which the

Council took was to document their decision and to select men who would accompany Paul

and Barnabas with the letter as witnesses of what transpired at the Council. The apostles and

elders agreed with the solution (homothymadon, that may mean of one accord) which was

reached (Bock, 2007:512). They were also agreed on the people who were selected to

accompany the “beloved” (agapetois) to relay the information to the Gentile Churches. The

two men, Barnabas and Paul, did some magnificent work and risked their lives for the church.

The verb (paradidomi) which means “give over” points to the fact that Barnabas and Paul

were willing to lose their lives life for the Lord Jesus Christ (Barrett, 1998:472). The letter

was addressed to churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. The letter articulated what the

Gentile Christians were required to do. Two men, Judas and Silas, were selected by the

council to accompany Paul and Barnabas. The letter emphasised that Gentiles had been

accepted into the Jewish community and could fellowship together as long as the Gentiles

observed the prohibition of the Apostolic decree. Gentiles were not compelled to observe the

Mosaic Law and be circumcised.

101
Hansen (2010:71) has argued that; “the truth of the gospel was brought about by a new

eschatological reality and a new creation, which inevitably implied unrestricted social

intercourse and the visible expression of that reality in practice”. This actually meant that all

people from different social groups, backgrounds and cultures would be viewed as a single

social group, that is, the church. Therefore, this fits well with the merger model which

symbolizes a high level of social identity complexity.

4.2.3 Intersectionality Identities

The focus of this section is to explore how Jewish Christians, Judeans, Hellenistic Jews and

Gentile Christians intersect. At the Jerusalem Council is where Jewish Christians were

demanding that the Gentile Christians should become Jews first before they could be

accepted into the Jewish community. The Jewish Christians who did not share the common

category would still maintain their original social identity of being exclusive against other

social identities such as Gentile Christians. That is why Jewish hardliners insisted that

Gentiles should be circumcised and observe the Mosaic Law (Acts, 15:1). This resulted in

serious tension and debate (στάσεως και ζητήσεως) because Paul and Barnabas did not agree

with the Judeans on their approach to the Gentile mission (Acts, 15:2; Keener, 2014:2222;

Bock, 2007:495). The Judaisers demanded that the other part of the out-group (Gentile

Christian) should observe the Law of Moses (15:5). The Pharisees at the Jerusalem Council

did not only demand the Gentiles to adhere to circumcision but also to cross their social

boundaries and follow the stipulations of the Torah. This caused conflict between the Gentile

and Jewish Christians because it was very difficult for Gentiles to break their social boundary

markers in order to follow the Jewish Law. Even the Jews themselves found it difficult to

follow the Torah.

102
4.2.3.1 Hellenistic Jews and Gentile Christians Intersection
A Hellenistic Jew can have two simultaneous social identities and at the same time have one

in-group representation. This is to define an in-group as an intersection of a number of group

memberships. In this case, Hellenistic Jews and gentile Christian intersect on the multi-ethnic

nature of the church. On the cultural front, the two social groups, that is the Hellenistic Jews

and the Gentile Christians would share the common identities. For example, a Gentile

Christian might define his/her main social identity as being Gentile and be staying in an

affluent suburb of Antioch. Such a person creates a compound identity which is shared

merely with those people who stay in the affluent residential area in Antioch. It can be

observed that this compound identity may be exceptional and exclusive to other people who

are also Gentile by nationality that might be living in other parts of Antioch. Those Gentile

Christians who do not share such identity markers are viewed as out-group members. This

approach of demonstrating social identity is said to follow a social exclusion model as an

outcome of the exclusive nature of the constructed construct in-group categories (Roccas and

Brewer, 2002:90).

In this case where the Hellenistic Jews and the Gentile Christians intersect they become the

in-group members. The Hellenistic Jews and Gentile Christians who belong to the larger

categories of the group but who do not intersect are seen as out-group members. This way of

reconstructing the social identity of the two groups may not be complex. Those social groups

who are found in the intersection are less likely to be inclusive in their outlook. The social

groups that are not intersecting are also likely to be exclusive and less likely to transcend

social categories.

103
4.2.3.2 Judaisers and Gentile Christians Intersection
Jewish and Gentile Christians in the community of Luke intersected on the basis of religion,

that is, Judaism and Christianity. These two social groups shared the identity markers at the

intersection. Also, Gentiles who did not share the common identity were inclusive in their

approach and outlook. In this scenario, the social identity complexity of the Judaisers who did

not belong to the shared identity was simple because of its exclusivity. The identity

complexity of Gentile Christians, who did not belong to the shared identity, was complex

because of their group’s plurality, integration and inclusivity. These above mentioned groups

maintained a single in-group membership which defined the in-group as the intersection of

multiple group memberships. There is evidence of overlap of the major social groups in the

Intersectionality identities.

The missionary reports by Peter, Paul and Barnabas and James can be interpreted from an

intersection perspective. For instance, Jewish apostles such as Peter and James could describe

their main social identity in relation to multiple combinations of both nationalities and

religious affiliation, an identity shared only with other apostles for the Gentiles such as Paul

and Barnabas. This is evident in Acts 15:6-21where Peter, Paul and Barnabas and James were

at the intersection between Jewish and Gentile Christians because all agreed on the

integration and inclusion of the Gentiles in the Jewish community without observing the

Mosaic Law and circumcision. This perspective helps in understanding that though James

was now the leader of the Jerusalem Church, he maintained his identity as a Jew despite

advocating the inclusion of the Gentiles. So, James had multiple identities although he

maintained a single in-group representation. In light of the above, the social identity

complexity theory therefore becomes useful in interpreting the Jerusalem Council in the

context of conflict-resolution. In the Jerusalem Council, those who fitted into wide categories

104
of the group while not sharing that particular intersection crossroads are called out-group

members and these possibly were the Gentile Christians. Constructing social identities this

way makes it simple to discern that the Gentile Christians that followed this type of social

identity construction are likely to be inclusive in nature. Such individuals may be likely to be

inclusive and tend to go beyond social boundaries. It is evident that the speeches by Peter and

James, though they had an exclusive approach to the Gentile Christians, were the ones

instrumental in breaking their social boundary markers to pave way for the inclusion of

Gentiles. Gentiles were now assuming a new identity formation of sharing the shared

identities with the Jews.

Acts 15:19-21 should be understood in the context of what Gentiles were expected to do if

they were saved and were accepted into the Jewish community through their faith in Jesus

Christ. The major aspect of Acts 15:19-21 is to institute a halakhah (a Hebrew word which

means “a way of walking” or rule of faith) concerning the acceptance of the Gentiles in the

Christian community (Keener, 2014:2260). The key terms in this passage are epistrephousin

“turning,” verse 19, Moses gar “for Moses,” verse 21 and άνάγισκομενος anaginoskomenos

“being read,” verse 21 έπιστεφουσιν epistrephousin is in Present Active Participle Masculine

Plural in the Dative form. It means “to turn about,” or “to turn around,” and “to revert”

(Keener, 2014:2260). One may ask if the significance of this passage is in its Present Tense,

Active, and Participle form. The Present Tense is describes an action which is actually taking

place. James was precisely saying those Gentiles who were turning to God should not be

given a difficult time but should be accepted into the Jewish community. In this case, James’

judgement showed traits of the shared identity with the Gentiles. The verb anaginoskomenos

in the Present Passive Participle Masculine Singular Nominative form which can be

translated “being read.” Verse 21 shows that the Law of Moses was being read in different

105
places and cities since its inception through Moses. The noun Moses can also mean the

Torah. Probably the word specifically signifies public reading of the Torah in synagogues.

James was saying there was need for the Gentiles to be accepted and be part of the Jewish

community. The phrase “For Moses” in verse 21 is a connective which joins the four

prohibitions in verse 20. The other aspect of this verb is its Participle form. It is in the

Attributive Participle transforming the pronoun, tois, “those”. Therefore, the translation of

this verse might read, “Wherefore I judge not to trouble those while they are turning from the

Gentiles back to God” (Keener, 2014:2261). The key terms in this passage show the role that

was played by James in the new identity formation of inclusivity and plurality in the shared

identities between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. In this case, James maintains

another social identity which is not usually characteristic of Jewish Christianity.

4.2.3.3 Judaisers, Hellenistic Jews and Gentile Christians

The three social groups namely, Judaisers, Hellenistic Jews and Gentile Christians intersect

on cultural and religious basis. Figure. 3 below shows the overlap of group membership.

Judaisers

Hellenistic Jews Gentile Christians

106
Author’s own work

Figure 4.1: Diagram showing intersectionality of group membership

The diagram above shows multiple group membership with different degrees of complexity

and overlap. The area of complexity in the diagram is where all groups converge and this

becomes the intersection of the three social groups. All the three social groups intersect on

the basis of religion, but their social categories differ considerably with overlaps between

those social groups of which they are at the same time a member. The overlaps between

groups that are found in the community of Luke vary from being extensively overlapped to

partial overlap. For instance, where the in-group and the out-group are measured with the

same categorisation, such as Gentiles and residents of Antioch, their identification is

perceived as simple. In cases where the overlap might be partial then the social identification

could be more complex. Social and cultural context may form circumstances where people’s

social identities in relation to multiple social identities are understood in a different way

(Meyer, 2014; Roccas and Brewer, 2002). In this context Paul, was an apostle for the

Gentiles who was also a tent maker, might have his professional identity as a tent maker

emphasised in certain social contexts than in others. In addition, his cultural identity as a Jew

could have been emphasised in other cultural situations as opposed to his being an apostle to

the Gentiles. In other circumstances, his apostle in-group membership might be understood as

an out-group membership while his race might be emphasised. The multiple overlaps in

different groups in some instances may cause conflict among different social groups. In the

community of Luke, there was conflict between the Jewish Christians and Hellenistic

Christians because of different ideologies, teachings, values and norms that they upheld as for

instance, a case where Gentiles were forced to be circumcised and observe the Mosaic Law.

The Gentile Christians believed in the Law-free gospel orchestrated by Paul but conflict also

manifested itself between the rich and the poor and when different social groups were sharing

107
meals. It is therefore, the intention of this study to investigate how the conflict was resolved

in the community of Luke.

4.2.4 Dominant Identities

This social group is mainly characterised by competing social identities which are Jewish and

Gentile Christians. In the community of Acts, the Jewish Christians becomes the dominant

identity while Gentile Christians, Hellenistic Jewish Christians, God-Fearers among others

became subordinate to the dominant social category. In this perspective, the Jewish Christians

(in-group) were defined by those who shared membership with the dominant in-group

category. Other category membership such as Gentile Christians, Hellenistic Jewish

Christian, God-Fearers and others were not considered important.

Two social identities competed for supremacy in the community of Luke and these were

Jewish and Gentile Christians. These two competing social identities in the community of

Luke created conflict on how to accept Gentile Christians into the Jewish community. This

took place when men from Judea came to Antioch where Paul and Barnabas were ministering

to the Gentile community. The men from Judea demanded that Gentiles should be accepted

into the Jewish community if they observed the Mosaic Law and got circumcised. These were

the events that led to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. In Antioch, the dominant social

category was the Gentile Christians, whereas the Jewish Christians were in a subordinate

relationship with the dominant social category. This model is important to this study because

it helps in interrogating the situation which was prevalent during the time of Luke when

leaders of the Jerusalem and Antiochean Churches were competing for supremacy.

108
At the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:1-2, some men came down from Judea demanding that

unless Gentile Christians were circumcised and observed the Mosaic Law, they could not be

included into the Jewish community. The Judeans perceived themselves as a dominant social

category and controlled the levers of power. The Judeans categorised themselves as the

insiders and Gentile Christians as outsiders. The demands made by the Judeans created

tension, dispute and conflict (στάσεως και ζητήσεως) between the two social categories.

In verse 3, the journeying (διήρχονο) (which is in the imperfect tense showing incomplete

action) of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem. They moved through Phoenicia and Samaria

reporting (έκδιηγέομοι) their successful mission to the Gentiles. The imperfect tense of

journeying shows that Paul and Barnabas were still on their way to the Jerusalem Council.

The term “report” (έκδιηγρέομαι) sets the tone for the Jerusalem Council which was to

follow. They (Paul and Barnabas) were coming to the Council as a dominant social category

to represent the Antiochean community in a crucial meeting of competing identities between

them and the Jewish Christians.

Acts 15:5 repeats the problem which was introduced in verse 1 but with some information

which is similar to Gal. 5:2-3 where Paul says that circumcision should be observed as part of

the Mosaic Law (Keener, 2014:2224; Bock, 2007:495). This shows that the dominant attitude

of the Jewish Christians was to force the Gentile Christians to observe the Law. Therefore, it

declared as compulsory for all the Law to be observed by the Gentiles if they were to be

saved. Although circumcision was part of the Law, it was not complete for the Pharisees.

The view held by the Pharisees could have been rooted in the claims made in Gen. 17:10-14

and Deut. 5:28-33 (Fitzmyer, 1998:546). The Pharisees at the Jerusalem Council did not only

109
demand the Gentiles to adhere to circumcision, but also to cross their social boundaries and

follow the stipulations of the Torah. This caused conflict between the Gentile and Jewish

Christians because it was very difficult for Gentiles to break their social boundary markers in

order to follow the Jewish Law. This shows the dominance of the Pharisees over the Gentile

Christians.

In verses 7-11, Luke leaves the discussion of “sharp dispute” and advances towards

resolution of the conflict. In his presentation to the delegates, Luke reminded them of what

had happened to Cornelius and that it was God who had initiated that the Gentiles should hear

and believe in the gospel. Paul was perhaps the target of criticism by Jewish Christians in

Jerusalem and probably Luke’s readers. It was God who chose to do it. It was God’s salvific

plan to reveal to the Jewish Christians the true basis of their own salvation. This appears as a

complete rebuttal to the Pharisees’ injunction, “if you are not circumcised, you cannot be

saved” (15:1). The problem of circumcision had already been resolved in that Gentiles

Christians were no longer required to observe the Mosaic Law and to be circumcised.

In verse 12, the whole assembly was silent perhaps because they agreed with what Paul and

Barnabas were describing about their mission work which was characterised by “miraculous

signs and wonders” that happened in full view of the Gentiles (Acts, 15:12). From verses

13-20, there is James who is speaking as a strict observer of the Law. Luke tells us that James

was a leader of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:17). He articulated issues at the Council with

authority (Acts 15:19). He was one of the characters in Acts whose authority was not

questioned by many. He also told the elders and Paul what they had to do (Acts 21:18).

