Acts 20:28

by faundy 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  Essentially there are four general interpretations that are being discussed here:

  (1) "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood," in which HIS OWN = God's.

  (2) "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood," in which HIS OWN = Christ's. The interpretation here is simply that the author was being sloppy and forgot what the subject was and changed reference in mid-sentence. There was a reference to Christ in v. 24.

  (3) "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with the blood of His Own," in which HIS OWN = someone other than God (i.e. Jesus). This is the substantive reading, in which "HIS OWN" is used as a noun in its own right.

  (4) "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with the blood of his own Son," in which an original hUIOU was accidentally deleted by a copyist because it was next to a similar TOUIDIOU. This was cited by the Society, in addition to (3), as a rationale for its rendering. This would make the rendering a conjectural emendation.

  For the sake of completeness, one could also suggest on less plausible grounds:

  (5) "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood," in which HIS OWN = the Holy Spirit. This is on the basis of the mention of the Holy Spirit and its work in the previous verse.
• 

  Uncertain

  The NWT I use sys "[] Brackets enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the English text; [[ ]] suggest interpolations in the original text."

  Now I'll quote from the Zondervan NIV Study Bible. The note on that part of the verse says: his own blood . Lit. "The blood of his own one," a term of endearment (such as his own dear one)," referring to his own Son).

  Hmmm, just read 29 and 30. Interesting stuff. A warning about elders/overseers/pastors who wil arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. But I'm sure that could never hapen here...
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....Considering the Lukan character of the speech at Miletus, it is interesting to compare it with the Lukan (= Pauline) version of the institution narrative in Luke ("This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood", 22:20) and the underlying OT intertexts of Jeremiah 31:31 LXX and Zechariah 9:11-13, which both stress the covenantal relationship between God and his people. The text in Zechariah is particularly interesting because it refers to "the blood of your covenant" (haimati diathékés sou) as the means through which the prisoners of the congregation (sunagógés) are released from the pit. What do you think of the parallel in Ephesians 1? That passage refers to both (1) apolutrósin dia tou haimatos autou "redemption through his blood" in v. 7 and (2) apolutrósin tés peripoiéseós "redemption of [God's] acquired possession" in v. 14, which together reflect the wording of periepoiésato dia tou idiou haimatos in Acts 20:28. Then there is 5:25 which says that "Christ loved the church (ekklésian) and delivered himself up on her behalf to make her holy".
• 

  Narkissos

  Yes, the verbal network is quite interesting. Most likely, semi-stereotyped liturgical speech where the exact chain of meaning and reference is easily lost but fixed phrases recur (like in "free" prayers in church, not to say KH ).

  Another parallel to (echo from?) Ephesians is, as often, in 1 Peter (1:19, redemption through blood, 2:9, peripoièsis -- cf. Isaiah 43:21 LXX).

  Secondarily (because the meaning is different, though not completely unrelated), the unique Lukan choice of peripoieô in Luke 17:33 ("to save/spare one's psukhè") may be noted, too.
• 

  Leolaia

  I did some more digging last night in the parallels with Ephesians and I found more possible links to the farewell address in Miletus, some of which are slight commonplaces but others may be more distinctive. There seems to be an interesting cluster in ch. 1 within the space of a few verses. We have already seen that the statement in Acts 20:28 that "he acquired [the church] with his own blood" (periepoiésato dia tou idiou haimatos) parallels the references to "the redemption of [God's] acquired possession" (apolutrósin tés peripoiéseós) in Ephesians 1:14 and "the redemption through his blood" (apolutrósin dia tou haimatos autou) in 1:7. But notice also that the same passage in 1:14 refers to the redemption also as "our inheritance" (kléronomias hémón), and the Miletus speech in Acts 20:32 similarly describes Christians as receiving "the inheritance among all those who are sanctified" (tén kléronomian en tois hégiasmenois pasin). The association of kléronomia and sanctification furthermore evokes Ephesians 1:18 which refers to "his inheritance in the saints" (tés kléronomias autou en tois hagiois; cf. also 1:15 which combines pas + hagious). A third link to ch. 1 lies in the previous verse of Acts 20:27, in which Paul says that he never hestitated to proclaim to the Ephesian elders "the whole purpose of God" (pasan tén boulén tou theou). Similarly, the author in Ephesians 1:11 states that his fellow Christians were chosen "according to the purpose of his [= God's] will" (kata tén boulén tou thelématos autou). So the short passage of v. 11-18 in Ephesians 1 has multiple links to the Miletus speech. Then there are some other interesting parallels elsewhere in Ephesians, particularly ch. 4. In Acts 20:19, Paul says that he has been "slaving to the Lord" (douleuón tó kurió) "with lowliness of mind" (metapasés tapeinophrosunés), which echoes the admonition in Ephesians 6:7 to "slave with well-mindedness as to the Lord" (met' eunoias douleuontes hós tó kurió) and the statement in 4:2 that fellow Christians are called to be "with lowliness of mind" (metapasés tapeinophrosunés). In Ephesians 4:1, Paul as a "prisoner for the Lord" urges the Christians of Ephesus "to live a life worthy of the calling you have received" whereas in Acts 20:24 Paul hints to his coming imprisonment and death and expresses his desire to "finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me". This commission involved "teaching" the Christians in Ephesus (edidakhthete in Ephesians 4:21 and didaxai in Acts 20:28), such that he was commissioned "to witness thoroughly the good news of the grace of God" (diamarturasthai to euaggelion tés kharitos tou theou), as Acts 20:24 puts it. This reflects the statement in Ephesians 3:2 that "you had heard about the administration of the grace of God" (ékousate tén oikonomian tés kharitos tou theou). The "grace of God" (tés kharitos tou theou) is what Paul had witnessed to the church of Ephesus in Acts 20 and that is what the same church had "heard" from Paul in Ephesians 3. Finally, both texts refer to the divine commission that the elders of the church had received. Ephesians 4:11 states that Christ "gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be shepherds (poimenas) and teachers", whereas Acts 20:28 refers to Holy Spirit as "appointing" the elders as "overseers to shepherd the church of God" (episkopous poimainein tén ekklesian tou theou).

