"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood."

The Issue: The authenticity of the text and the translation of that text.

The Trinitarian Claim

Trinitarians claim this verse shows that Jesus is God because it was Jesus who bought the church with his own blood and the passage says God bought the church with his own blood.

What the Evidence will Show

The facts will show that Trinitarians are appealing to a text which has doubtful authenticity. The facts will also show that major Trinitarian translations reflect the questionable character of this text. The facts will also show that the earliest evidence we have concerning this passage does not support their claims. The facts will further show that the grammar and language style do not support the Trinitarian interpretation of their preferred rendering and this is also reflected in one major Trinitarian translation.

Examination of he Evidence

Textual Discrepancies

Acts 20:28 is yet another passage which is disingenuously promoted by Trinitarians to try and support their doctrine. Here we have a passage where the Trinitarian claims that Jesus must be the one called "God" since the church was purchased with God's own blood and only Jesus has blood. Like all the other passages in the Trinitarian's apologetic box, this passage is plagued with many critical issues which Trinitarian apologists conveniently forget to inform people about. The passage may be a scribal error, or it may just be a case of Trinitarian mistranslation. First, it is a well known fact that some early manuscripts do not read "Church of God" but instead have "Church of the Lord." Trinitarians turn a blind eye to these facts. Secondly, the Greek text does not literally say, "his own blood" but "the blood of the own." There is no possessive pronoun "his" in the Greek text. And thirdly, the original Greek does not say "with the blood" but "through the blood" or "by [means of] the blood" which does indeed affect the intended meaning of the passage.

Translations Translation Inconsistencies

Notice how Trinitarian scholars themselves have translated this passage:

the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. (ASV).

the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. (Darby).

the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Son. (JB).

the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. (RSV)

Now how can we accept this passage as "evidence" for their doctrine when Trinitarian scholars themselves do not agree that Jesus is identified as "God" in this passage? How do they expect anyone to rest their faith upon such doubtful evidence?

Early Church Testimony

We do not have the original manuscripts of the books written in the Bible. Our earliest manuscripts are copies prepared centuries after they were originally written. Some manuscripts read "church of God" while many others read "church of the Lord." Our first witness who can testify what the early manuscripts did say is the early Christian Irenaeus who wrote Against Heresies around 180-185 A.D. He writes:

"Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." (Book III, 14).

Obviously, Irenaeus was quoting from a very early scroll of Acts which read "Church of the Lord" and not "Church of God." He was also extremely adamant about teaching the true teachings passed down by the apostles and in fact that is the topic under discussion when he makes this quotation. His quotation shows us without doubt that early manuscripts did indeed indeed show "Church of the Lord" at Acts 20:28. While it is theoretically possible that other manuscripts were also circulating at that time which showed "church of God," the fact that Irenaeus quotes it as "church of the Lord" is enough to completely render the Trinitarian use of Acts 20:28 as unreliable evidence for Trinitarian claims. We do have manuscripts that read "church of the Lord" and this evidence from Irenaeus suggests a very strong indication that this may have been what Luke actually wrote at Acts 20:28 and unless a Trinitarian can undeniably prove otherwise he has no business using Acts 20:28 as Scriptural evidence for his doctrine. But let us not stop here. Let us suppose the passage is intended to say "church of God" and see if the Trinitarian would then have anything to support his doctrine.

God's Blood

If Acts 20:28 said what Trinitarians want it to say, they also have a dilemma on their hands: God's blood. It sounds odd to any rational person. According to Trinitarian doctrine, Jesus did not have blood in his divinity but in his humanity. In order to explain away the problems created by their own translations of this passage, Trinitarians needed to invent another doctrine called communicatio idiomatum.¹ This Latin term is just a fancy way of saying that Jesus' two natures are predicated with respect to the subject, that is, his person, the subject, owns/possesses two natures, the predicate, one divine and one human, and the person is therefore communicated to the two natures he owns as possessions. Essentially, all Trinitarians are doing here is playing a word game of categories; the person Jesus was not himself those two natures; he simply "owned" them or "possessed" them like one owns or possesses a pickup truck. That way, the Trinitarian can tell us that Jesus was working with one of the natures he owned one moment, but working with the other nature on another occasion, and dying with one and not the other. Here, they want to claim that this was not God's own blood by nature, but blood which God owned as part of his overall possessions. Quite simply, it is a clever way of saying God [the Son] was not the blood but it was an item in his possession; it was "his" blood. In this manner, he can also make the disingenous claim that "God the Son" was not dead in the tomb and it was simply his human nature that was dead in the tomb. Although they shout hypostatic union on one hand, they necessarily divide the natures of Christ on the other when it becomes suitable to their agenda. Any intelligent mind can see the severity of the contriving here that was necessary for them is a very big red flag. And the Scripture teaches that the divine Word became touchable flesh and that flesh was dead in the tomb. What Trinitarians must say is that "God" disowned his body at the point of death or they are caught in an escapable dilemma of having a dead God. The reasonable person can see the term "God's blood" is a strange and startling statement that is out of place in Scripture. However, such facts and observations do little to convince the Trinitarian mindset.