110
Peter, Paul and Barnabas and James were competing social identities that were dominant in

their areas of jurisdiction. Peter was dominant as an apostle for Jewish Christians. Paul and

Barnabas were apostles for Gentile Christians and James was the leader of the Jerusalem

Church. At the Jerusalem Council, it emerged that even with different competing social

identities, James became the dominant social identity and the rest of the identities became

subordinate. James saw his professional identity as the leader of the Jerusalem Church as his

major social identity and he perceived all other leaders of other Churches as in-group

members. This can also be related to Paul and Barnabas whose major social identities was

their self-identification as leaders of the Antiochean Church. The two social identities in this

community competed for supremacy. The idea that James was the Lord Jesus’ brother, which

is his dominant social category, is another characteristic of a type of a leader of a Jerusalem.

James’ dominant social category led him to proclaim that, (διό έγώ κρίνω) which means “I

therefore judge” (Acts, 15:19). James made a declaration or a judgement that Gentiles should

not burdened with observing the Law. This judgement was made on the basis of what Peter

had said in his presentation at the Council that Gentiles such as Cornelius had received Jesus

Christ. In verse 21, the verb epistrephousin is in the Present Active Participle Masculine

Plural in the Dative form. The verb means “to turn about,” or “to turn around,” and “to

revert” (Keener, 2014:2260). The Present Tense is describes an action which is currently

taking place. James was precisely saying those Gentiles who were being turning to God

should not be harassed and be burdened, but they should be accepted into the Jewish

community. In this case, James’ judgement showed his dominance and authority over other

subordinate social categories. James’ dominant social identity is revealed in this context in

that nobody questions his judgement. Furthermore, because of James’ dominant social

identity, he went on to declare an apostolic decree for Gentile Christians to follow (Acts,

111
15:20). The Council, headed and dominated by James, decided to give Gentiles four

restrictions to abstain from. Some scholars such as Dunn (1990:150) and Johnson (1992:273)

argue that the four restrictions were easy to follow and that probably the Gentiles in Antioch

were already observing the restrictions.

From verse 22-29, the council (elders and apostles) is drafting a letter to different assemblies

in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. The conference delegates also chose men who were going to

accompany Paul and Barnabas as witnesses of the letter. The drafting of the letter headed by

James may imply the dominancy of the Jerusalem Church against other competing social

categories which are Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. Social identities such as Antioch, Syria and

Cilicia become subordinate social categories. It was the Jerusalem Church which was

dictating the four prohibitions to the Gentiles. The subordinate social categories just accepted

everything as it was coming from a dominant social identity. It can be pointed that the

subordinate social identities were also dominant in their communities.

4.3 Luke’s historiography and search for alternative Social Identity

The question which this section wants to answer is; did Luke manage to create a universal

theology which was inclusive? It is possible that Luke tried to familiarise his community with

the view that salvation was a universal reality that went beyond race, ethnicity, or religious

affiliation (Acts 2:21; 3:11-12; 4:11-12). Luke wanted to create a community of inclusiveness

against Jewish exclusive tendencies of other ethnic identities. This is against the background

that Luke wanted to create prohibitive conflict stories to underscore universal salvation for all

(Acts, 10:1-11:18; 15:1-35). This leads to one of Luke’s major themes in his books and that

is, the ‘Church as universal.’

112
It is important at this juncture to discuss a crucial aspect and that is ‘the people of the way.’

This forms the basis of Luke’s universal salvation and the Church. The people of the way are

the first followers of Jesus. ‘The Way’ is a word with overtones of Jewish halakhah, which

means ‘way of life’ which is found in the Torah. The disciples in the New Testament

believed that Jesus was ‘the way’ to the Father. The community in Jerusalem was made up of

the original disciples of Jesus and pilgrims who took a trip to Jerusalem to celebrate their

festive days. They were united and motivated by the belief that the resurrection of Jesus

ushered in a new dawn that signalled covenant renewal and the restoration of Israel.

The fundamental element of Luke’s work is his prominence on God’s faithfulness to Israel.

Luke stressed the continuity which was there with the biblical Israel showing that Gentile

Christians were grafted to the chosen nation (if i can borrow a Pauline metaphor). The

Gentiles were seeing themselves as “replacing” Israel. According to DeSilva (2004:316),

Luke viewed the salvation history as not changed because many of the people of God rejected

Jesus and his message. This was similar in the way the people rejected prophets such as

Moses whom God had raised. Acts 15:16-18 gave a practical statement that Jesus came to

Israel as part of the fulfilment of God’s people. DeSilva (2004:316) demonstrated that the

house of David could be restored as the church spreads its wings throughout Jerusalem,

Judea, Galilee and Samaria. The gospel would be preached to the Jews who were in different

nations and lastly that lastly, the Gentiles would be included into God’s people through

hearing the word. Keener (2012:474) argues that Luke linked the birth of the two important

families of Israel which are Jesus and John in Luke 1-2. These two families were given

promises by God. John was of an Aaronic descent (Luke 1:5), while Jesus was Davidic by

113
descent because of Joseph a Torah-observant. Luke emphasises that the consolidation of

Israel was through Jesus the one whose coming was the salvation of God.

Keener (2012:475); DeSilva (2004:318); Witherington (1998:70) agree that Luke structured

Luke-Acts in such a way that it demonstrated that Gentiles were in God’s salvific plan. With

what is said in Acts 15:16-18, it becomes highly probable that Luke was interested in

plurality, inclusivity, integration and the universal scope of the Gospel. Luke, by referring to

Acts 15:16-18, is trying to emphasise that from the beginning God had plan and purpose for

all nations. God gave his son for everyone in the world and not only for the Jews. This has

roots in the birth stories like Simeon’s that referred to Jesus’ role as “a light for the revelation

to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:32). The position of Luke could be rooted in what Isaiah 49:6

predicted as, “a light to the nations that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth”. The

birth stories in Luke emphasise the fact that the Gentiles were in God’s redemptive plan.

According to DeSilva (2004:319), Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus to Adam. This shows

that Luke went beyond Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation’ to emphasise the view that

everyone in the world has the same ancestry and identity.

God’s love for the outsiders and the non-Jews’ expression of faith and love are demonstrated

in Jesus’ dealings with outsiders as good examples of insiders (Keener, 2012:475). For

instance, the Roman centurion in Luke 7:1-10 remains a good example of trust in Jesus.

Another example is the Samaritan who became a hero in the parable of a Good Samaritan on

how to fulfil the requirements of the Law. In the parable, the Samaritan became an example

of good neighbourliness which was characterised by compassion and love even if someone is

of a different ethnic and social category (Luke, 10:30-37). The examples cited above

114
demonstrate Jesus’ commandment to his followers to proclaim “forgiveness of sins ... in his

name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke, 24:47 NRVS). DeSilva (2004:367)

argues that Luke created an appropriate Christian representation for insiders and outsiders.

Luke did this by presenting Christianity as a fulfilment of Judaism. He (Luke) created a

situation where Judaism stood as a form of continuity with an early expression of faith

perceived in that the Law and prophets gave hope to Christians. Paul in his missionary work

made it clear that his faith was based on Israel’s faith. Paul expressed in his defence that:

“[b]rothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (Acts, 23:6 NRSV). Paul in his defence

further stated that the continuity that is there between the ancient hope of Israel is “laid down

in the law and prophets” (DeSilva, 2004:367).

Luke managed to form a theology in his community that went beyond the ethnic, social and

religious boundaries of Judaism. In the community of Luke, Judaism was perceived as

continuity with the law and prophets that provided hope to Gentile converts.

4.4 Conclusion
This chapter discussed the events that led to the convening of the Jerusalem Council in Acts

15 and how the passage fits into the whole book of Acts. The reconstruction of events of Acts

15 from a social identity complexity was done by identifying the social categories of each

model and how they overlapped with other social identity groups. From each model used

there was evidence that there are multiple identities in the community of Luke. Some results

of the utilisation of the social identity complexity on Acts 15 have demonstrated that there are

plural social identities while others are exclusive. It has been also shown that Luke was

struggling to make his theology go beyond the ethnic and social boundaries of Israel. The

115
following chapter discusses the social identity complexity and the political situation in

Zimbabwe.

116
 Chapter 5 Social Identity Complexity and the Political Situation in Zimbabwe

5.0 Introduction
The previous chapter demonstrated the use of the social identity complexity theory by

exploring conflict as exemplified by Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council. Four models

suggested by Roccas and Brewer (2002) were used to interpret Acts 15. The focus of this

chapter is to:

i. highlight complexity of identities in Zimbabwean politics;

ii. To attempt to draw out an inclusive identity label that goes beyond ethnicity by

using Luke’s model.

In Zimbabwe, there was a political impasse which resulted in deep - rooted conflict among

the main political parties namely, the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front

(hereafter ZANU PF), headed by Robert Mugabe, the Movement for Democratic Change

headed by Morgan Tsvangirai (here after MDC –T), and Movement for Democratic Change

headed by Arthur Mutambara (hereafter MDC-M).

5.1 Background of Political Identities in Zimbabwe

Conflict-resolution in Zimbabwe should be understood in terms of the signing of the Global

Political Agreement (GPA) among the main political parties. The GPA was a political

agreement signed among three main political parties which are: the (MDC-T) headed by

Morgan Tsvangirai, the (MDC-M) led by Arthur Mutambara, and (ZANU PF) headed by

Robert Mugabe. This agreement was reached after a deep- rooted political conflict which had

brought Zimbabwe to its knees, politically and economically. The GPA was reached through

the mediation of the former President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, in September 2009

(Mutambara, 2018:259). The birth of the GPA was a result of the escalation of conflict in the

Zimbabwean political landscape. This conflict was exacerbated by the differences in

117
identities of individuals in their political affiliations. In context of the post-2008 election

period in Zimbabwe, if an individual belonged to a different social group or political party,

one automatically became an enemy of a different social group or the other. In this case, the

norms, values and principles of each political party became the boundary markers of each

social group of the GPA.

The Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) was formed in 1960 after it parted ways

with the Zimbabwe African National People’s Union (ZAPU) which was led by Joshua

Nkomo. The late Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole was the first president of ZANU and was

replaced Robert Mugabe in 1975 (Chung, 2007:115). The two MDC formations were the

offshoot of the original MDC which was formed in September 1999 as a brain child of the

Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (hereafter ZCTU) and the civic movements with the

aim of dislodging ZANU PF’s monopoly to rule Zimbabwe (Meredith, 2002:70). The MDC

split because they did not agree in principle on participating in the 2005 Senatorial elections.

Nevertheless, some critics such as Kriger (2012:11); Raftopoulos (2010:705) claim that the

issue of senatorial elections was a symptom of a deeper problem as there was power struggle

among the leaders of the MDC party . After the split, Tsvangirai was left with a bigger party

whilst Gibson Sibanda, who deputised Tsvangirai, was to lead a smaller party for a short

time. Following the passing on of Gibson Sibanda, the smaller MDC formation requested

Arthur Mutambara who used to be working overseas to come and lead the party. It is possible

to argue that the party which was led by Gibson Sibanda could not be headed by a Ndebele as

a leader because they feared to be labelled tribalistic. That is why they had to call Arthur

Mutambara to lead the party. The two MDC formations had to put the initials of their party

leaders’ names to their parties’ names in order that voters would not be confused; hence the

names, MDC – T and MDC – M (Tatira and Marevesa, 2011:187). It is the purpose of this

118
chapter to analyse and interrogate the political situation in the context of the principles of

social identity complexity theory and conflict-resolution in the Zimbabwean political

landscape.

The background of the problems of Zimbabwe which resulted in the “Zimbabwe Crisis” dates

back to 1980. Zimbabwe’s post-colonial period was characterized by an economic boom and

reconciliation in the early 1980s (Raftopoulos, 2007:79). However, there was a political

problem of Gukurahundi which resulted in political instability in the Matabeleland and

Midlands regions from 1983 to 1987. The economic boom experienced immediately after

independence was short lived. The economy of Zimbabwe had varied experiences of fortunes

all the way through the 1980s as it suffered the devastating effects of drought, high interest

rates, fluctuating oil prices and weakening terms of trade (Bond, 2003: 163). These issues

negatively affected the capacity of the Government to sponsor its programmes. Muzondidya

(2009:40) has argued that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund mounted

pressure on the Government of Zimbabwe to leave several of its public policies between 1982

and 1985. These policies were a fulfillment of the pre-independence promises to the

electorate but were detrimental to the economic development of the country. There was free

education and health for all. There were several factors which resulted in the crisis in

Zimbabwe from 1980 to 2008 chief among them being the land question, the Economic

Structural Adjustment Programme (hereafter ESAP), revolt of war veterans, food riots, post-

independence wars, election violence, sanctions, rejection of the adoption of the ‘yes’ on the

Referendum of 2000, among others.

119
5.2 Ethnic Identities in Zimbabwe
The different ethnic identities in Zimbabwean societies have caused a lot of political, social

and religious conflicts. This has created a society which is highly polarised in both political

and religious spheres in country. The ethnic conflict can be traced back to the pre-colonial

period in Zimbabwe.

5.2.1 Ethnic Identities before the Colonial Era in Zimbabwe

At the centre of ethnic polarisation before the colonial era was the search for fertile land for

crops and pastures, for domination over other groups and the need for augmenting the clans

through incorporation of other ethnic groups. This inevitably resulted in raids and counter-

raids as ethnic groups sought to weaken other groups while consolidating their own (Beach,

1992:268). It is this fight for land and other resources that defined the encounter between the

Shona and the Ndebele. Given the military aggression of the Ndebele which was a product of

the violence of Mfecane in Zululand, the Shona ethnic social groups tended to be on the

receiving end of Ndebele raids though this was not always unidirectional (Beach, 1995:56).

In view of the adversarial and conflictual nature of their existence, stereotypes, prejudices

and essentialized identity constructions of each ethnic group developed. This politics of the

Other located itself in language where negative descriptions were coined to orchestrate the

binaries of inferior/superior; the dangerous and the harmless that were opportunistically taken

advantage of by the Whites in order to divide and rule. The mudzviti /musvina discourse is

language used to justify hatred of and raids on the Other (Beach, 1992:269). In situations of

war, the antagonists often create stereotypes that make it easy to see the opponent as less

human or bloodthirsty in order to validate a particular worldview and immanent power

relations. The escalation of differences even extends to geographic space and identity,

language, values and norms.