  Altogether these are incidental commonalities in language and theme that suggest perhaps only a common milieu, I have to still wonder if the author of Acts drew on Ephesians as a source. I wouldn't have thought of this possibility by itself because the links are not as distinctive as other examples (such as the more extensive parallels between Ephesians and 1 Peter and Colossians), but the fact that the Miletus speech is explicitly addressed to the elders of Ephesus makes me wonder if the author wanted to dress up his discourse with phrases taken from another Pauline writing that was also addressed (at least in some quarters) to the same church at Ephesus. If the author did know Ephesians, that would have some interesting implications.
• 

  Shawn10538

  This thread reminds me of the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Ehrman. Anybody read it?
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you Leolaia for this extended survey. The overall picture is quite compelling indeed.

  One of the most interesting features in Acts, imo, is that in spite of its rather artificial framework it does preserve many fragmentary pictures of early Christian segments, some of which are pretty unique (e.g. the first discourses of "Peter" and "Stephen," a distorted yet distinct reflection of Jewish-Christian and Hellenistic theologies). The Ephesian analogies (which for once we can "double-check") show both the worth and limits of such bits of collective memory...

  shawn: you might check Leolaia's first post on this thread, where she refers to Ehrman's book about the verse under discussion.
• 

  Philippus79

  Ac 20:28—Gr. (di·a´ tou hai´ma·tos tou i·di´ou) 1903 “with the blood of His own Son” The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F. Fenton, London. 1950 “with the blood of his own [Son]” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1966 “through the death of his own Son” Today’s English Version, American Bible Society, New York. Grammatically, this passage could be translated as in the King James Version and Douay Version, “with his own blood.” That has been a difficult thought for many. That is doubtless why ACDSyh (margin) (followed by Moffatt’s translation) read “the congregation of the Lord,” instead of “the congregation of God.” When the text reads that way it furnishes no difficulty for the reading, “with his own blood.” However, ?BVg read “God” (articulate), and the usual translation would be ‘God’s blood.’ The Greek words ??? ????? (tou i·di´ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” A noun in the singular number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ????? [i´di·os] something should be said about the use of ? ????? [ho i´di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 111 131, Ac 423 2423. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’” Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: “it is by no means impossible that ???? [hui·ou´, “of the Son”] dropped out after ???????? [tou i·di´ou, “of his own”] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind.” The New World Translation renders the passage literally, adding “Son” in brackets after ????? to read: “with the blood of his own [Son].”
• 

  Philippus79

  Ac 20:28—Gr. (di·a´ tou hai´ma·tos tou i·di´ou) 1903 “with the blood of His own Son” The Holy Bible in Modern English, by F. Fenton, London. 1950 “with the blood of his own [Son]” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1966 “through the death of his own Son” Today’s English Version, American Bible Society, New York. Grammatically, this passage could be translated as in the King James Version and Douay Version, “with his own blood.” That has been a difficult thought for many. That is doubtless why ACDSyh (margin) (followed by Moffatt’s translation) read “the congregation of the Lord,” instead of “the congregation of God.” When the text reads that way it furnishes no difficulty for the reading, “with his own blood.” However, ?BVg read “God” (articulate), and the usual translation would be ‘God’s blood.’ The Greek words ??? ????? (tou i·di´ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” A noun in the singular number would be understood after “his own,” most likely God’s closest relative, his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ. On this point J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ????? [i´di·os] something should be said about the use of ? ????? [ho i´di·os] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 111 131, Ac 423 2423. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’” Alternately, in The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: “it is by no means impossible that ???? [hui·ou´, “of the Son”] dropped out after ???????? [tou i·di´ou, “of his own”] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind.” The New World Translation renders the passage literally, adding “Son” in brackets after ????? to read: “with the blood of his own [Son].”