|
The text
of Acts 20:28 has caused some confusion, with theological
difficulties found in this verse when certain translations
are considered. As an example, the NASB
speaks of God’s blood being that which purchased the
congregation. When such a rendering is given the
implication is that Jesus is God and as God he purchased
the congregation.
We have noted in our various discussions that
identifying Jesus Christ as
our god is not an issue. There “are many gods”
outside of the “one God” and Jesus would be the highest of
these many, though not being the one true God himself.
(1Cor. 8:5-6; Joh. 1:1; 20:28) Nevertheless, Acts 20:28
uses the term “God” with the semantic force of a proper
name. This text can only be speaking of the one true
God. (Joh. 17:3; 1Joh. 5:20)
The issue
is easily resolved when we realize that it is only a
matter of translation. In the Greek text we read δια τυο
αίηατος του ιδιου. These words can be taken as possessive
or attributive If they are possessive, the words “his
own” refer to a person that belongs to him, with the blood
of that person being what bought the congregation. If
attributive it is actually God's own blood that bought the
congregation. As it is entirely legitimate to translate
the text either way we must look to the context to
determine the proper meaning.
The
context presents the apostle Paul speaking. His words
begin in verse 18 and throughout his discussion he
references God on five occasions, including Acts 20:28.
Three of these texts come before Acts 20:28, where two of
them clearly distinguish between God and Jesus, while the
third is consistent with that distinction. (Act. 20:21,
24, 27) To say that Jesus was the "God" that is spoken of
in 20:28 would be inconsistent with the context, where
Paul clearly was using "God" as a reference to the Father.
Realizing the clear and simple context of
the verse we find that the text is best understood as a
possessive genitive. The one who’s blood purchased the
congregation belonged to God. Bruce Metzger explains:
“This absolute use of idios is found in Greek papyri as a
term of endearment referring to near relatives.
It is possible, therefore, that ‘his Own’ (o idios) was a
title that early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to
‘the Beloved’ (o agaphtos); compare Ro[mans] 8.32, where Paul
refers to God ‘who did not spare tou idiou uiou’ in a
context that clearly alludes to G[e]n[esis] 22.16, where the
Septuagint has agaphtou uiou.”
While we
might translate the text as “the blood of his own,” a
rendering that is extremely literal, few
reading in English would understand the use of “his own”
in Greek papyri as a term of endearment. In the text “his own” would be equivalent
to “his son” in that the son is the one that is spoken of
with endearment. Thus a number of translations have
added "son" for clarity, including the New Jerusalem
Bible, New World Translation and New Revised Standard
Version .
Murray Harris summarizes
the issue: "I
have argued that the original text of Acts 20:28 read την
έκκλησίαν τοΰ θεοΰ, ην περιεποιήσατο δια τοΰ αίματος τοΰ
ιδίου and that the most appropriate translation of these
words is ‘the church of God which he acquired through the
blood of his own one’ or ‘the Church of God which he
bought with the blood of his own Son’ (NJB), with ό ίδιος
construed as a christological title. According to this
view, ό θεός refers to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.
If, however, one follows many English versions in
construing ίδιος adjectivally (‘through his own blood’), ό
θεός could refer to Jesus and the verse could therefore
allude to ‘the blood of God,’ although on this
construction of ίδιος it is more probable that θεός is God
the Father and the unexpressed subject of περιεποιήσατο is
Jesus. So it remains unlikely, although not impossible,
that in Acts 20:28 ό θεός denotes Jesus.”
Harris' words properly summarize the grammatical issues.
When the context is closely examined
one can hold to no other view than that of the text
referring to the
Son as God's possession, where the Son, not God, is the
one that gave his blood.
|