120
During this period, the Ndebele speaking people were stereotyped by their Shona

counterparts not only as a superior ethnic group, but also as a bloodthirsty and ruthless

neighbouring state. One way through which this image is portrayed through the eyes of the

Shona were the Ndebele raids on the Shona people which resulted in the loss of livestock,

grain and women as booty, whilst men were exterminated. According to Hall (1997:183), it is

not clear whether Ndebele people negotiated with the Shona people for a peaceful co-

settlement in Mashonaland. It is most likely that the Shona people refused to share the

inheritance (land) which they viewed as heritage from their forefathers. Probably the refusal

of the Shona to co-settle with the Ndebele may be viewed as protecting their territorial

integrity not in terms of selfishness. The two ethnic groups perceived themselves as different

social categories and drew social and geographical boundaries between themselves. The

identity of being Ndebele or Shona, in this scenario, should be understood in terms of

geographical space, language, norms and values. It could be that this action by the Ndebele

people unleashed unprecedented conflict between the two ethnic social groups. The conflict

was mainly centred on resources (land, women, livestock, grain) and power.

5.2.2 Ethnic Identities in the Colonial Zimbabwe

The acrimonious relationship between the Ndebele and Shona ethnic groups continued in the

colonial Zimbabwe, but changed because of the arrival of the colonial settlers who annexed

the land and its resources. These resources included land, minerals, trade, security, among

other things. Of importance was a situation where Lobengula was duped by Charles Rudd to

sign the Rudd Concession in 1888 without proper understanding of the meaning and

implication of the concession (Gusha, 2017:55; Beach, 1974:635). The concession gave the

British South African Company (BSAC) a mandate to carry out exclusive mining activities

and other business ventures. The Shona people stereotypically constructed Lobengula as a

121
traitor who had sold out the country to the Whites although historical realities at the time

point to something different. The implication of this accusation, which was a product of

ethnic animosity and adversarial co-existence, was to give a picture that Ndebele people were

irresponsible, perfidious and treacherous. According to Beach (1974:637), the colonial

settlers occupied prime land and the indigenous people were squashed in infertile and arid

land which they called the “Tribal Trust Lands” or “Reserves.” The racial

compartmentalization of land economically disempowered the black people because it meant

crop production became poorer and the rearing of cattle was negatively affected. Colonial

land policy also resulted in the alienation of black people from their spiritual attachment to

the land which was their source of historical identity and connection with their forebears.

Ultimately, land dispossession rendered the Blacks vulnerable to exploitation as labourers by

Whites because the source of their livelihood had been destroyed. This feeling of up-

rootment, deracination and alienation from their heritage was a source of great anger and

dissatisfaction. The pauperisation, exploitation and ‘enslavement’ of the black people after

land expropriation and the sense of injustice that ensued, subsequently resulted in the

eruption of the First Chimurenga or umvukela (Dawson, 2011:144). United by a common

grievance against a common enemy, and energised by mutual suffering under the yoke of the

white man, there was overlap of identities between the Shona and the Ndebele as they put

their differences aside for a while and confronted the oppressor through war. So, this

constituted a reconfiguration of the Shona-Ndebele relations at this particular historical

juncture, though this was necessitated by the exigencies of race and oppression. But, one

should be alive to the fact that the confrontation with a common enemy only papered up

deep-seated fissures and fault lines that were always volcanic within these ethnic groups.

122
The Ndebele and Shona ethnic cohesion appeared to subsist as manifested in ghettos where

there were different ethnic groups in suburbs such as Makokoba, Mutapa, Mbare and

Highfields. These ethnic groups would clash at football platforms. The Ndebele people

formed Matebeleland Highlanders Football Club while the Shona people formed

Mashonaland United as their sources of identity and difference. Whenever these teams met,

violent clashes erupted and, in some cases, violence would take place days before the match.

The ethnic conflict in Zimbabwe was also seen in the split that occurred in 1963 when ZANU

was formed as a majority Shona - dominated party and ZAPU’s composition was largely

Ndebele-dominated. Even the geographic areas of military operation reflected ethnic-regional

realities. ZAPU operated from Zambia and their areas of entry into Zimbabwe were largely

Ndebele- affiliated and dominated, whereas ZANU was operating from Mozambique and

Tanzania, making it inevitable that the civilian population they encountered on their way to

Zimbabwe was predominantly Shona. This magnified the ethnic divide and the filliatory

tendencies between the two liberation movements which were supposedly fighting for a

common cause and against the same enemy. This reflected that there was no unity between

the two ethnic groups though they were fighting for the same cause. In fact, there were

instances when these two nationalist movements clashed when they came into contact with

each other. For instance, this took place in Zambia where Shona people were massacred by

the Ndebele liberation fighters. On the same note, there is also the famed Mgagao incident

where ZIPRA cadres were attacked and killed by the Shona freedom fighters in Tanzania.

The animosity was a carry-over from the days of the split when they were engaged in a war

of mutual destruction in areas like Highfieds, Gweru and Bulawayo. Even during the time

they were at the Assembly Points, there were reported cases of violent clashes between

ZIPRA and ZANLA forces; for example, the Entumbane episode in Bulawayo. This shows a

regular pattern of conflict between the two ethnic social identities in Zimbabwe. This

123
powder-keg like situation even rooted itself the day Zimbabwe got its independence in 1980

and has continued to manifest itself in various forms up to the present day. There is political

bickering in Zimbabwe today due to this ethnic conflict over the Gukurahundi issue which

happened in Matebeleland and Midlands provinces. The search for justice, truth and closure

is hampered by ethnic accusations and counter-accusations predicated on history. Even the

split of the MDC party which was led by the late Morgan Tsvangirai, though occasioned by

whether to take part in the senatorial elections or not, eventually took on ethnic overtones. It

was assumed that high-ranking MDC officials like the late Gibson Sibanda (vice- President)

and Welshman Ncube (Secretary-General) broke away, not much because of the violation of

the constitution, but largely because they were Ndebeles who could not countenance being

led by a Shona. What this shows is that in any natural misunderstanding between members of

the two ethnic groups, there is a tendency to intone the ethnic litany that inevitably whips up

divisive emotions.

5.3 Compartmentalisation in Zimbabwean Politics

In the Zimbabwean political landscape, there are members who have more than one group

identity and this is important for one to have a social group that forms a person’s social

identity. Several identities were stimulated by a process which Roccas and Brewer (2002:90)

refer to as “differentiation and isolation”. A political party or an individual will have different

social groups which could be significant to a political party or person and, simultaneously,

forms and defines a political party’s social identity. According to this model, social identities

are context specific. In certain situations, ZANU PF membership developed the main basis of

social identity whilst MDC-T and MDC-M identities became major in other situations. There

were known strongholds of each political party; for instance, Uzumba-Maramba-Pfungwa

was a famed ZANU PF stronghold whilst all urban areas were MDC-T strongholds.

124
Subsequently, the environment defined which individuality would be a major foundation for

social identity of a particular political party. This is also similar to a Zimbabwean young

Shona family which predominantly stays in town and may assume two group identities: the

one they had in town and the other one in rural areas where their parents live which Kok

(2014:3) refers to as ‘taking off a western hat’ and ‘putting on his African hat’. This clearly

demonstrates the issue of compartmentalisation. The context defines which social identity

will be more noticeable.

Compartmentalisation as a model can also enlightens the role played by former president

Mugabe in Zimbabwean politics. Mugabe was the leader of the ZANU PF party which was

the dominant party in the country. He was Shona and belonged to a major ethnic Zezuru

social identity. The Zezuru ethnic social group perceived themselves as a superior group in

ZANU PF because they bragged at a political rally that they were unconquerable. The

colonialists viewed them as a special group; hence, initially standard Shona had to be Zezuru.

This also explains the elevation of Nehanda in Zimbabwean history as a deliberate ploy to

legitimate Zezuru hegemony. This literally implied that no members from the Karanga ethnic

social group could rule Zimbabwe. Most of the cabinet ministers were from the Zezuru ethnic

group. As a leader, the former president was very particular about the norms and values of

the social group he belonged to. Mugabe knew very well the ethos of ZANU PF to such an

extent that they could not share the same table with MDC-T and MDC-M members. This

social identity phenomenon was regulated by ideals of Chimurenga which as orchestrated by

Mbuya Nehanda and sekuru Kaguvi, among others. These personalities (Nehanda, Kaguvi

and others) gave an inspiration to the leaders of ZANU PF since the liberation struggle to

date. At the ZANU PF conferences which are held annually in December, that is where they

review their party policies and vote for or endorse their leadership. Mugabe and his followers

125
often make it categorically clear that their members can never become sell-outs to other

political parties. If any member was ever seen dinning or having anything to do with the

opposition members, that member would face disciplinary action. This clearly demonstrates

compartmentalisation by former president Mugabe and the members of his political party. As

a political party, they drew boundary markers against other political parties which their

members could not cross. The move brewed conflict and their social identity complexity as a

party was very discriminating. That is why the presidential and parliamentary elections since

2000 have been characterised by politically motivated violence. This was largely because of

lack of tolerance among the political parties in Zimbabwe. By then, the opposition political

parties were a minority on the Zimbabwean political landscape.

According to Raftopoulos (2014), when the internal conflict reached unprecedented levels in

Zimbabwe, there were in dire need of a political solution. The situation in Zimbabwe was

getting worse politically, economically and socially to an extent that there was no party

which was benefiting from it (Sachikonye, 2006). There was hyperinflation, massive brain

drain to other countries, company closures, and shortage of basic commodities in the

supermarkets, among others. Raftopoulos (2009: 222) posits that another major effect of the

economic meltdown was the dizzying speed of hyperinflation, which resulted in the

‘dollarization’ of economic transactions. This also culminated in the massive brain drain to

neighbouring countries like South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique and Zambia. Some also

left for overseas destinations. Under these conditions of rapid economic deterioration, both

opposition and civic society movements faced real challenges in confronting the ruling party.

The crisis was a clear demonstration of Mugabe’s compartmentalisation tendencies because

he did not want to cross his party’s boundary markers. This demonstrated a situation of

exclusiveness and controlling social identity which was characteristic of ZANU PF at the

126
time. From a social identity complexity point of view, ZANU PF could not have anything to

do with other political parties because this could have threatened their norms and values. It is

probable that the GPA opened doors for other political parties to work together as a

government, but it appears there were still outstanding issues to be resolved. The outstanding

issues were the appointment of diplomatic posts, permanent secretaries and the Reserve Bank

Governor of Zimbabwe. These outstanding issues resulted in conflict among the prominent

social groups (political parties); that is, the ZANU PF and the MDC formations.

Another element which shows ZANU PF’s negative compartmentalisation were the sanction

imposed on ZANU PF party and some of its members. Sanctions are “mechanisms employed

by countries and international organizations to persuade a particular government or group of

governments to change their policy by restricting trade, investment or other commercial

activities” (Gono, 2008: 91). In the case of Zimbabwe, sanctions were widened to include

other elements such as diplomatic, cultural, and sporting isolation. Gono (2008: 91) claims

that “the sanctions which were imposed on Zimbabwe were illegal” because they were not

sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council but by Britain and her allies while

Mashakada (2016: 2), a Member of Parliament for MDC-T, argues that these sanctions could

be referred to as “restrictive measures.” The opposition did not see sanctions as a reality but

as targeting individuals in government who did not uphold the rule of law and human rights.

According to MDC-T, the UN could not impose sanctions on Zimbabwe because they were

blocked by China and Russia. The sanctions were imposed upon the ruling ZANU PF party

because it emphasised exclusive and dominating social identities.

127
The sanctions forced Zimbabwe to resort to the “Look East” policy for economic co-

operation with China against the West (Kobayashi, 2010: 6). The sanctions which were

imposed on Zimbabwe affected financial relations, trade and financial flows. The United

States and other Western countries imposed restrictive measures on Zimbabwe’s government

in 2002 because of the reports of election rigging and gross human rights abuses (Duzor and

Zulu, 2015: 1). In addition, the land redistribution programme angered the West who

punished the country due to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe (Maruta, 2013: 6). What can

be confirmed by a number of scholars such as Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013: 144); Raftopoulos

(2013: 16); Nyakudya (2013: 174) is that from 2000 to 2008 there was much politically

motivated violence which may have forced the US and the West to impose sanctions on

Zimbabwe. The politically motivated violence which rocked the whole country was because

of ZANU PF’s selfish ambition of upholding its political culture and values as the best. .

There is an element of truth in this claim because it is from 2000 that Zimbabwe witnessed a

sharp decline in net capital flows, grant flows, external loan flows, and foreign direct

investment inflows. According to Gono, (2008: 111),“Some individual Western countries

had already frozen the assets of the former president Mugabe and other top ZANU PF

leaders.” As part of the sanctions package, the West had banned these leaders from entering

their territories.

The issue of sanctions caused a lot of conflict between the two social groups; that is, ZANU

PF and MDC formations because ZANU PF accused the MDC of cajoling the West to bring

the sanctions on Zimbabwe, while the MDC would say that such measures were just targeted

on individuals and companies, and the economic decline was brought about by

mismanagement and corruption on the part of ZANU PF. This mudslinging and finger

pointing between the ZANU PF and MDC formations brewed conflict between these parties

128
over the sanctions. One tends to agree with Kobayashi (2010: 7) “that it is impossible to

punish targeted people (ZANU PF leaders) without punishing the generality of

Zimbabweans.” One can argue that it is important, may be, for world bodies to think of other

options of persuading governments to change their policies without hurting innocent people.

What is interesting is that ZANU PF leaders did not accept responsibility for not upholding

the rule of law and human rights and this is precisely because of compartmentalisation of

identities.

The majority of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) got their funding from Western

governments (Gono, 2008: 101). As a result, some of these NGOs had to withdraw their

developmental assistance and only concentrated on humanitarian aid for such problems as

HIV/AIDS. In some cases, aid could be diverted to other developing countries, and this was

confirmed by the National Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (NANGO)

(Gono, 2008: 103). From 2000, after Zimbabwe’s land reform programme, there was

international isolation, particularly from the multilateral institutions such as the IMF, WB,

and AfDB who cancelled all credit lines to Zimbabwe (Gono, 2008: 104). This meant that

there was no medication, children could not go to school, no transport, no fuel, and the

country experienced blackouts because of electricity outages. It is evident that the sanctions

had adverse effects across all Zimbabweans, and this is what led to the birth of the GPA.

Mugabe’ negative compartmentalization also resulted in churches being divided during this

period of the “Zimbabwe Crisis.” Some churches supported Mugabe’s exhausted

nationalism, while others aligned themselves to the critical civic movements (Sachikonye,

2011:75). For instance, some church leaders in the Anglican Church such as Bishop Norbert

129
Kunonga expressed support for former president Mugabe and his ZANU (PF) party. There

followed a split in the Anglican Church, probably because of Bishop Kunonga’s endorsement

of the regime. Following Bishop Kunonga's excommunication from the Anglican Church of

Province of Central Africa (CPCA), he refused to return the assets of the Church

(Sachikonye, 2011:78). This resistance brewed conflict between Bishop Kunonga and

Bishop Gandiya. State authorities and the police supported Kunonga for political reasons.

