Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Acts 20:28
Acts 20:28 is often brought as one of the explicit texts which directly asserts that Jesus is God. “The church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.” This is an extremely dishonest text to appeal to, and it shows the desperation or ignorance of Trinitarians when they appeal to this passage. There are many viable readings of this verse (no less than 6), and only one particular reading would state that Jesus is God. The plausibility of this reading is highly suspect. There’s both a considerable textual variant, and a grammatical difficulty in this verse which is completely ambiguous. In this post, I will consider the 4 most viable readings and give them each some consideration and explain the facts regarding this text.
Reading 1: The Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.
Reading 2: The Church of the Lord, which he purchased with his own blood.
Reading 3: The Church of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own.
Reading 4: The Church of the Lord, which he purchased with the blood of his own.
The textual variant is in the phrase “the Church of the Lord/God.” In our manuscripts, we have an almost even balance which say God, and which say Lord. Both variants are found in our oldest manuscripts, best manuscripts, and in a wide variety of manuscripts, making each reading plausible, almost equally plausible by external evidence only. There are many later manuscripts which read “the Church of the Lord and God,” which blend the two readings, however, there is very little chance that this is authentic to the autographical text. When considering the two readings, arguments are often made based on internal evidence. Some scholars have argued that given the proclivity of a scribe to want to remove the association of “God” with “blood,” the variant reading of “Lord” was introduced early on in the text. I find this to be a very weak consideration, however, not entirely negligible. The internal evidence that they fail to consider is that nowhere in Acts or even Luke (both being written by the same author) is Jesus called “God,” and this would make this a very strange place to first introduce that title for Jesus in Luke’s writings. Based on internal consistency, and also based on the common language of those recorded in Acts (Peter, Paul), the title most common for the risen Christ is “Lord,” and this should be considered in our weighing of the manuscript variants. When this fact is considered, “Lord” would be the preferable variant.
To consider the possibility that a scribe would forge the reading “Lord” to replace “God” so as to avoid association of God with blood, yet to fail to consider the possibility that a scribe would forge the term “God” into the text to assert the deity of Christ, is an unfair consideration to say the least. We are very well aware of other texts in the scripture which assert the deity of Christ through corruption and forgery (1 Timothy 3:16, and 1 John 5:7-8 for example), it should not surprise us if someone did so here as well.
Philip Comfort argues that “Church of the Lord” appears nowhere in the NT, and therefore “Church of God” is the more consistent usage (11 times by Paul in the NT). However, Bruce Metzger points out that “Church of the Lord” appears 7 times in the LXX. Regardless, given as little as the phrase is used, it doesn’t seem likely that a scribe would change such an uncommon phrase in this passage due to consistency. It should also be noted that Paul uses the phrase “churches of Christ” in Romans 16:16. Given that “Church of the Lord” would be the harder reading in this context, it should be preferred. On the other hand, “Church of God” would be a harder reading given the association of blood, if the genitive case were not to be understood correctly. This entire debate hinges on the changing of one single letter in the Greek text, which changes the nomina sacra from “God” to “Lord.” Even if a textual decision were reached, should we really hang an argument on the deity of Christ on such a slippery slope?
The ending phrase “his own blood” or “the blood of his own” are both equally plausible. Some scholars (Hort) have argued that an ending which supplied the word “son” may have been lost early in the tradition, but this is unlikely, though, through paleographical analysis, this kind of omission would be possible. For clarity, some translations will include the referent “son”, making the reading “the Church of the Lord/God which he purchased with the blood of his own (son).” Should this be read as a possessive genitive or an attributive genitive? It seems very unlikely that the NT writers, even if they believed Jesus to be God, the second person of the Trinity, with two dual hypostatic natures, would refer to “the blood of God.” We do not see “the death of our God” common in scripture (or even once). Yet we find phrases such as, “cruified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). If these attributes of humanity, such as blood and death, are not commonly predicated of Christ in the NT, it seems hardly reasonable we should assert it to be the case here. At best, we can only idiomatically speak of the blood of God, but not literally. However, “the blood of the Lord” would be perfectly consistent with NT language, as well as “God’s own” in reference to his son.
Early church writings are of little help to us, as even our manuscripts of their records vary, and they seldom quote this passage verbatim. We find both variants in them, which may point to a very very early corruption. Irenaeus, our earliest record, uses “Church of the Lord” however Tertullian shortly after uses “the Church of God” as well as even later, Athanasius. However, the way they understand the genitive is still a topic of debate.
Given all of the facts, it seems that the most unlikely readings are readings 1 and 4. It is merely my personal opinion, based on the manuscripts, that reading 2 is probably original, however, no one can say for sure. With all of the difficulties and uncertainties surrounding this passage, a Trinitarian must either be blindly unaware of, or dishonestly hoping his audience is, of the facts, if he wishes to use this as an argument. At best, the evidence is inconclusive. At worst, we have reliable reasons for arguing that Jesus is not called “God” in this passage. We cannot and should not assert this text to be proof of that which is unable to be sufficiently determined.