The Greek Grammar

1. The word "own" and its use in Koine Greek context

Very often one can find Trinitarian commentators and apologists jumping up and down vehemently protesting against other commentators and translators who would translate this passage as "blood of his own son" instead of "his own blood." Now let us be reminded that there are Trinitarian scholars who insist it should indeed be translated as "blood of his own [Son]." But it seems that some Trinitarians are ignorant of the facts and claim that since the word "son" is not present in the original Greek, and it is not, then it is completely unfeasible to translate it as "blood of his own son. These Trinitarian apologists must be either very ignorant of the facts or they are being quite dishonest. The RSV, a major translation that was translated by Trinitarian scholars does indeed translate it as "blood of his own son" and there is a very good reason they do so. It was indeed very common in Koine Greek to use the word "own" without explicitly stating an accompanying noun where that noun is implied and there are several examples in the New Testament and even right here in Luke's very own words in the book of Acts.

Concerning this passage, Trinitarian Greek scholar J.H. Moulton tells us that it is quite normal to use the Greek word for "own" without explicitly stating the implied accompanying noun. He writes:

"Before leaving [idious] something should be said about the use of [ho idios] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1.11; 13.1; Ac 4.23; 24.23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations: eg.[ho deina to idio khairein.] In Expositor... I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B.Weiss) who would translate Ac 20.28 'the blood of one who was his own.'" (Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol.1, Prologomena, 2nd edition, 1906, p.90).

Let us now carefully consider several New Testament examples where the word idios ("own") is used where the idea that is attached to it is not explicitly states but is indeed implied and expected to be understood by the reader.

Verse	Literal Text	Implied Meaning
John 1:11	He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him.	He came unto his own [people] and his own [people] did not receive him.
John 13:1	having loved his own that were in the world, he loved them to the end	having loved his own [disciples] he loved them to the end
John 19:27	Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.' And from that hour, the disciple took her to the own	Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.' And from that hour, the disciple took her [to his own home].
John 19:27	After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. (Douey-Rheims)	After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her [as his own mother].
1 Timothy 5:8	But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever	But if anyone does not provide for his own [family], and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Acts 4:23	And being let go, they went to their own	And being let go, they went to their own [Christian brethren]
Acts 21:6	we went into the ship and they returned to their own	we went into the ship and they returned to their own [lives/families]
Acts 24:23	and to forbid none of his own from providing for him and coming to him	and to forbid none of his own [friends] from providing for him and coming to him
Acts 28:20	the church... he purchased with the blood of his own	the church... he purchased with the blood of his own [son]

The literal word for word translations shown above imply a concept that is not explicitly mentioned in the original Greek text but is most certainly implied. Hence, we can see quite clearly that the word "son" was indeed implied at Acts 20:28, It was common in Koine Greek to use the word "own" in this respect and leave the reader to understand what is implied but not stated. The Implied Meaning is what the writer expects the reader to understand. We can see plainly that there is nothing unusual about first century Greek writers using the word idios ("own") without an accompanying noun and that an idea was simply implied and expected to be understood by the reader. In fact, we can see from the above evidences in Acts that Luke himself has a habit of writing this way. He does the very same thing four times in this same book of Acts. In each and every case, we are are left to infer what the word "own" intends to imply to us.

2. Terms of Endearment

There is yet another very important piece of evidence which cannot be ignored. Notice our above examples. In each and every case the possessive "own" refers to dear or loved ones. We happen to do the very same thing in English when we say we "take care of our own." Our own what? Our own loved ones and our own things which are dear to us. These loved ones or things are not stated explicitly but implied in the expression. We are endeared to the things we own; that is why we own them. The term ho idios is also found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment for relatives. In the present sense idios is the equivalent of Hebrew YAHID, "only," "well-beloved," otherwise rendered beloved, chosen only-begotten (See F.F.Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3rd ed., p. 434. See J.H. Moulton, MHTI, p. 90).