However, the same state later abandoned Kunonga probably because he had failed to play his

political cards well. The conflict resulted in drawing boundaries between churches led by

Bishop Kunonga and the other one headed by Bishop Gandiya.

The African independent churches were accused of being partisan. According to Mhandara,

Manyeruke, and Hofisi (2013:110), the two denominations led, respectively, by Johanne

Masowe and Johanne Marange, caused conflict because they publicly supported ZANU PF.

Most of the ZANU PF leadership was seen fellowshipping with them probably because they

wanted to lure them into ZANU PF. Even the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, was also

seen being part of the Johanne Marange church fellowshipping with them (Mhandara,

Manyeruke, and Hofisi, 2013:110). However, other African indigenous churches such as Paul

Mwazha criticised sanctions in the same way other leaders of the church such as Makandiwa

and Kunonga. Meanwhile, the Pentecostal churches taught their congregants to “make the

best of rapid social change” (Maxwell, 1998:351). Really, the church did not play its

prophetic role in the crisis because she feared being victimized. In March 2007, the police

brutally disrupted a prayer meeting of the Christian Alliance Church in Highfield, Harare

(Raftopoulos, 2009:227). The publicity of this event globally resulted in international

condemnation and pressure on former president Mugabe’s regime, thus putting more pressure

on the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to mediate in the crisis in

130
Zimbabwe. Pressure also mounted on SADC from the United Nations (UN), the European

Union (EU), the African Union (AU), and the entire international community to broker peace

in the deep-rooted conflict between the two MDC formations and the ZANU (PF) party.

After a series of ‘talks’ and summits, the GPA was born on 15 September 2009and came as a

panacea to Zimbabwe’s problems. The signing of the GPA came as a relief to all

Zimbabweans because they saw it as a harbinger of the end of the conflict which had brought

a lot of suffering to the majority.

When pressure mounted from the international community, Mugabe had no choice but to

suddenly assume another inclusive social position. In this case, Mugabe appears to have

compartmentalised his social personality which was in accordance to the requirements of a

specific situation. Kok (2014:7) rightly asserts that “[o]ne moment he could act as the

inclusive ‘GPA-Mugabe’ and the next he acted as the exclusive ‘ZANU PF-Mugabe’ which

seems to have been the dominant identity at that point in time”. When the pressure escalated

from his exclusive political social group, Mugabe showed the “implicit hierarchy in his own

social identity” (Kok, 2014:7). It was a great opportunity for Mugabe to work with the

opposition political parties productively, but he squandered it. Instead, Mugabe chose to

return to his social identity as a ZANU PF leader and, unexpectedly, became exclusive to

those he interacted with in the GPA as he drew social boundaries between himself and them.

The major reason for the existence of the inclusive government was to try to resolve the

conflict which existed between the two social groups and the GPA was supposed to pave way

for free, fair and credible elections within a given time frame. In addition, the inclusive

government was mandated to improve and stabilise the economy of Zimbabwe. However,

this was not fully realised because the elections which followed the expiry of the GPA were

reported by the majority of observers as not free, fair and credible. After the GPA, the

131
ZANU PF government reverted to its exclusive social identity where opposition political

parties were not part of the government.

Mugabe frustrated other leaders of the opposition political parties who were having problems

with the way Mugabe contextually compartmentalised himself and showed dominating and

exclusive tendencies. Mugabe was supposed to be inclusive and to close social boundaries,

but he (Mugabe) reverted to the old exclusive and distinguishing boundaries between in-

groups and out-groups. The MDC formations observed that Mugabe’s actions were

contradictory and equally exclusive. By withdrawing from the dictates of the GPA, Mugabe

demonstrated the incompatibility of the two self-positions with regards to social boundaries

and safeguarding those boundaries. It is possible that the MDC formations felt that this form

of compartmentalisation was not good but was counterproductive to the development of the

country. Mugabe’s actions resulted in drawing boundaries between MDC formations and

ZANU PF and it promoted conflict between the two social groups.

The politics within ZANU PF as a social group under the leadership of Mugabe witnessed

factionalism. There was a faction loyal to former Vice President Emerson Dambudzo

Mnangagwa. The other faction was led by the former president Mugabe. There were two

distinct social identity categories within the same party with different social identity markers.

The conflict between the two factions escalated in 2017 when the party was heading towards

their annual congress. The then vice president was fired by the former president at the

instigation of former first lady, Grace Mugabe. This resulted in an operation which was

termed “Operation Restore Legacy” by the military. Mugabe was forced to resign from

power. Within a short space of time the former Vice President, Mnangagwa, came back as the

132
President of Zimbabwe, replacing the ousted Mugabe. The smart coup which was carried out

by the military came as a result of Mugabe’s compartmentalisation strategies. In addition,

Mugabe’s compartmentalisation was also wrong in that it was against the requirements of

GPA. This has also helped to interrogate the political environment in Zimbabwe with the

lenses of social identity complexity, particularly compartmentalisation as a model. This leads

us to the intersectionality between ZANU PF and MDC.

5.4 ZANU PF and MDC Intersectionality

Even though there was political polarisation between ZANU PF and the MDC formations,

there is evidence that they intersected. This model can be used to describe ZANU PF party

(in-group) and MDC party (out-group) as the intersection of a variety of group membership.

Through intersection, a person can, at the same time, have an acknowledgement of multiple

identities, but “in the process maintain a single in-group representation by defining the in-

group as the intersection of the multiple in-groups” (Kok, 2014:2). In this context, any party

member who does not share the shared identity becomes the MDC-T (out-group). For

example, a female ZANU PF lawyer can describe her main social identity with regards to the

multiple combinations of both gender and political affiliation, an identity shared only with

other female MDC-T lawyers. This perspective helps in understanding that the former

president, Robert Mugabe, was the leader of ZANU PF party, but also maintained his identity

as a president of Zimbabwe. In this case, former president Robert Mugabe had multiple

identities but he maintained a single in-group representation. It is against this background that

the social identity complexity theory could be useful in this research by analysing the

political situation in Zimbabwe in the context of conflict-resolution. In the GPA, those who

fitted into the wide categories of the group while they did not share that particular

intersection are called out-group members. These out-group members are possibly the MDC-

133
T members. Constructing social identities this way, makes it very simple recognize that the

MDC-T who follows this type of social identity construction is unlikely to be inclusive in

nature. Such individuals may be exclusive and would tend to go less beyond social

boundaries (Kok, 2014:3; Tucker and Baker, 2014:43).

The application of the intersection model in the Zimbabwean political situation revealed that

there were variations or multiplicity results in a lower social identity complexity. This is so

because in the intersection model, diversity is not complex in outlook. Meyer (2014) rightly

argues that intersection suppressed the variations by dropping the complexity to a simple and

exclusive social in-group identity formation. Each political party had formulated boundary

markers which were exclusive to the other political parties and this escalated conflict among

the political parties. However, the conflict was watered down by the dictates of the GPA.

A member of a political party can be indecisive with regards to different social identities in

accordance with the demands of the social context. For example, there were members of

political parties who could belong to two political parties either because of fear of being

victimised by the dominant political parties or who may want to benefit from the eats which

may be brought by those who campaigning to win the hearts of the electorate. They kept

their identities secretly to those political parties which they purported to be belong. In this

case, those members of either ZANU PF or MDC who kept their political identities secretly

share the shared part of the intersection.

134
5.5 Identities in the New Dispensation in Zimbabwe
After the smart coup in November 2017, there were high hopes and expectations by

Zimbabweans after years of suffering under the leadership of Robert Mugabe. The incoming

President Mnangagwa was seen as symbolising a new dispensation. This new dispensation

was understood to represent a progressive change in Zimbabwe under President

Mnangagwa’s leadership (Mahomed, 2018:1). The new President seemed to bring in an

inclusive approach rather than the exclusive way hitherto pursued by President Mnangagwa’s

predecessor. The new President brought in a new mantra which was oriented towards

economic and political reforms. This new mantra (‘Zimbabwe is Open for Business’)

promised to bring everybody on board regardless of differences in political or gender, or

ethnic/racial and religious affiliation. He came in as an inclusive leader bent on destroying

the exclusive social boundary markers which were put in place in the Zimbabwean politics by

former president, Mugabe. Robert Mugabe had compartmentalised ZANU PF as a social

category. The new dispensation brought in social identity complexity in the political

landscape in Zimbabwe. In this period, there were overlaps because people could interact

freely with any member of any political party without problems.

The removal of former president Mugabe in November 2017, with the aid of the military,

paved way for elections which were set for 30 July 2018. President Mnangagwa was

working on removing exclusive social boundary markers which were instituted by his

predecessor. He reviewed Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPA),

Indigenisation policy, Media policy, Public Order and Security Act (POSA), among others.

This inclusivity was viewed as a welcome development by the international community

which had isolated Zimbabwe because of so many reasons; among tem abuse of human

rights. During this period, Mnangagwa’s social identity was typified by plurality and social

135
identity complexity. One can argue that Mnangagwa’s social identity may have been

complicated precisely due to various environments that influenced his life. Mnangagwa

himself argued that he formerly personified as an all-exclusive ZANU PF identity. After he

was fired from ZANU PF by the former president Robert Mugabe, he could identify the

boundary lines that were between in-groups and out-group members. He, therefore,

developed an attitude of inclusivity that “transcended boundaries instead of drawing

boundaries” (Kok, 2014:7). This is evidenced by the inclusion of black, coloured, Indian and

white cabinet ministers in his government. In this context, Mnangagwa was concerned with

the issue of social cohesion and inclusivity that went beyond the social, political and some r

boundaries which become an option in ZANU PF. In the new dispensation, Mnangagwa

suggested that Zimbabwe had evolved a brand new social identity and status where man-

made boundaries were removed. The removal of the previous social boundary lines which

were between ZANU PF and MDC formations brought a new integrated social order,

represented by a merger model which takes cognisance of the mega plans for the creation of a

new Zimbabwe.

Mnangagwa’s engagement and reengagement drive with international community was

proving to be fruitful because he was invited to serious international investment seminars

such as the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting held on 23-26 January 2018 in Davos,

Switzerland. Different countries and investors were engaged and they, in turn, pledged to

come and invest in Zimbabwe after the harmonised elections. Mnangagwa’s reengagement

desire was aimed at the lifting of restriction under the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic

Recovery Act (ZIDERA). He also wanted international validation which his predecessor was

denied for a long time. He also sought to give the donor community influence to forge

partnerships with Zimbabwe.

136
The election was a very important period for the Mnangagwa government because all the

bilateral relations and investors were waiting to see the proceedings and results of the poll.

Mnangagwa was aware of this and he made some important concessions towards the

elections. He did this by allowing the opposition parties to campaign freely in the whole

country. For the first time in decades, Mnangagwa invited election observers from the

Western countries. However, it was noted that the playing field was not even by observers

and the opposition. In addition, observers noted that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission

(ZEC) was partisan and supported ZANU PF, and that there was evidence of voters roll’s

manipulation. These were some of the issues e raised by both the opposition and observers. It

can be argued that for the first time after a long time under the former president Mugabe,

there was peaceful campaign until the day of elections.

The problem emerged before ZEC announced the results; the MDC Alliance declared that

they had won resoundingly, citing their internal party tally. The MDC Alliance, as a social

group, prematurely celebrated that they had won at their party Headquarters. Hell broke

loose on the 1st of August 2018 when opposition supporters staged a demonstration which

subsequently resulted in the shooting of six protestors by military personnel. The shooting

was prompted by massive demonstrations by the opposition. The military was deployed

because the police failed to contain the situation; hence, they called for reinforcement from

the Zimbabwe National Army. The deployment of the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) was

meant to quash the protests. . The military personnel opened fire on unarmed civilians. This

sparked international condemnation and all the promises made by different investors were

deferred. The international community constructed the narrative that Mnangagwa was, in

fact, the same as former president, Mugabe. On the 2nd of August ZEC declared Mnangagwa

the winner of the presidential election. Mnangagwa garnered 50.8 % while Chamisa captured

137
44.3 %. Mnangagwa was just above the 50% plus one vote so that meant he had won

outrighly and avoided a run-off (Noyes, 2018:2). The opposition MDC Alliance contested the

results in the Constitutional Court; unfortunately, they (MDC A) lost the case because they

lacked hard evidence. However, other opposition political leaders complained that the

Zimbabwean courts have a long history of being biased towards the ruling party. They

alleged that it was very rare for the judges to make a ruling which was favourable to the

opposition.

The social identity of ZANU PF has so far changed from the new identities it had assumed at

its inception after Mugabe. The situation drastically changed after the shooting of the 1st

August 2018. The engagement and reengagement by the identities of the new government did

not bring the desired results. The (USDs) disappeared on the market. This disappearance of

the USDs led to the skyrocketing of prices of fundamental commodities on the market. The

price increases of essential commodities resulted in the sharp rise of inflation. This sparked

conflict between the main social categories (political parties) which are MDC Alliance and

ZANU PF over the state of the economy in Zimbabwe. The international community had

been putting pressure on all political parties to engage each other in dialogue. The major

hurdle to dialogue between ZANU PF and MDC Alliance is that the two have been drawing

social boundaries which are detrimental to meaningful progress in the development of the

country. Each social group (ZANU PF and MDC Alliance) has compartmentalised itself and,

thus, drawing social boundary markers which do not allow some overlap. To this end, the

political conflict is far from over because there are no indications to show that resolution is in

sight. For conflict-resolution to take place there is need for a neutral mediator, for

compromise and the will to see Zimbabwe to develop politically, socially and economically.

138
5.6 Emerging Inclusive Identities that go beyond Ethnic and Political boundaries: The
birth of GPA
The birth of the GPA was the beginning of emerging inclusive identities of the main political

parties in Zimbabwe. These identities were initiatives that went beyond ethnic and political

boundaries that were drawn. The starting point in the emerging inclusive identities after the

crisis in Zimbabwe was mediation. Mediation can be understood as “the process through

which agreements are reached with the aid of a neutral third party or helper” Pienaar

(1996:3).Chipaike (2013:21); Gunduza and Namusi, 2004:67) share the same sentiment as

Pienaar (1996) on the definition of mediation. Often, conflict between two social groups of

people or two people may not work towards resolution and might require mediation. The

primary objective of negotiation in the process of conflict-resolution is to engage in a

dialogue where a solution to a conflict is reached. Mediation is normally taken done where

social groups involved in conflict make an attempt to negotiate, but fail to reach a consensus.

Forms of mediation exist in a variety of settings which could be interpersonal, inter-state, and

intra-state. In the case of Zimbabwe, the conflict was intra-state, where three political parties

were in conflict in a struggle to capture and maintain state power.

