Main menu:
Acts 20.28
prosechete heautois kai panti tō poimniō en hō hymas to Pneuma
προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ , ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock among which you the Spirit -
to Hagion etheto episkopous
τὸ Ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους , ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ , ἣν
Holy has set overseers to shepherd the church -
περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου .
he purchased with -
‘Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.’
The difficulties that arise from the last part of this verse, which belongs to the farewell speech of Paul to the elders in Ephesus, are reflected in the fact that various Greek manuscripts present no less than nine different versions of the same passage. This apparent confusion is reflected in the variety of readings that are available in English: The version shown above, from the NIV, has parallels in the ESV, HCSB, JB, NASB, NKJV and NLT among others.
Part of the problem with this translation is that the idea of the ‘blood of God’ has no parallels anywhere in the New Testament. Equally problematic is that we have no definite evidence of a church Father quoting this passage as proof of the deity of Christ before Cyril of Alexandria in the 5th century AD.<1> An easy option, therefore, might be to select one of the competing alternatives:
Keep watch ... as shepherds of the church of the Lord, which he won for himself by his own blood. (NEB)
(similarly ASV CCB Moffatt NEB REB RSV)
Keep watch ... as shepherds of the church of God, which he won for himself by the blood of his own. (NEB margin)
(similarly CEV GNB NCV NJB NRSV NWT)
The first of these is based on some relatively early sources such as p74 and the Alexandrinus manuscript which have the reading ‘church of the Lord’, which avoid the strange idea of the ‘blood of God’. But, as Nigel Turner states,
they must be rejected on the ground that the more startling or difficult reading is the one likely to be correct; scribes would not invent a conception of such unexpected originality as “the blood of God”.<2>
More plausible, perhaps, is the second version shown above, on the basis that ho idios (‘his own’) might be being used here as a noun rather than an adjective, as a title for Christ. Such a usage is certainly possible: Bruce Metzger cites it as an occasional term of endearment in Greek,<3> and it has parallels in ho eklektos (‘the Chosen One’) in Luke 23.35, and ho agapemenos (‘the One he loves’) in Eph 1.6. Turner again, however, dismisses such a possibility out of hand:
It is a theological expedient, foisting imaginary distinctions into a spontaneous affirmation, and is not the natural way to take the Greek. It is unlikely to have been the meaning envisaged either by St. Paul or the writer of the narrative. The easy thing would be for them to add the word “Son,” if that was intended.<4>
If Turner is correct here, we are left back again with the first option. Despite its strangeness, there are a number of arguments for suggesting that this might, in fact, be the correct reading:
(i) The fact that no less than nine variant readings of this verse have circulated in Greek manuscripts suggests that scribes were looking for ways to reduce the awkwardness of the words; this would hardly have arisen if ‘the blood of his own’ were such an obvious translation.
(ii) The expression ‘with his own blood’ has parallels in the Book of Hebrews, (9: 12 and 13: 12) even though the Greek construction is slightly different.
(iii) Luke, the author of Acts, appears on several other occasions to hint indirectly at the deity both of Christ (Luke 7.16, 8.39; Acts 16.31,34) and of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5.3-
(iv) There are references to ‘the blood of God’ in several second century Christian writings which would be harder to explain if there were not a clear scriptural precedent.
Harris, however, raises a significant objection when he argues that
the NT stops short of predicating human attributes or characteristics of Christ as God (such as “the blood of God”) and divine attributes or characteristics of Christ as man (such as “the omnipotence of Jesus of Nazareth”)<6>
But is he entirely correct here? We should note that at several points in the New Testament the blood is associated with statements of Christ’s divinity, as follows:
a) In John 6.53-
b) In John 19.34 ff. the issue of blood and water from Jesus’s side is subsequently illustrated (in verse 37) by reference to the prophecy in Zech 12.10 about the suffering of Yahweh.
c) In John 20.24 ff the marks of the nails are linked directly to Thomas’s acclamation of Jesus as ‘God’.
d) In Titus 2.13-
e) In Hebrews 9.14, Christ offers his blood though ‘the eternal Spirit’ (pneumatos aioniou) which might conceivably be a reference not to the Holy Spirit, but to his own divine nature.
f) In 1 Peter 1.18-
g) In Rev 5.9 the blood of Christ provides a central focus in the heavenly worship of the Lamb.
If, in fact, the suffering of the servant in the latter part of Isaiah is portraying the agony of Yahweh himself, as Richard Bauckham suggests,<7> there is no reason why Paul should not use such an expression: it underlies the central role that the cross plays in his thought, and one in which God is inextricably intertwined. Since in Genesis 9.4-
Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to his blood.