Acts 20:28, "Church of God," "Church of the Lord," or "Church of Christ"?
Acts 20:28 reads in the King James Version:
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”
The Apostle Paul in Acts 20:28 commissions the Ephesian elders to shepherd the Church and adds the great worth of this task, as the church as the body of believers are “. . . purchased with his own blood.” This phrase is much disputed because of the mention of God having blood. The passage has a textual variant. In the majority of New Testament manuscripts, including the major uncials (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus), it reads “church of God” (ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ekklesian tou theou),[1] as we read in the King James Version; but in some manuscripts (e.g, Codex Bezae, Codex Alexandrinus), it reads “church of the Lord” (ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου, ekklesian tou kyriou). Surpisingly, in the eastern text of the Syriac Peshitta, it reads “church of Christ” (ܠܥܕܬܗ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ, ‘edta d’meshikha).
The following variants appeared due to the confusion of God having blood, when God is an immortal being; and blood is the life of the mortal flesh (Gen. 9:4-7; Lev. 17:10-14; Deut. 12:23). The reading “church of God” being the harder reading (lectio difficillor) is seen by the majority of textual critics as the original reading, and better reflects the vocabulary of the Apostle Paul as seen in his epistles, e.g 1 Corinthians 15:9, 1 Thessalonians 2:14, and Galatians 1:13.
Besides its absence in any found Greek manuscripts,[2] the reading of the eastern Syriac is problematic, as the dating and transmission of the manuscript is very late.[3] The reading is seen by scholars as an obvious scribal emendation, as well as a change due to theological agendas; being known that the Eastern church is very Nestorian when it comes to Christology.[4] The western Syriac text reads the same as the majority reading, ‘edta d’alaha (ܠܥܕܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ, “church of God”). Proponents of Peshitta primacy have weak arguments in defense of this reading, as the author being regarded by most as Luke, comes from Greece and writes more fluent Greek than other New Testament writers.
The possesive genitive is supported by other Greek papyri, as τοῦ ἰδίου is an expression that is referring to one’s child [5] or to show endearment to a particular relative (see., Moulton-Miligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, s.v ίδιος; cf. BDAG). Thus, possible translations are “with the blood of his own Son,” as we read in the NET Bible and the NRSV, or “with the blood of the one who is his own,” as translated by Joseph Fitzmyer in his commentary on the book of Acts.[6] There is room for more discussion on this passage, if any other arguments basing on the facts will be presented.
REFERENCES
• Carl W. Griffin, Frank F. Judd Jr., “Principles of New Testament Textual Criticism” in How the New Testament Came to Be, 35th Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, ed. Kent P. Jackson, Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2006): 78-92.
• Charles F. DeVine, “The Blood of God in Acts 20:28,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 9 (1947): 341-408.
• Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008): 415-17.
• Moulton-Miligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1929)
• BDAG, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, third edition (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000)
[1] For more discussion in favor of the reading “church of God” (ekklesia tou Theou), see. Charles F. DeVine, “The Blood of God in Acts 20:28,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 9 (1947): 341-408.
[2] Sebastian P. Brock, “The Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods of the Fifth to Early Seventh Centuries,” Aksum, Thyateira: A Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios of Thyateira and Great Britain, ed. G. Dragas (London: Thyateira House, 1985): 125-42.; Recent Studies in Early Christianity: Doctrinal Diversity, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1999): 281-98.; Sebastian P. Brock, Studies in Syriac Christianity (Hampshire: Variorum, 1992): 125-42.
[3] Lamsa’s textual basis, which is the Khabouris Codex, dates circa 12th century A.D based on carbon dating, unlike what Peshitta Primacy advocates say that it comes from around the 4th century A.D.
[4] Roberta C. Chestnut, “The Two Prosopa in Nestorius’ Bazaar of Heracleides,” Journal of Theological Studies, 29 (1978): 392-409.
[5] Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008): 415-17.
[6] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, AB, vol. 31 (New York: Doubleday, 1997): 680.