In Zimbabwe, mediation took place because there was a deep-rooted political conflict based

on several grievances against the ruling ZANU PF party by the opposition parties in

Zimbabwe. The crisis forced SADC to “appoint South Africa to mediate among the political

parties in Zimbabwe between 2007 and 2008” (Chipaike, 2013:22). In a bid to make some

economic and political reforms, the ZANU PF government adopted the policies discussed

above just like the payment of war veterans’ gratuities. The conflict in Zimbabwe worsened

in 2007 when the opposition leaders, which included the late Morgan Tsvangirai and

Lovemore Madhuku, were beaten and then detained by the police. In response, the UN, AU,

and European Union mounted pressure on SADC to deal with the Zimbabwean conflict.

139
According to Maisiri (2013:28); Mhandara et al (2013:13), the SADC got involved and

assigned South Africa to facilitate dialogue among the three political parties in Zimbabwe at

an extraordinary summit of the heads of state and government in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania,

on 27 March, 2009. The former South African President Thabo Mbeki’s mandate was to

bring the warring parties to the negotiating table by “addressing socio-economic challenges,

the creation of conditions for a credible harmonised election in 2008 as well as assisting

Zimbabwe’s re-engagement with the international community” (Maisiri, 2013:30). Mhandara

et al (2013:13) rightly contend that “the South African- facilitated negotiations between

ZANU PF and the two MDC formations resulted in the relatively credible harmonised

elections in March 2008.”

Regrettably, the March 2008 harmonised elections did not produce an outright presidential

winner; a scenario which plunged back the whole country into another deep political crisis

which was again a situation which was akin to the 2000 post-referendum era when the

opposition won against ZANU PF. For a candidate to be an outright winner the electoral

laws required that candidate to have garnered 50% plus one vote of the total votes cast. In this

situation, the fact that there was no outright winner meant that there was the need for a run-

off. Just as in the case of the referendum, ZANU PF unleashed a wave of violence against the

opposition supporters Maisiri (2013:30) has rightly argued that “[t]he credible electoral

environment prevalent in March was seen as threatening to the party’s continued hold on

power, triggering the political violence and intimidation towards the presidential run-off

election of June 2008.” In the same vein, the Zimbabwe Electoral Support Network (ZESN)

(2008:9) is of the view that the presidential run-off election was marred by intimidation and

repression. It is therefore observed that the June 2008 presidential run-off was the bloodiest

election in the Zimbabwean history. This led to the withdrawal of the late MDC- T leader

140
Morgan Tsvangirai from the race, citing intimidation, displacement, murder, and abductions

of his supporters.

The situation in Zimbabwe became so bad that the international community had to intervene

through SADC (Chipaike, 2013:25; Mhandara et al, 2013:14; Maisiri, 2013:30). The former

president of South Africa Mbeki was again commissioned to mediate and bring the warring

political parties together for the second time at the Egypt Summit in June 2008. However,

Mbeki’s mandate in the second phase of mediation was different. The focus this time in the

second phase was to facilitate the formation of an inclusive government composed of the then

three political parties, namely the two MDC formations and ZANU PF. The negotiation

period in the second phase stretched beginning April 2008 to February 2009, whilst the

Government of National Unit (GNU) was born. The extent of hostility among the three

political parties meant that the mediation process had to be extended from February 2009 to

July 2013 because the focus now was on the execution of the requirements of the GPA. Two

successive South African mediators (former South African presidents Mbeki and Zuma) dealt

with the real challenges and complexities of the Zimbabwean crisis throughout the “phases of

mediation, from the pre-2008 election to the post 2008 harmonised election and ultimately

the implementation of the GPA” (Maisiri, 2013:30). This mediation process was not without

its challenges. Firstly, former president Mugabe was viewed as a hero in Africa. In this

regard, any negotiation that was aimed at removing him from power could not work (Maisiri,

2013). Mugabe’s influence was so strong that any negotiations that were presided over by a

SADC member could never be even or fair. Secondly, there was solidarity within the

liberation movements within the SADC region. According to Chipaike (2013:25), these

liberation movements have a relationship that back-date to the pre-colonial period and

ultimately to the formation of the SADC. In light of this, it was unthinkable that there could

141
be a meaningful political outcome if one of these parties was involved in the mediation. The

other challenge was the ideological differences between the three social and political groups

namely, the two MDC formations and ZANU PF. ZANU PF as a social group perceived the

MDC social category as a puppet political party that was serving the interests of its Western

(Britain, USA and the EU) allies and thus that meant re-colonisation and the reversal of the

gains of independence Mugabe is on record as saying that “Zimbabwe will never be a colony

again,” which means that if the MDC as a social group ruled the country, it would be re-

colonised by its Western allies. The MDC, on the other hand, viewed ZANU PF as a

perpetrator of human rights abuses. This resulted in political impasse and polarisation among

the political parties and it was difficult for the mediator to control the proceedings. Even

though there were mediation complexities and challenges in the process of conflict-

resolution, there was good progress in bringing the warring political parties together by

forming a government of national unity which resulted in the improvement of the country’s

economy. The GPA was an emerging inclusive initiative that was meant to resolve the

conflict which had bedevilled Zimbabwe for decades. In addition, of importance is the fact

that the principle of mediation was successfully implemented during the crisis in Zimbabwe’s

political landscape.

5.6.1 Emerging Inclusive Identities: Resolution with Compromise

Compromise was another way of bringing inclusivity and integration in Zimbabwe after

years of political polarisation. According to Musingafi et al (2011:41), compromise “is an

intermediate position on both assertiveness and cooperation often referred to as ‘splitting the

difference,’ seeking a quick, middle-ground position.” In the process of compromise, each

party that is involved in a conflict should be prepared to meet the other party half way

towards conflict resolution. Compromise can be possible if both parties in a conflict realize

142
that it is better to resolve the conflict than for one person to ‘win.’ If the contending social

groups fail to make a decision without succumbing to compromise, the verdict or outcome

would obviously be negative. According to Story (2011:54), “[i]ndecision would lead to

confusion and divisiveness; there is no compromise, the backlash from the Jewish Christians

might be substantial.” If there was an unexpected rejection of the compromise, it would imply

that there could be further complication and amplified tension among the social and political

groups in the Zimbabwe.

In the case of the Zimbabwean political situation, although there were differences in social

boundary markers and political ideology among the political parties, there was no party

which enjoyed any benefit out of the situation. That meant that there was a real need to have

these principles applied: the willingness to compromise, and the giving up of one’s interest.

As a result of the tensions during the first phase of the negotiations, that is, during the pre-

2008 harmonised elections, any political party which was not prepared to compromise could

have ended up in political oblivion.

The MDC and ZANU PF were philosophically opposed to one another in a number of ways.

According to Chipaike (2013:17), “[t]hese ideologies are, however, not unique to Zimbabwe,

but provide a microcosmic representation of the international political and economic

community.” It was not easy to bring these philosophically diverse political parties together

at the negotiating table. This is so because the “[n]ationalisation of the country’s natural

economic resources and protectionist economic policies of ZANU PF are as different from

what the MDC stands for, liberation and international commercial competition.” (Maisiri,

2013:31). ZANU PF was supported by their funders, that is, Russia and China, and did not

143
want to move an inch from their position. This was also true with the MDC which was

backed by its Western allies. Even though there was this diverse disparity between the main

political parties ZANU PF and the MDC formations, they ultimately compromised from their

radical positions. The compromise destroyed the ethnic, social and political boundaries which

had been drawn among the three main political groups.

Linked to what was discussed above there was the fear of retaliation on the part of the ZANU

PF party. ZANU PF feared that the MDC-T might take over power especially given the

‘careless’ political pronouncements by the MDC-T leader Tsvangirai. ZANU PF supporters

were not sure of their future political life. There was fear within the ZANU PF camp that they

would be arrested and dragged to the international criminal court. Consequently, ZANU PF

was not prepared to compromise during the negotiations. For the MDC formations, the

negotiations were an opportunity to take over power from ZANU PF. Although there were

varying degrees of ideological differences among the three main political parties, they

subsequently compromised, formed the government of national unity, and implemented some

of the provisions of the GPA. Therefore, the mediation team and the negotiators

compromised, and gave up their own interests in the process of mediation and negotiations

thus resulting in a relative conflict-resolution.

5.7 Initiatives towards Political Inclusiveness in Zimbabwe.

There were politically inclusive initiatives in the areas of civil society, church, traditional

leaders, academics among others in Zimbabwe. These initiatives were instrumental in resolving

the conflict in Zimbabwe if they were brought on board. Unfortunately they were not invited to

be participants in the process of conflict resolution. The mentioned initiatives were necessitated

by the fact that Zimbabwe had been rocked by politically-motivated violence from 2000 to

144
2008. The political impasse resulted in the Southern African Development Community (SADC),

being tasked to broker the conflict in Zimbabwe in order to set a transitional government, which

is the Government of National Unity (GNU) with the view of preparing for fresh elections.

5.7.1 The GPA- Organ on National Healing, Reconciliation, and Integration

In the GPA document, article VII there are provisions which promote the ideas of conflict-

resolution, unity, national healing, and equality. This is specifically enshrined in section 7.1

where the GNU was directed among other things to:

c) “….give consideration to the setting up of a mechanism to properly advise on

what measures might be necessary and practicable to achieve national healing,

cohesion and unity in respect of victims of pre- and post-independence political

conflict;

d)… strive to create an environment of tolerance and respect among

Zimbabweans and that all citizens are treated with dignity and decency

irrespective of age, gender, race, and ethnicity, place of origin or political

affiliation” (Global Political Agreement, 2009;...).

It is on the basis of section 7 (c) of the GPA document, that a National Healing Committee was

put in place to lead national healing programmes. The purpose of this section is to critically

argue that the GNU could have done better in the quest for transitional justice, healing, and

reconciliation if the ONHRI could have incorporated people with expertise in dealing with

conflict-resolution rather than depending on politicians. Section 7 (c) of the GPA shows that it

(GPA) approached the national healing, transitional justice, and reconciliation in a casual way.

The clause appears to be a mere promise to ‘give consideration’ to what would look like an

advisory mechanism in the context of the past violence (Eppel, 2013). It can be that this casual

145
approach by the GPA resulted in the poor performance of the ONHRI during the period of the

GNU.

As an organ of the GPA government, the ONHRI had the mandate of advising the government

on channels to be followed to promote healing, unity and cohesion. The organ demonstrated

minimum expertise in being able to advice the GPA government and the communities in

creating conditions that promoted peace (Chipaike, 2013). It can be observed that the major

problem in the failure of the ONHRI to achieve its mandate was lack of conflict transformation

expertise. The political parties made a mistake in presuming that politicians would be able to

lead a programme of reconciliation and national healing. Therefore, it can be argued that conflict

transformation in Zimbabwe could have been more effective if both the elite and those in the

grassroots level, with the blessing of the state, could have implemented national healing and

reconciliation processes.

5.7.2 Civil Society Organisations

The civil society organisations could have played a pivotal role in bringing about conflict

transformation programmes in Zimbabwe if they were roped in with their expertise. These civil

society organisations include Zimbabwe Community Conflict Resolution Agenda, Zimbabwe

Human Rights, Women’s Coalition of Zimbabwe among others. The inclusion of these civil

society organisations could have made a huge difference in bringing peace, healing and

reconciliation. This could have also built a firm foundation for elections without violence in the

future. According to Chipaike (2013), these civil society organisations could not be roped in

because (ZANU PF) thought that they were ambassadors of the West who had a government

change agenda. However, if these civil society organisations were included in national healing

146
and conflict transformation, it was going to be instrumental in ushering a new dispensation of

peace, healing, and reconciliation.

5.7.3 The Church

The church could have been a good agent for inclusive identities in conflict transformation in

the GNU. After high levels of violence and political polarisation in Zimbabwe, the church could

have been very useful in bringing national healing and peace. The church as a body of Christ

believes in tolerance, reconciliation and peace. As an organisation, the church’s teachings are

based on the premise that Jesus Christ came to redeem humanity and so the Cross becomes an

apex of liberation. Chiwara, Shoko and Chitando (2013:46) assert that

“in the Bible, justice, love and peace have to do with slaves being set free from bondage, with
care of widows and orphans, with kindness to strangers and sojourners, with compassion for the
sick and disabled, but also with fair wages to workers, economic security, the inclusion of the
marginalized, liberation from oppression, ecological justice and the end of the war.”

It is against this background that the church could have been an instrumental platform for

bringing about national healing and conflict transformation had it been included to participate in

bringing about peace in the GNU. There are church organisations like the Zimbabwe Catholic

Bishops’ Conference (ZCBC), Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe (EFZ), and Catholic

Commission of Justice and Peace (CCJP). These church organisations were the voice of the

voiceless to the people of Zimbabwe before, during and after the GPA.

According to Chiwara, Shoko and Chitando (2013), the ZCBC acted as the voice of the

voiceless in 1983 when they wrote a communique entitled Reconciliation is Still Possible

showing that they (ZCBC) vehemently denounced and condemned the atrocities of the

Gukurahundi and encouraged the government to respect and maintain law and order in

147
Matebeleland and Midlands provinces. In addition, the CCJP members played a pivotal role in

the negotiations between both ZAPU and ZANU PF in order to bring unity in Zimbabwe.

Furthermore, the leaders of Christian denominations approached the then President, Banana,

who was the Minister of Religion to intervene and mediate on the political conflict which was

there between ZANU PF and ZAPU. This resulted in the signing of an agreement between

ZANU PF and ZAPU on 22 December 1987 bringing peace in the Matebeleland and Midlands

provinces (Chiwara, Shoko and Chitando, 2013). This is also reminiscent of what Muzondidya

(2011) proposed when he said that the agreement’ major purpose was to eradicate the political

violence that had rocked Matebeleland and Midlands provinces, and the agreement was known

as the Unity Accord. This is evidence that the church can actually mediate in situations of

conflicts just like the one which was in the GPA. It was the church which played the leading

role in ushering reconciliation and peace in the Gukurahundi era. Chitando’s view that the

churches remained marginalised by the ONHRI, partly because of its internal squabbles, is

pertinent in this regard (Chitando, 2011:267). Chiwara, Shoko and Chitando (2013) correctly

note that “national healing and reconciliation are embedded in moral obligations; the church-

based individual organisations can claim moral authority and legitimacy to lead the National

Healing and Reconciliation Process, as politicians are viewed as not having the moral integrity

to remain neutral and/ or separate national issues from party politics agendas”. It can be

observed that politicians are not experts in conflict transformation and healing. Chitando (2011)

further contends that the churches did not position themselves to be visible and to show that

they were potential players in the inclusive government in resolving conflict. Therefore, if the

church was given space in the inclusive government, it could have played a major role in

bringing national healing and conflict transformation in Zimbabwe.

