Acts 20:28

1. The Competing Readings

In Paul’s charge to the Ephesian elders, the principal variation identifies the Church as:

• τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ — “the church of God”;
• τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου — “the church of the Lord”;
• τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ — “the church of the Lord and God,” generally treated as a secondary combination.

The Received Text continues ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, traditionally rendered “which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Modern critical editions generally reverse the final two elements and print διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, “through the blood of his own.” That order permits some interpreters to construe τοῦ ἰδίου substantivally: “his own [one],” that is, his own Son.

The Received Text and most modern critical editions agree on “the church of God” at the principal variation, while differing in the word order of the blood clause.

2. English Translations Affected

The Authorized Version reads:

“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.”

Most modern English translations also print “church of God,” though some footnote “church of the Lord” and some render the final phrase “with the blood of his own Son.” The verse therefore illustrates both a textual variant and a translation question within the reading “God.”

3. Greek Evidence

The abbreviated sacred names for “God” and “Lord” differ by a small number of letters in majuscule script. Either form could be influenced by a familiar ecclesiastical phrase. The expression “church of God” is characteristically Pauline; “church of the Lord” has Septuagintal precedent but is unique as an exact New Testament phrase.

The order of the blood clause also matters. In the Received Text, τοῦ ἰδίου directly precedes αἵματος, naturally yielding “his own blood.” In the common critical order, τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, the second genitive can be read adjectivally (“his own blood”) or substantivally (“the blood of his own [one]”). The second construction should not be inserted into English merely to avoid the theological force of “God’s blood” without telling the reader what textual and interpretive decisions have been made.

4. Manuscript Evidence

The external evidence for “God” and “Lord” is closely divided enough that critical commentaries describe the decision as difficult. There are also secondary combinations that appear to unite the two principal readings.

Because the two common forms are both early and explainable, no simple manuscript-count slogan resolves the case. The critic must weigh witness relationships, the abbreviation, the Pauline speech setting, and the possibility of assimilation toward either a Pauline or Septuagintal expression.

5. Versional Evidence

Ancient versions divide, and some versional forms are affected by the translator’s treatment of the final phrase. Each version must be examined in its own manuscripts and editorial history. A modern back-translation from a version into “God” or “Lord” is weaker than a version whose wording clearly distinguishes the two.

The versional evidence confirms the antiquity of the variation but does not eliminate the need for a causal account.

6. Patristic Evidence

Patristic writers cite or allude to the verse in doctrinal and pastoral contexts. A citation is most useful when it includes both “church of God/Lord” and the blood clause. Writers may otherwise reproduce only the part relevant to their argument or quote from memory.

Claims about patristic support should therefore identify the work, section, edition, exact wording, and whether the text is direct quotation or allusion.

7. Lectionary and Ecclesiastical Use

The Greek received and ecclesiastical text reads “the church of God.” This is also the wording familiar through the Authorized Version and much Protestant exposition.

Lectionary evidence should be catalogued by date and form. The ecclesiastical reading is significant to reception, but it must not be represented by an unverified total.

8. Printed-Text History

The principal Received Text editions print τοῦ θεοῦ and διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος. Most modern critical editions also print τοῦ θεοῦ, although their apparatus records τοῦ κυρίου and combined forms; they generally print διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου in the final clause. This partial agreement is important: the principal divine title is not always a contest between the Textus Receptus and the latest critical text, even where a secondary word-order variation remains.

Critical editors generally retain “God” because they judge it more likely to have been altered to “Lord,” especially in view of the striking blood clause, than the reverse. That is a reasoned historical judgment, not a reading mechanically dictated by one canon.

9. Reformation-Era Reception

The Greek text and Protestant translations of the Reformation and post-Reformation period commonly read “church of God.” The Authorized Version’s “his own blood” became a familiar statement of the dignity of Christ’s redemptive purchase.

Historical reception does not remove the duty to inspect the rival reading, but it establishes that “God” is not a recent doctrinal expansion created by an English translation.

10. Internal Considerations

Internal evidence points in both directions.

• “Church of God” fits Paul’s established usage and the fact that Luke is reporting a Pauline address.
• “Church of the Lord” is the rarer New Testament expression and can therefore be called the lexically harder reading.
• “God” followed by “his own blood” is theologically and verbally striking and can therefore be called the conceptually harder reading.
• A scribe could assimilate “Lord” to Pauline usage or change “God” to “Lord” to soften the blood expression.

The familiar rule “prefer the harder reading” cannot decide until the kind of difficulty has already been selected.

11. Doctrinal and Exegetical Consequences

The reading “God” bears directly upon the person of Christ. The Son is truly God, and the blood by which the Church was purchased belongs to the human nature he assumed. Historic Christology can therefore speak of “the blood of God” according to the unity of the person without teaching that the divine nature as such is passible or composed of blood.

The reading “Lord” would still refer naturally to Christ and still teach the costly purchase of the Church. The textual decision does not create the doctrine of Christ’s deity, but “God” makes the identification explicit.

12. Confessional Conclusion

Confessional Bibliology retains “the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” The reading stands in the Received Text, the ecclesiastical tradition, and the modern critical text; it fits the Pauline setting and supplies the more striking expression that readily explains a change to “Lord.”

The agreement of printed traditions does not make every supporting argument infallible. The evidence still teaches a methodological lesson: categories of difficulty can conflict, and critical reasoning may reach the received reading without acquiring authority to redefine the rule of faith.

13. Related Articles

• Canon Collision Casebook II: Romans 5:1 and Acts 20:28
• Key Textual Differences and Their Doctrinal Consequences
• Evidence as Servant, Not Sovereign

14. Books and Papers

• Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, discussion of Acts 20:28.
• Current Greek New Testament apparatuses for the exact witnesses to θεοῦ, κυρίου, and the combined forms.
• Studies of the syntax of τοῦ ἰδίου and the Christological use of the communication of properties.

15. Audio and Video

No original Confessional Bibliology episode dedicated solely to Acts 20:28 has yet been entered in the controlled Media catalogue. A future episode should link its transcript and source list here.

16. Comparison Chart

This table is the current web comparison. A versioned downloadable chart should be released through the Downloads and Citation Center.

Source Record

• Master corpus record 0881, “Canon Collision Casebook II: Romans 5:1 and Acts 20:28”