Note how this concept is clearly presented by Jesus in the Gospel of John.

If you were of the world, the world would love its own (ho idios) but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

What is meant here is not stated by expected to be understood by the reader. In the same way, what is meant at Acts 20:28 is not stated explicitly but expected to be understood by the reader, "the church of God which he bought with the blood of his own Beloved Son."

3. Trinitarian Greek Scholars

Due to the above evidence, there are numerous well known Trinitarian Greek scholars who believe the passage is intended to mean "blood of his own son, including Bruce, Fitzmeyer, Knapp, Pesch, Weiser. This in itself reveals the passage does not support Trinitarian dogma as Trinitarian apologists like to pretend. Fitzmeyer writes:

"The mention of blood" must refer to the vicarious shedding of the blood of Jesus, the Son. Through his blood the Christian community has become God's own possession, the people acquired for his renewed covenant. Cf. Eph 1:14; Heb 9: 12; 1 Pet 2:9-10, which speak of God acquiring a people, echoing an OT motif (1Sa 43:21; Ps 74:2j. Luke may be thinking of the action of God the Father and the Son as so closely related that his mode of speaking slips from one to the other; if so, it resembles the speech patterns of the Johannine Gospel."

Krodel writes:

"...he has 'purchased' or obtained it with the blood of his own Son. This translation of v. 28 in the second edition of the RSV is better than that found in the first edition, The Greek text does not contain the word Son, but reads 'his own.' Like 'the Beloved'. (Eph. 1:6), so "his own" refers to the Son of God. Only once in Acts does Luke speak of the saving efficacy of the death of Jesus (cf. Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24; 3: l8) by using a traditional formulation. God redeemed his people, the church, through the atoning death of his Son, Therefore the church is God's possession."

4. The Greek word dia

The Greek word used at Acts 20:28 is not "with" but "through" (dia) and actually reads "through or "by" the blood of his own" where the word implies a "means." When it is translated as "by" it means "by means of." This is an extremely typical New Testament way of referring to the relationship of God and his Son. God is said to have created through Jesus Christ or by [means of] Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6) and did miracles through Jesus Christ or by means of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:22). Relating God and Christ in this way is very, very common in the New Testament. Thus it is even more likely that Acts 20:28 is intended to convey, "he purchased through/by the blood of his own son."

Summation of the Facts

• The text appealed to by Trinitarians is very questionable concerning its authenticity. Some manuscripts read "church of the Lord" and others read "church of God."



• A comparison of major Trinitarian translations reflects the doubtful character of their preferred version of the text.



• Irenaeus, an early Christian deeply concerned with preaching the apostolic tradition, quotes this verse as "church of the Lord," and this is the earliest evidence we have for what this verse should say.



• It was quite common in the Bible, and especially in Luke's writings, to use the word "own" without explicitly stating the noun which is implied. This is evidence by several passages we cited. The RSV, a Trinitarian translation, reflects this fact by translating the passage as "blood of his own son."



• It is also know that the ancient Greeks spoke in this manner. They used this kind of terminology to refer to their beloved. And indeed we know that Jesus was God the Father's beloved.



• Given the forceful nature of the evidence, Trinitarians have no grounds for objecting to a "blood of his own son" translation.

Call for Discernment

If nothing else, Acts 20:28 is plagued with so many difficulties that it renders the passage completely useless as evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. But it is even worse than just unreliable evidence. Luke may not have even wrote "Church of God" but instead had written "Church of the Lord" as Irenaeus' early quotation indicates. The reasonable person can also see that "God's blood" stands oddly out of place in the Scriptures. And even if the passage was written by Luke to say "church of God", we can see clearly that it was common to use the term "own" without an accompanying noun with the expectation the reader would understand the implied inference to God's beloved son. The implication is not hard to figure out since we are all expected to know it was God's son who shed his blood. And when we add to this the fact that the church was purchased "through" the blood of his own, it really matters not if the passage says "Church of God" or not since this could easily mean and would likely mean "through the blood of his own son." No matter how you slice it and dice it, the Trinitarian has absolutely nothing at Acts 20:28 but his own contriving desire to promote a concept that the passage does not.

"church of the Lord which he bought through/by his own the blood"
"church of God which he bought through/by the blood of his own son" (RSV)