148
5.7.4 The Traditional Leadership
Another important initiative that could have been very important in bringing about conflict

transformation, national healing and peace was the involvement of the traditional leadership as

represented by the chiefs (ishe/mambo). In the Shona religion and customs, the chief is an

embodiment of tradition and culture (Chiwara, Shoko and Chitando, 2013:41). He is the leader

of all the people in his community and is the custodian of the land where people get life.

According to Nkomo (1998:14), chiefs are a combination of executive, ritual and judicial power

and, always, enjoy the support of their subordinates and the people under their jurisdiction. The

role of the chiefs, therefore, could stabilize societies for development. The major role of chiefs

is to resolve conflicts and disputes through his traditional court (dare). Chiwara, Shoko and

Chitando (2013:42) note that the chief is the last court of appeal for the village headmen refer

difficult cases to him for settlement. In presiding over his traditional court , the chief is helped

by his advisors (machinda) who advise him and make it a point that there is peace, harmony

and unity within kingdom the area under his/her purview. Bourdillon (1976) argues that the

chiefs’ court deals with a variety of cases which include, divorce, quarrels, compensation,

breaking taboos, theft of cattle, among others. The chief is both a “religious and political ruler’

(Bourdillon, 1976:137). Among other roles of the chief is to mediate between his subjects and

the spirit guardians in his area of jurisdiction (Shoko, 2007:10). The chief has the role of

spearheading and overseeing the organisation of rituals such as mukwerere (rain making

ceremony) to make sure that there is enough rain and fertility on the land. Given the importance

of the traditional leaders to indigenous societies, the GNU could have utilised the involvement

of traditional leadership in national healing, conflict transformation and reconciliation. What

usually happens is that chiefs are only used by some politicians to make sure that they remain in

power.

149
5.7.5 The Shona Religion and Customs
The Shona religion and customs are rich in principles of conflict transformation and

reconciliation among which are the role and respect of the spirits, cultural values and customs.

For the purposes of this chapter, the role and respect of the spirits will be discussed particularly

focusing on the avenging spirits (ngozi). According to Sibanda (2016) and Chiwara, Shoko and

Chitando (2013), the avenging spirits are the spirits of the dead people who died in anger, such

as victims of murder, who may want to seek revenge. The family of the person who murdered

someone would consult the n’anga who would help to settle the problem between the angry

spirit and the family. Sibanda (2016:353) argues that the Shona say: “Mushonga wengozi

kuiripa.” (The solution to ngozi is restitution or compensation). When not appeased, the ngozi

can cause mayhem in a family to an extent of wiping the whole family. The avenging spirits

/ngozi can only be compensated through the payment of the blood money, a herd of cattle or a

girl child (Sibanda, 2016). The element of the avenging spirits could have been handy if it was

utilised by the GNU. The traditional chiefs could have been used to spearhead reconciliation

and national healing in Zimbabwe, because the spirits of the victims of politically motivated

violence may have rested in peace provided the persons who killed them were brought to book

and traditionally this could have been done by paying compensation. Chiwara, Shoko and

Chitando (2013) rightly point that the inclusive government could have initiated the traditional

ceremonies that were meant to silence the spirits of the victims of politically motivated

violence. If the cleansing ceremonies were undertaken during the GNU and spearheaded by the

ONHRI, there could have been reconciliation and conflict transformation between the families

of those who were involved in political violence from 2000 to 2008. The concept of ngozi is a

deterrent measure in society because if other people in a given community witness a person or

family being tormented by the avenging spirits, few people would commit the same offence of

killing. Therefore, the fear of ngozi may instil discipline in the entire society and this can only

150
be realised when the traditional leaders emphasise the importance of not killing each other in

different communities.

5.7.6 Academics
The academics could have been versatile in reconciliation, national healing and in conflict

transformation throughout the GNU in Zimbabwe. These academics could have been experts in

conflict resolution. Chipaike (2013) rightly notes that at times, governments and organisations

have a propensity of addressing the symptoms of a conflict without looking at the root causes of

the conflict. The ONHRI and JOMIC could have embraced the academics during the GNU to

ensure that there was a successful conflict transformation drive that could have resulted in

peace and national healing. The fact that the academics were not embraced meant that

politically motivated violence is continually witnessed even today.

5.8 Conclusion
In conclusion, it must be emphasised that reconciliation and conflict-resolution are a set of

complicated issues which need to be approached through various sectoral strategies. The

discussion made in this chapter shows the ‘thick description’ of the inclusive government’s

political identity formation and philosophy with the aid of social identity complexity and

models. This has been evidenced by the analysis that has been done in the GPA using the social

identity complexity theory that resolving a conflict needs concerted efforts and strategies.

Reading the conflict-resolution in the GPA with the lens of social identity revealed that the

compartmentalisation and intersectionality models were instrumental in analysing the conflict-

resolution in the signing of the GPA. Events that led to the signing of the GPA were

characterised by exclusivity, segregation and drawing of boundary makers that escalated conflict

among the three social identity groups (political parties). It has been established that there were

151
emerging inclusive identities that went beyond ethnic and political boundaries in Zimbabwe. It

also emerged in this chapter that there are several ways in which people’s identity can be

structured. The analysis made in this chapter established that the former president Mugabe’s

compartmentalisation brought segregation and exclusive tendencies rather than reconciliation to

the MDC formations. Alternatively, the late Morgan Tsvangirai appeared to have a high level of

social identity complexity that enabled him to surpass social boundaries and bring in higher

degree of inclusiveness in Zimbabwe. Conflict was brought in by the tendencies of intolerance

and among the political parties in Zimbabwe. The conflict was partially resolved by the signing

of the GPA by the three political parties but conflict continued to cause havoc in the inclusive

government over the outstanding issues such as the appointment of Reserve Bank governor,

permanent secretaries, Roy Bennet, among others. However, they were notable positive

inclusive initiatives which were brought in Zimbabwe by the signing of the GPA such as,

companies were re-opening, jobs were created, there was food on the shelves, the was a marked

growth in the economy, among others. If the organs on national healing, reconciliation and

integration and the joint monitoring and implementation committee of the GPA had performed

well to expectation in bringing in competent and all relevant stakeholders there was going to be

peace and reconciliation in Zimbabwe. The next chapter will reflect on Transcending

Boundaries in both Luke and Zimbabwe.

152
 Chapter 6 Conclusion: Transcending Boundaries

6.0 Introduction
The previous chapter highlighted the complexity of identities in the context of the

Zimbabwean geo-political landscape and attempted to draw out an inclusive identity

formation that goes beyond the ethnic and political boundaries using Luke’s lenses. This

chapter concludes the main argument tendered in the whole thesis by reflecting on what Luke

meant by transcending boundaries towards an alternative inclusive categories, using this as a

point of reference for alternative inclusive political discourses for Zimbabwe. In doing this,

insights from Assmann (2008:111) are used to shed more light on the nexus between the

quest for social cohesion and universal inclusive categories in both Luke and in the geo-

political milieu of Zimbabwe.

6.1 A Critical Reflection of Luke and Zimbabwe’s experiences

This section seeks to make a comparative analysis of the parallel discourse which has been

discussed in the preceding chapters between Luke and Zimbabwe. Why is it that in Acts 15,

Luke is trying to denigrate the Law of Moses as creating exclusivity in favour of Paul’s

approach to his ministry? Paul becomes a ‘figure of memory’ that represents the identity

complexity, multi-ethnic and diverse character, which reflects a Hellenistic environment. In a

similar way, Peter becomes a ‘figure of memory’ which characterises an exclusive and

compartmentalised context. This study utilises the insights of Jan Assmann (2008:110) to

reflect on the comparison between Luke and the Zimbabwean political situation. The issue of

memory, which was developed by Jan Assmann (2008), is critical in this study because it

helps to keep alive memories from the past. These memories can be preserved in various

ways such as songs, stories, folklore and, in some cases, by painting of images on rocks

(Assmann, 2008:111; Dube, 2015:2). It is important, therefore, to explore Assmann’s theory

for it informs this study on why Luke decided to choose Paul’s justification by faith over the

153
Judaic doctrine of justification by the works of the Law. Further, why is it that the majority of

Zimbabweans had to vote for the late Morgan Tsvangirai, the then leader of the MDC-T,

instead of the late Robert Mugabe, during the watershed 2008 harmonised elections in

Zimbabwe? It is important at this stage to discuss Assmann’s theory of memory and symbols

of inclusivity and its use in this study.

6.2 Jan Assmann’s theory on memory and symbols of inclusivity

According to Assmann (2008:111), memory is a product of a person’s socialisation that may

result in a shared story which he referred to as ‘collective memory’. This method has also

been adopted by Dube (2015:1); Kirk (2005:1) who go further arguing that there are

important forms such as ‘social frameworks’ which may act as memory markers. These

create pillars which show how memory is preserved and demonstrate that history

permanently characterises an individual’s identity. According to Dube (2015:2), there are

experiences which are arranged according to their importance, implying that there are

memories which are remembered more than others. One may ask, why one may remember

other experiences not some. Schwartz (2005:43) proposes that remembering is actually a

process of identity construction in an individual. In light of this, there might be a conflicting

process between the present and the past. Remembering is a process of interpretation,

“placing a part of the past at the service of the present needs, in which the past is variously

and subjectively retold for identity formation” (Dube, 2015:2). Kirk (2005:2) further posits

that by remembering, there is framing of the present in light of the past. The present is

provided by a feeling of meaning, “continuity and stability” (Dube, 2015:2).

Assmann (2008:112) proffers good insights that inform this research. He gives the difference

between Halbwach’s ‘social memory’ and ‘cultural memory’. This cultural memory can be

154
seen in objects, symbols and, in some cases, feasts (Assmann, 2008:112). With reference to

cultural memory, Assmann (2008) points out two significant issues: first, cultural memory

has ‘figures of memory’ implying that human beings and objects determine how history is

recounted. In most cases, these are done in order to balance between identity and

historiography; for instance, in Zimbabwe, names such as Mbuya Nehanda, Sekuru Kaguvi,

Mugabe, Tsvangirai, among others, have historical nuances, significance and unique

identities. Second, Assmann (2008:112) argues that the significance of the above mentioned

figures in history gives ‘mnemonic energy’; a concept that was developed by Aby Warburg

(cf. Assmann 2008:112), who studied iconoclasts and relics, and established that they give

social energy.

In the Zimbabwean context, Assmann’s (2008:112) cultural memory helps this study to

understand the significance of ‘figures of memory’ and the historical sentiments and

identities they invoke. For instance, Emmerson Mnangagwa’s personality is caricatured with

a name ‘Garwe’ (in Shona) or ‘Crocodile’ (in English), to characterise him as a member of a

Crocodile Gang which fought against white minority regime (colonialists). This gang used

the tactics of a crocodile in dealing with an enemy or prey. A crocodile never leaves water

when looking for food, but waits patiently until it accurately strikes its prey. Mnangagwa,

therefore, becomes a symbol of a liberator of Zimbabwe from colonialists. Nevertheless,

there are other voices which view Emmerson negatively as a ruthless, strategist and schemer

of dirty games which were meant to eliminate either colleagues or enemies. There are other

people who would reject that the late and former president Robert Mugabe can be viewed as

an icon and ‘figure of memory’ which every Zimbabwean can emulate. Significantly, some

sections of society refuse to accept the notion that Mugabe could be an image which could

155
motivate collective identity. The implication of this is that people select specific ‘figures of

memory’ not to be remembered because they upset the formation of other social identities.

There are other political personalities which society can emulate, such as the late Joshua

Nkomo, Simon Muzenda, Morgan Tsvangirai, Josiah Magamba Tongogara, Herbert Chitepo,

among others. The afore-mentioned political identities may qualify to be called ‘figures of

memory’ or ‘symbols’ because of the contribution they made towards the development of

Zimbabwe through different facets such as political, social, economic freedom, promotion of

peace, among other good things they did. Some may be perceived as identities which bring

inclusivity, while others are identities which advocate for exclusiveness in Zimbabwe.

6.3 What is it to be inclusive and what symbols build inclusivity in the community of
Luke and that of Zimbabwe?
This section seeks to understand what it means to be inclusive and the symbols that constitute

universal inclusivity. Superficially, to be inclusive means that a dominant group interacts

with or is open to everyone in society. The definition of inclusivity is “creating an

environment of involvement, respect, and connection where the richness of ideas,

backgrounds and perspectives are harnessed to create business values” (Jordan, 2018:5).

What are those initiatives that may bring inclusivity in both Luke and the Zimbabwean

political landscape? From a social identity complexity, Paul has been perceived as a symbol

of inclusiveness. His ministry, in the Hellenistic environment, was characterised by

interacting with most of the social and ethnic groups in his community. Paul’s social

interaction can be viewed as a symbol of reconciliation and unity. As a leader of his ministry

in the Hellenistic world, he sets an example of being open to everyone and demonstrated to

his followers what it meant to be inclusive.

156
6.4 Luke and Zimbabwe searching for alternative social identities
The major contribution of this segment is to draw parallels on the discourse specifically, the

rejection by both Luke and Paul to accept exclusive images and identities from Judaism and

the choice of the late and former leader of the MDC-T party, Morgan Tsvangirai, instead of

the late and former president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. Paul’s ministry in Antioch

received a lot of support from the Gentiles. Even though Paul’s identity was Jewish, his

doctrine of justification by faith became very popular with the Gentiles. Kamudzandu

(2010:87) is apt in his argument that the Hellenists bragged about their belief in their

forefathers that they had to choose Abram as their founding father, owing to Abram’s

inclusive disposition, contrasted with the Mosaic strict observance of Law. This

automatically became their public identity marker. The Greek culture was a multi-ethnic

community characterised by a mixture of various cultures and Abram assumed an identity

which represented the cosmopolitan character of the community and they were ‘less bound to

particular symbols of Jewish life than Moses’ (Kamudzandu, 2010:88). Although they were

in the diaspora, the Hellenistic Jews did not denigrate their identity from their founding

fathers. It is most probable that the majority of Jews maintained their social and religious

boundaries in place; that is, they excluded non-Jews. To the Jews in Antioch, the Law

remained a social boundary marker which gave them a unique religious and social identity.

