Acts 20:28

Fisherman

Acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”. NWT interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”. NWT is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of Jesus and not the blood of God.

Earnest

Acts 20 : 28 reads according to the NWT Interlinear

τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου

the blood of the own (one)

which literally says : "the blood of his own", a subtle difference.

peacefulpete

"the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood

Variant 1 την εκκλησιαν του κυριου
“the church of the Lord”
P74 A C* D E Ψ 33. 453. 945. 1739. 1891. 2818 gig p syhmg co; Irlat Lcf

Variant 2 την εκκλησιαν του κυριου και του θεου
“the church of the Lord and God”
C3 L 323. 1241 Maj

My point is simply that either the verse created discomfort very early and variants emerged to resolve it OR that the verse has been altered to support the deification of Jesus. Nowhere else does the writer of Acts use the expression "church of God" but Paul does. It's possible it was altered to harmonize with Pauline usage. Who knows.

Fisherman

"the blood of his own", a subtle difference.

Thank you Earnest. I just put it in my own words in English. But literally, you are correct.

ozziepost

the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of Jesus and not the blood of God.

Or could it be that the WT interpretation is influenced by their pre-supposition, i.e. that Jesus was not God in human form ?

smiddy3

I can`t comprehend how anyone in this life or any other life could think of GOD having blood ?

So obviously it must refer to somebody else ? yes ?

Fisherman

God in human form

Jesus said in human form that God is a spirit—and of course what the rest of the Bible says about God and about Jesus.

peacefulpete

At the time of the writing of Acts (whether you prefer an early or late date) the debate about the nature of Christ was raging already. (I regard this as the 3rd stage of Xtian development) Some felt he was spirit with the appearance of flesh like angels in OT, some felt he was a spirit that adopted/possessed a man named Jesus, some held no particular purpose to his death other than the tragedy betrayed the corruption of the earthly world, some were attracted to the idea that the human sacrifice was transactional. Some assumed the end of the Law some did not. All these ideas were popular within different communities and are on display through the writings of the time and the hundreds of recognized alterations to the text of the books the winning orthodoxy eventually chose to include in its canon. To ponder how this one text in Acts originally read without considering these facts would be folly.

Fisherman

how anyone in this life or any other life could think of GOD having blood ?

Because it’s utter nonsense. How can God depend on his own creation for survival?

peacefulpete

how anyone in this life or any other life could think of GOD having blood

As a theological concept it actually has much appeal. We are in God's image right? Judaism's founding texts certainly had no problem with their God having a body. He walks around and eats and interacts like anyone else. Many Rabbis throughout the centuries asserted he did have a physical body. While others disagreed it was due to the increasing sophistication of their theology not by textural rebuttal. It makes God accessible and relatable like the Jesus figure does centuries later.

(.https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Orthodox-Theology-Reappraised-Civilization/dp/1906764239) Has a chapter on the evolving notion of God's body.

Interestingly millions of Christians today embrace the idea of God having a body...they are called Mormons:

Doct&Cov 130 22 The aFather has a bbody of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of cSpirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not ddwell in us.

Acts 20:28

Share this