In Antioch, Paul selected Abram as a public image for the Hellenistic community’s collective

image. This may suggest that Abram becomes the contestation of the ‘figures of memory’

(Dube, 2015:6). It might be absurd for Paul, as a Jew, to select Abram as a symbol of public

image, instead of Moses, for the people of Antioch. In this context, one may argue that the

symbol of Moses represented a specific social group which is the Jews. According to Dube

(2015:6), in Paul’s history, the selection of Abram as a ‘figure of memory’ and rejecting

157
Moses and the Law, could be perceived in light of a context of finding universal inclusive

social identity symbols. The inclusivity which Paul advocated for was necessitated by the

rapid growth of the mission to the Gentiles in the first century which “reinforces our initial

insight that public images or ‘figures of memory’ function towards ‘mnemonic energy’”

(Dube, 2015:6).

Similarly, in Acts, Luke tried to denigrate the Mosaic Law and circumcision as social

boundary markers which were manmade. Nevertheless, Luke wanted to move away from the

exclusiveness of the Jewish Mosaic Law. He (Luke) wanted to create a universal theology

which was inclusive and which goes beyond the Jewish social boundary markers. Luke

wanted to create a community of inclusiveness against Jewish exclusive tendencies of other

ethnic identities. In this case, the Mosaic Law and circumcision were symbols and images of

exclusive social identities. According to Luke, there is a crucial aspect of ‘the people of the

way’ which leads to one of the major themes of the universal Church. This forms the basis of

Luke’s universal salvation and that of the Church. According to DeSilva (2004:316), Luke

wanted to go beyond Jewish exclusivity on the basis of the Law and to show that the Gentiles

were part of God’s salvific plan of humanity; hence, his (Luke’s) theme of universalism.

Luke had the aim of restoring Israel, with Gentiles being part of that plan.

Peter was a ‘figure of memory’ who represented the Jewish exclusive social identity, while

Paul was a symbol of inclusivity. In a similar way, using Assmann’s (2008:112) insights, the

late and former president Mugabe is a symbol of exclusivity among the Zimbabweans. The

late MDC leader, Tsvangirai, was a symbol and beacon of hope, unity and reconciliation

among the Zimbabweans. According to insights from Assmann (2008:112), Mugabe could be

158
a ‘figure of memory’ that showed specific ‘mnemonic energy’, with results which are

predictable. Mugabe’s image was prescriptive; it demanded members from other social

groups to fulfil certain obligations before they were accepted in his social group. The

memory of Peter by the people could have made the Gentiles felt inadequate and worthless,

asking questions like why they were born Gentiles. It was precisely their identity as Gentiles

that had excluded them from having equal table fellowship and worship with other identities

such as Jewish. For the Jews as a social group, the Mosaic Law, as a social boundary marker,

helped them to keep the Gentiles excluded from their community (Dube, 2015:6). However,

Paul, instead, had to make strides in destroying man made social boundary markers and, in

their place, creating an inclusive community by adopting the image and symbol of Abram as

the ancestor of the uncircumcised Gentiles. Luke and Paul were trying to proffer a similar

dispensation of inclusivity. He (Luke) wanted the image of the Mosaic Law removed, thus,

suggesting new social identities which go beyond the Law. Similarly, Paul, in Antioch,

started a new theology of justification by faith in Jesus, against justification by the works of

the Law. Paul’s new teaching and ideology had nothing to do with physical circumcision as a

rite, but with circumcision of the heart. Abram, as a symbol and a ‘figure of memory’ for the

Gentiles, was not circumcised, which implies that after the Jerusalem Council’s resolution in

Acts 15, the Gentiles were following the footsteps of (Abram) their founding father.

In the same vein, the GPA in Zimbabwe was a symbol which brought inclusivity in

Zimbabwe after years of political conflict among the antagonistic main political parties.

Apart from the compartmentalisation of social identities which were orchestrated by the

former president, Mugabe. The GPA brought merger identities which were represented by the

late MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai. The GPA destroyed the social boundary markers which

were established by the late and former president, Mugabe, and his party and instituted

159
inclusivity of identities in the political dialectics in Zimbabwe. As ‘mnemonic energy’, the

GPA advocated for inclusivity and tolerance in the Zimbabwean geopolitical landscape.

This research has established that there are parallels between the Jerusalem Council in Acts

15 and the GPA in Zimbabwe. The two contexts of Peter and the late and former president,

Mugabe, were exclusive discourses. The exclusive discourses were challenged by the desire

to have inclusive identities. In the Zimbabwean context, exclusivity was brought in by social

boundary markers which were put in place by compartmentalisation of the ZANU PF party.

In the community of Luke, it was discovered that there was compartmentalisation by Peter

who had closed the door to shut out the Gentiles. This was challenged by Paul and Luke

who promoted inclusiveness within the community through dismantling symbols and the

‘figure of memory’ of the Mosaic Law and circumcision. Luke and Paul advocated for

alternative social identities which were inclusive such as the Jerusalem Council that ushered a

new paradigm shift of accepting Gentiles in their community without observing the Law and

being circumcised. This was brought in by the merger model suggested by Roccas and

Brewer (2002). Zimbabwe equally requires symbols and images that dispel the myths of

exclusivity through the ‘figures of memory’ such as the late Morgan Tsvangirai who invokes

inclusivity. The images such as that of the late Tsvangirai are symbols that bring the much

needed unity and collectivism in Zimbabwe, whilst the images of the likes of Mugabe and

Peter perpetuate the discourses of exclusiveness. In connection with Paul, he chose Abram

over Moses because he wanted to promote inclusiveness in public images. Comparing the

two images, Abram and Moses, the image of Moses (Mosaic Law and circumcision) evokes

cultural and social exclusiveness, whilst Abram, as the founding father of the Gentiles,

represents cultural diversity and inclusivity.

160
7.0 References

Achtemeier, P. J., 1987, The Quest for Unity in the New Testament Church: A Study in Paul

and Acts, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

Alexander, L., 1986, “Luke’s Preface in the context of Greek Preface-Writing” NovT, 28 (3)

pages, 67-89.

Arrington, F., 2000, “Hermeneutics” in S. Burgess and G. McGee, eds., Dictionary of

Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Zondervan. Grand Rapids.

Assmann, J. 2000. ‘Introduction,’ in J. Assmann and A. Baumgarten (eds.), Representation in

religion: Studies in honor of Moshe Barasch, pp, i-ix, Brill, Boston, MA.

Assmann, J. 2008. ‘Communicative and cultural memory’, in A. Erll and A. Nunning (eds.),

Cultural memory studies. An international and interdisciplinary handbook, pp, 109-118, de

Gruyter Berlin.

Baker, A. C., 2011. ‘Early Christian Identity Formation: From Ethnicity and Theology to

Socio-Narrative Criticism’ in Currents in Biblical Research, 9 (2), Sage publication, pages,

228-237.

Bart, K. J. B., 1989. Five Studies on Interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts, Leuven

University Press, Leuven.

Bauer, W., 1977. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Fortress, Philadelphia.

Beach, D. N., 1992. ‘The Zimbabwean Plateau and its People’, In History of Central Africa,

Volume One (Eds.) D. Birmingham and P. M. Martin, Longman Group Limited, New York.

Beach, D. N., 1995. Zimbabwe Before1900, Mambo Press, Gweru.

161
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T., 1966. The Social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge, Anchor Books, New York, NY.

Beavis, M. A., 1994. “Expecting Nothing in Return” Luke’s Picture of the Marginalised, In

Interpretation, pages 357-368.

Betz, H., 1987. Galatians: A commentary on Paul’s letter to the Churches in Galatia,

Fortress, Augsburg.

Bock, D. 2007. Acts: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Baker

Publishing Group, Michigan.

Bond, P., and Masimba, Manyanya. 2002. Zimbabwe’s Plunge: Exhausted Nationalism,

Neoliberalism and the Search for Social Justice, Second edition, University of Natal Press,

Pietermaritzburg.

Brewer, M. B., and Pierce, K. P. 2005. Social identity complexity and out-group tolerance.

Personal and Social Psychology Compass, 1. 84-100.

http://dx.doi.org10.1177/0146167204271710.

Brewer, M. B., Gonsalkorale, K., and van Dommelen, A. 2013. Social identity complexity:

Comparing majority and minority ethnic group members in a multicultural society, Group

Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 529-544.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430212468622.

Brewer, M.B., Ho, H. K., Lee, J. Y., Miller, N. 1987. Social Identity and Social Distance

Among Hong Kong Schoolchildren. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13 (2), 156-

165. doi: 10: 1177/0146167287132002.

Bruce F.F. (1990). The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and

Commentary, (Third revised and enlarged edn).Apollos, Leicester.

162
Chipaike, R. 2013. ‘The Zimbabwe Government of National Unity as a Conflict

Transformation Mechanism: A Critical Review’, in Southern Peace Review Journal, Vol. 2.

No. 1, 17-34. (Special issue with OSSREA Zimbabwe Chapter).

Chung, F. 2007. Re-living the Second Chimurenga: Memories from the Liberation Struggle in

Zimbabwe. Weaver, Harare.

Crisp, R. J., Turner, R. N., and Hewstone, M. 2010. Common in-groups and complexity

identities: Routes to reducing bias in multiple category contexts. Group Dynamics: Theory,

Research, and Practice, 14, pages 32-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a00117303.

Cromhout, M. 2009. ‘Identity Formation in the New Testament’, HTS Teological Studies/

Theological Studies 65 (1), AOSIS, Art, #276, 12, pages 586-596.

De Villiers. P.G.R. 2013. Communal discernment in the Early Church, in Acta Theological

Supplementum, No 17 (2013) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/actat.v32i2S.8 pages, 132-155.

Derkse, W. 2008. ‘Discernment and humility. Lessons from St Ignatius and St Benedict’. In:

Blommestijn et al (eds.), Seeing the seeker. Explorations in the discipline of Spirituality:

Peeters, Leuven. Pages, 46-68.

Dibelius, M. 2006. The book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology. ed. K.C. Hanson, Fortress

Press, Minneapolis.

Dibelius, M., 2004. The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology, Fortress Press,

Minneapolis.

Dillon, R. J. 2002. ‘Acts of the Apostles’ in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, R.E.

Brown (ed.) Bloomsburg Publishers, New York.

Dube, Z., 2015. ‘Contesting history and identity formation in Paul and in South Africa’, HTS

Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 71 (1), Art. #3011, pages 1-6.

163
Dube, Z. 2009. ‘Contesting history and Identity Formation in Paul and in South Africa’, HTS

Teological Studies/ Theological Studies, 71 (1), AOSIS. Art, #3011, pages 1-6.es 586-596.

Dunn, J. D. G., 1996. The Acts of the Apostles, Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, PA:

Dunn, J. D. G., 2005. The new perspective on Paul, Tubingen, Mohr Siebeck.

Dunn, J. D. G., 2006. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the

Character of Earliest Christianity, SCM Press, London.

Ehrman, B.D. 2009. A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Elmer, I. J., 2006. Between Jerusalem and Antioch: The Advent of the Gentile Mission, in

Australian eJournal of Theology, http://bible1.crosswalk.com/otherResourses/BSTFonts. 6

February. Pages 1-12

Engels, D,. 1990. Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City, University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Eppel, S. and Raftopoulos, B. 2008. Developing a Transformation Agenda: Political Crisis,

Mediation and the Prospects for Transitional Justice in Zimbabwe,

www.statesintransition.org

Eppel, S. 2013. “Repairing a Fractured Nation: Challenges and Opportunities in the Post

GPA Zimbabwe,” in Brain Raftopoulos (ed.), The Hard Road to Reform: The Politics of

Zimbabwe’s Global Political Agreement. Weaver Press, Harare.

Esler, P. F., 1987. Community and gospel in Luke-Acts: The social and political motivations

of Lukan theology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Esler, P. F., 1998. Galatians, Routledge, London.

164
Esler, P. F., 1994. The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Social-scientific approaches to

New Testament Interpretation, Routledge, London.

Esmer, Y., 2010. Diversity and Tolerance. In M. Janssen, The Sustainability of Cultural

Diversity: Nations and Organisations (pp. 131-155). Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.

Ferrar, J. W., 1976. The Dimensions of Tolerance. The Pacific Sociological Review, 19 (1),

63-81, doi: 10.2307/1388742.

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1998. To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies, Eerdmans Publishers,

Michigan.

Fitzmyer, J.A., 1998. The Acts of the Apostles, Doubleday, New York.

Freeman, C., 2011. A New History of Early Christianity, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Gono, G. 2008. Zimbabwe’s Casino Economy: Extraordinary Measures for Extraordinary

Challenges, ZPH Publishers, Harare.

Gowler, D. B., 1991. Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and

Acts, Peter Lang Publishers, New York.

Green, J. and Turner, M. 2000. Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and

Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, Grant Rapids.

Grimshaw, J. P., 1999. Luke’s Market Exchange District: Decentering Luke’s Rich Urban

Centre, Semeia, 86.pp67-85

Gruen, E, S., 1998. Heritage and Hellenism: The reinvention of Jewish tradition, University

of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Gunduza, M.L. and Namusi, C.W. 2004. Negotiation in Conflict Management Module LIR

303, Zimbabwe Open University, Harare.

165
Haenchen, E. 1985. Acts of the Apostles, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Haenchen, E., 1971. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Trans. R.M. Wilson;

Westminster Press, Philadelphia.

Halbwachs, M., 1980. The collective memory, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Harris, S. L,. 1985. Understanding the Bible, Palo Alto, Mayfield.

Hasselgrave, D. and Rommen, E. 2003. Contextualization: Meaning, Methods and Models,

William Carely, Pasaderia.

Hebdige, D. 2000. Cut ‘N’ Mix, Culture, Identity, and Caribbean Music, Routledge, New

York.

Hofisi, S. Manyeruke, C. and Mhandara, L. 2013. The Church and Political Transition in

Zimbabwe: The Inclusive Government Context, in Journal of Political Administration and

Governance, Vol. 3 No 1, pages 103-114.

Hogg, M. A., and Reid, S. A., 2006. Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the

Communication of Group Norms. Communication Theory, 16 (1), 7-30. doi: 10. 1111/j,

1468-2885.2006. 00003. X

Jervell, J. 1998. The Theology of Acts, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Jervell, J., 1991. “Retrospect and Prospect in Luke-Acts Interpretation”, SBLSP,30. pages72-

89

Jervell, J., 1996. “The Future of the Past: Luke’s Vision of Salvation History and Its Bearing

on His Writings of History,” in History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (ed. B.

Witherington 111: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pages, 170- 98

166
Jorg, F. 2012. Temple and Identity in Early Christianity and the Johannine Community:

Reflections on the “parting of the ways”, Brill, Leiden: Boston.

Kamudzandu, I., 2010. Abraham as spiritual ancestor: A postcolonial Zimbabwean reading

of Romans 4, Brill, Boston, MA http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004181649.i-265.

Kanyeze, G., (2004) “The Zimbabwe Economy 1980-2003: a ZCTU Perspective” in D

Harold –Barry, Zimbabwe: The Past and the Future, Weaver Press, Harare. Pages, 88-95.

Karyakina, M., 2014. ‘Social values of the heavenly society: The concept of honor and

identity in Paul’s letter to the Philippians’, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of New

Testament Studies, University of Pretoria.

Keener C.S. 2012. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary Vol. I: Introduction and 1:1-2: 47.

Baker Publishing Group, Michigan.

Keener, C. S. 2014. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 11, 3: 1-14: 28. Michigan:

Baker Publishing Group.

Kim, S., 2002. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s

Gospel, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Kirk, A., 2005. ‘The works of memory’, in A. Kirk & T. Thatcher (eds.), Memory, tradition

and text: Uses of the past in early Christianity, pages, 1-24, Society of Biblical Literature,

Atlanta, GA.

Knifsend, C., and Juvonen, J., 2013. The Role of Social Identity Complexity in Intergroup

Attitudes Among Young Adolescents. Social Development, 22 (3), 623-640. doi: 10. 1111/j,

1467-9507. 2012. 00672. X

Kobayashi, B.D. 2010. ‘Peril at the Polls: Lessons from Zimbabwe’s 2008 Elections’, in

Sanford Journal of Public Policy, Volume 1, Issue 1, Bookmark the permalink, pages 1-12.

167
Koester, H., 1995. Introduction to the New Testament: History, Culture, and Religion of the

Hellenistic Age, Volume One, Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin.

Kok, K. 2014. Social Identity Complexity Theory as heuristic tool in the New Testament

Studies, HTS Teological Studies/ Theological Studies 70 (1), Art. # 2708.9,

http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts. V 70i1.2708.

Kok, K. and Van Eck, E. 2012. (eds.), Unlocking the world of Jesus, Biblaridion, Pretoria.

Kriger, N., 2012. ZANU PF politics under Zimbabwe’s ‘Power Sharing’ Government, in

Journal of Contemporary African Studies, Vol. 30 No.1, Routledge, London.

Leonardelli and R. W. Livingston (eds.), Social Cognition, Social Identity, and intergroup

relations: A Festschrift in honor of Marilynn B. Brewer, pages, 77-102, Psychology Press,

New York.

Mahan, M. 2013. A Narrative analysis of the Jerusalem Council Discourses: Table

Fellowship and the implicit Theology of Salvation, in Journal of Biblical Perspectives in

Leadership, 5, no 1, pages, 39-62.

Maisiri, T. 2013. Zim’s Elusive Reconstruction Agenda. The Zimbabwe Independent.

Available online at: http://www.theindependent.co.zw/2016/04/26/zims-elusive-

reconstruction-agenda. 26 April 2016.

Malina, J.B. 1982. “The Social sciences and Biblical Interpretation”, Interpretation, XXXVI:

3, pages, 229-242.

Marguerat, D. 2002. ‘Saul’s Conversion (Acts 9; 22; 26)’ in the First Christian Historian:

Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Marshall, H.I. 2004. The Acts of the Apostles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries,

Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

168
Masunungure, V.D. 2009. Voting for Change: The 29 March Harmonised Elections, in

Masunungure, E. V. (ed.) Defying the winds of change, Weaver Press, Harare.

Matsikidze, R. 2013. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Zimbabwe: A practical approach to

arbitration, mediation, and negotiations, Molhurst Printers and Publishers, Harare.

Maxwell, D. 2000. African Gifts of the Spirit: Pentecostalism and the Rise of Zimbabwean

Transnational Religious Movement, Weaver Press, Harare.

Media, Monitoring Project Zimbabwe 2009. A report on media coverage of political violence

and human rights abuses in Zimbabwe’s 2008 election campaigns, Harare.

Meredith, M. 2008. Our Votes, our Guns: Robert Mugabe and the Tragedy of Zimbabwe,

Public Affairs, New York.

Metzger B.M. 1971. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, A Companion

Volume to the United Bible Societies. Greek New Testament, (Third edition). United Bible

Societies, London.

Metzger, B.M. 1994. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, A Companion

Volume to the United Bible Societies. Greek New Testament, (Fourth Revised Edition).

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.

Meyer, D., 2014. Social Identity Complexity and Sports Fans, Master of Business

Administration Dissertation, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

Mhanda, W. 2011. Dzino: Memories of a Freedom Fighter, Weaver Press, Harare.

Miller, K. P., Brewer, M. B., and Arbuckle, N. L. 2009. Social identity complexity: Its

correlates and antecedents. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, pages, 79-94,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430208098778.

169
Millis, B,. 2010. “The Social and Ethnic Origins of the Colonists in Early Roman Corinth.” In

Corinthian Context-Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, edited by Steven L.

Friesen, Daniel N. Schowalter, and James C. Walters, 13-35. Brill, Boston.

Moessner, D., 1989. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the

Lukan Travel Narrative, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

Moxnes, H., 1988. The Economy of the Kingdom. Social Conflict and Economic Relations in

Luke’s Gospel. Overtures to Biblical Theology 23. Fortress, Philadelphia.

Muzondidya, J. 2009. From Buoyancy to Crisis, 1980-1997 in B Raftopoulos and A,

Mlambo (eds) Becoming Zimbabwe: A History from the Pre-colonial Period to 2008, Weaver

Press, Harare.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. 2009a. Do ‘Zimbabweans’ Exist? Trajectories of nationalism,

national identity formation and crisis in a postcolonial state. Peter Lang, Oxford.

Neyrey, J.H. 1991. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, Hendrickson,

Peabody.

Neyrey, J.H., 1995. ‘Luke’s Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status

of Paul in Acts’ In B. Witherington (ed.), History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Nicklas, T. and Schlogel, H., 2014. ‘Mission to the Gentiles, Construction of Christian

Identity and its relation to the Ethics according to Paul’, in Sensitivity towards outsiders:

Exploring the dynamic relationship between mission and ethics in the New Testament and

early Christianity, (ed.), J. Kok, T. Nicklas, D. Roth and C. N. Hays, Tubingen, Mohr

Siebeck.

170
Nyakudya, M. 2013. “Sanctioning the Government of National Unity: A Review of

Zimbabwe’s Relations with the West in the Framework of the GPA,” in Brain Raftopoulos

(ed.), The Hard Road to Reform: The Politics of Zimbabwe’s Global Political Agreement.

Weaver Press, Harare.

Park, D. H. 2010. Drawing Ethical Principles from the Process of the Jerusalem Council: A

New Approach to Acts 15: 4-29. Tyndale Bulletin: 61.2, pages, 171-291.

Pervo, R.I. 2006. Acts. Commentary. Minneapolis, Fortress.

Philips, E. T., 2003. ‘Reading Recent Readings of Issues of Wealth and Poverty in Luke and

Acts’, in Currents in Biblical Research, Vol. 1, Issue 2, The Continuum Publishing Group,

New York, pages, 231-269.

Powell, A.M. 2009. Introducing the New Testament. Baker Publishing House, New York.

Raftopoulos, B. & Mlambo, A. S. (eds.), 2009. Becoming Zimbabwe: A History from the

Pre-Colonial Period to 2008. Harare & Johannesburg: Weaver Press & Jacana Media.

Raftopoulos, B. 2009. “The Crisis in Zimbabwe 1998 – 2009” in B. Raftopoulos and A.

Mlambo (eds) Becoming Zimbabwe: A History from the Pre-colonial Period to 2008. Weaver

Press, Harare.

Raisanen, H., 1987. Paul and the Law, 2nd edition, Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

RAU, 2011. Politically Motivated Violence against Women in Zimbabwe 2000-2010. A

review of the public domain literature,http://archive.kubatana.net/docs/women/ran-

politically-motivated-violence-lit- Accessed on 11 May 2016.

Roccas, S., and Brewer, M. B., 2002. ‘Social identity complexity,’ Personality and Social

Psychology Review 6 (2), 88-106.http://dx,doi.org/10.1207/s15327957PSPR0602-01

171
Sachikonye, L. 2011. When a state turns on its Citizens: Institutionalized Violence and

Political Culture. Jacana Media , Auckland Park.

Sachikonye, L. M. 1996. ‘The Nation-State Project and Conflict in Zimbabwe.’ In A. O.

Olukoshi and L. Laakso (eds.), Challenges to the Nation-State in Africa. Nordic Africa

Institute, Uppsala. Pages, 136-153

Schwartz, B., 2005. ‘Christian origins: Historical truth and social memory’, in A. Kirk & T.

Thatcher (eds.), Memory, tradition and text: Uses of the past in early Christianity, pages 43-

56, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA.

Sadomba, Z. W. 2011. War Veterans in Zimbabwe’s Revolution: Challenging Neo-

colonialism Settler and International Capital, Weaver Press, Harare.

Sanders, E. P., 1977. Paul and the Palestinian Judaism: A comparison of patterns of

Religion, SPCK, London.

Savelle, C.H. 2004. ‘A Re-examination of the Prohibitions in Acts15.’ In Bsac: 161, 451.

Savelle, H.C. 2013. The Jerusalem Council and the Lukan perspective of the law in Acts. PhD

Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, Texas.

Schnabel, E. J., 2004. Early Christian Mission: Paul and the Early Church, Volume Two,

Leicester, Apollos.

Schmid, K., and Hewstone, M., 2011. ‘Social Identity Complexity: Theoretical implications

for the Social Psychology of intergroup relations’ in R. M. Kramer, G. J. Leonardelli and R.

W. Livingston (eds.), Social Cognition, Social Identity, and intergroup relations: A

Festschrift in honor of Marilynn B. Brewer, pp. 77-102, Psychology Press, New York.

172
Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., and Al Ramiah, A. 2013. Neighborhood diversity and social

identity complexity: Implications for intergroup relations. Social Psychological and

Personality Science, 4, 135-142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948560612446972.

Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Cairns, E., and Hughes, J. 2009. Antecedents and

consequences of social identity complexity: Intergroup contact, distinctiveness threat and out-

group attitudes. Personality and social Psychology Bulletin, 35.1085-1098.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167209337037.

Schnabel, J.E. 2004. Early Christian Mission: Paul and the Early Church, Volume Two,

InterVasity Press, New York.

Schneiders, S.M. 2000. Spirituality in the academy. In: K.J. Collins, Exploring Christian

spirituality, Baker, Grand Rapids.

Schussler-Fiorenza, E. 1999. Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies, Fortress

Press, Minneapolis.

Schussler-Fiorenza, E, 1985. Bread not Stone: Introduction to feminist interpretation of

scripture, Beacon Press, Boston.

Scoones, I., Marongwe, N., Mavedzenge, B., Murimbarimba, F., Mahenehene, J., Sukume, C.

2010. Zimbabwe’s land reform: myths and realities. Weaver Press, Harare.

Smith, P. 1993. Is It Okay To Call God “Mother”: Considering the Feminine Face of God,

Hendrickson, Peabody, MA.

Story, J. L. 2010. The Jerusalem Council: A pivotal and Instructive Paradigm, in Journal of

Biblical Perspective in Leadership 3, No. 1 (winder), pages 33-60.

Strauss, S.T., 2011. “The Significance of Acts 11:26 for the Church at Antioch and Today”

In Bibliotheca Sacra, 168 number 671, pages 283-300.

173
Sufei, X., Ziqiang, X. and Chongde, L. 2015. Effects of trustors’ social identity complexity

on interpersonal and intergroup trust, in European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, pages,

428-440, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Taiye, A. 2013. Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:1-35: Its Relevance for Sustainable Conflict

Resolution in Nigeria, in American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No.2,

pages, 92-96.

Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C., 1986. The Social Identity Theory of intergroup behaviour. In S.

Worchel, and W. G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pages. 7-24).

Nelson Hall, Chicago.

Talbert, C. 1997. Reading Acts, Crossroad, New York.

Tannehill, R.C. 1990. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary interpretation. Volume 2:

The Acts of the Apostles. Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Tatira, L., and Marevesa, T. 2011. “The Global Political Agreement (GPA) and the Persistent

Political Conflict Arising there from: Is this another manifestation of Council of Jerusalem?”

in Journal of African Studies and Development. Vol. 3 (10), pages, 187-191.

The Government of Zimbabwe 2008. Global Political Agreement: The Ministry of

Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs, 15 September.

Theissen, G. 1993. The Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics and the

World of the New Testament, T & T Clark, Edinburgh.

Theissen, G., 1982. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.

Theissen, G., 2003. The New Testament: History, Literature, Religion, T&T Clark, London.

Thiselton, A. 1980. Two Horizons. Paternoster Press, Exeter.

174
Thomas, J.C. 2000. “Reading the Bible from within Our Traditions: A Pentecostal

Hermeneutic as a Test Case”, in J. Green and M. Turner, (eds.), Between Two Horizons:

Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, Grant Rapids.

Tobin, T. H., 2011. Hellenistic Judaism and the New Testament, in Method and Meaning:

Essays on New Testament Interpretation in Honor of Harold W. Attridge, (eds.) A. B.

McGowan and K. H. Richards, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta.

Tucker, B, J., and Baker, C. A., 2014. (eds.), T and T Clark handbook to social identity in the

New Testament, T&T Clark, New York.

Tyson, J. B. 1984. The New Testament and Early Christianity, Macmillan Publishing

Company, New York.

Tyson, J. B. 1991. Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts, University of Carolina Press, Columbia.

Tyson, J.B. 2008. “Themes at the Crossroads: Acts 15 in its Lukan Setting,” Forum (New

Series) 4, vol.1 Spring, pages, 56 -74

Verkuyten, M., and Martinovic, B. 2012. Social identity complexity and immigrants’ attitude

toward the host nation: The intersection of ethnic and religious group identification.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1165-1177.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167212446164.

Wall, R.W. 2000. “Reading the Bible from within Our Tradition: The ‘Rule of Faith’ in J.

Green and M. Turner, eds, Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and

Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, Grant Rapids.

Wiarda, T. 2003. The Jerusalem Council and the Theological Task, in Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society, 42/2, pages, 233-48.

175
Witherington, B. 1998. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Eerdmans,

Grand Rapids.

Witherington, B., 1996. History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Witherington, B., 1998. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary,

Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Wolter, M., 2006. “Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s” (1Corinthians 10, 24):

Pauline ethics according to 1 Corinthians’, In J.G. van der Watt (ed.), Identity ethics and

ethos in the New Testament, pp 199-218, Walter De Gruyter, Berlin.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110893939.199

World Economic Forum Annual Meeting: Creating a Shared Future with the Fractured

World, Davos, Switzerland, 2018, 23-26, January 2018.

176