Acts 20:28 — “Purchased with his own blood”: the blood of God or the blood of the Son?

“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”

Acts 20:28 (ESV)

Context

Acts 20:17–38 is Paul’s farewell address to the “elders” (presbýteroi) of the church of Ephesus, delivered at Miletus on the journey to Jerusalem. It is the only major speech of Paul to a Christian congregation in the book of Acts — a pastoral legacy, not a dogmatic treatise. Its aim is to exhort the shepherds to vigilance against “fierce wolves” (v. 29), not to instruct concerning the nature of Christ.

Verse 28 grounds this exhortation: the flock is precious, for it has been dearly purchased. Whoever would gauge the importance of his office should consider whose property has been entrusted to him and at what price it was won. The statement is therefore motivational and pastoral: it seeks to move the elders to faithfulness by holding before their eyes the worth of what has been entrusted to them.

What is decisive is that throughout the same address Paul continually sets God and the Lord Jesus side by side and distinguishes them: “repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus” (v. 21), “the gospel of the grace of God” (v. 24), “the word of his grace” (v. 32). The linguistic frame of reference of the speech knows a “God” (the Father) and a “Lord Jesus” who is distinguished from him. Whoever reads v. 28 in isolation and equates “God” with Christ shatters the very logic of language in which Paul holds the whole address.

To this is added the textual history: Acts 20:28 is among the few passages of the New Testament where the manuscripts diverge precisely in the word on which the Trinitarian proof rests. The Racovian Catechism already points to the Syriac reading “Christ.” A verse whose key word is textually uncertain cannot bear a principal burden of doctrine.

The Socinian core thesis

The Trinitarian reading draws from v. 28 a single conclusion: if “God” obtained the church “with his own blood,” then God has blood, and so the bleeding Christ is God. The Socinian interpretation shows that this inference breaks down at every one of its three stages: at the shape of the text, at the grammar, and at the concept of God.

First: the reading is uncertain. Alongside “the church of God” (tou theoû) stands the widely attested reading “the church of the Lord” (tou kyríou). But where “Lord” stands, the “Lord Jesus” is meant, and speaking of his blood is a matter of course — the whole difficulty vanishes. The Catechism adds that the Peshitta even reads “Christ.”

Second: even on the reading “God,” the phrase diá tou haímatos tou idíou is ambiguous. The postpositive tou idíou can be read substantivally: “through the blood of his own,” that is, of his own Son. Then the sense is: God the Father obtained for himself the church through the blood of the one who is his own. Of a blood of God himself there is no mention at all.

Third: the word “God” here stands with the definite article in subject position (hē ekklēsía tou theoû — “the church of the God”). This construction designates the Father in the New Testament. And since the Father has no body and no blood — “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he “alone has immortality” (1 Tim 6:16) — “his own blood” can only be meant in the sense of ownership: the blood that belongs to him because his Son belonged wholly to him. Thus one speaks of the blood of a father when his own son sheds it.

Exegesis: key terms and word-field

Four philological observations decide the interpretation of Acts 20:28:

ekklēsía tou theoû / tou kyríou — the textual variant “of God” / “of the Lord”

The manuscripts divide precisely at the key word. “The church of God” (tou theoû) is read by the great Egyptian witnesses (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) and the Vulgate; “the church of the Lord” (tou kyríou) is likewise read by ancient and weighty witnesses (Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae, many minuscules), and the Byzantine majority text offers the conflated form “Lord and God.”

Text-critically, the more difficult reading is often held to be the more original. “The church of the Lord” is in the New Testament the rarer, more awkward expression (Paul otherwise always writes “the church of God”); “the church of God” could therefore be an assimilation to Paul’s normal usage. The Racovian Catechism notes “that in the Syriac edition, in place of ‘God,’ ‘Christ’ is rather read.” However one weighs the witnesses: a word that fluctuates so greatly cannot be a secure foundation for a statement about essence.

If “of the Lord” (or even “of Christ”) stands in the original text, the whole question dissolves: of course the “Lord Jesus” shed his blood to obtain the church for himself. An argument for the deity of Christ can in no case be drawn from it.

tou idíou — “his own [blood]” or “his own [Son]”

The Greek wording is diá tou haímatos tou idíou — literally “through the blood of the own.” The attribute tou idíou stands after the noun, not before it. Had Luke simply wanted to say “his own blood,” the natural word order would have been tou idíou haímatos. The actual postposition suggests a substantival reading: ho ídios as a fixed expression for “his own,” “his kinsman” — here: his own Son.

This very expression Paul uses of the Son in Rom 8:32: God did not spare “his own Son” (tou idíou hyioû). The absolute use of “his own” as a tender designation of the only Son is well attested in Hellenistic Greek. Read thus, Acts 20:28 yields without strain: God (the Father) obtained the church for himself “through the blood of his own.” The “blood of God” disappears from the verse.

ho theós with the article — the designation of the Father

The Racovian Catechism argues grammatically: the word “God” here has the article attached, and indeed “in subject position” — that is, ho theós as the grammatical subject of the sentence. This construction (the articular ho theós) regularly designates, in New Testament usage, God the Father, the one most high God, whereas the anarthrous theós can also express a conferred divine dignity.

But if the Father is meant, it is thereby settled that “his own blood” cannot be the blood of God in essence: the Father is invisible, immortal, spirit. “His blood” can only be the language of ownership — the blood that belongs to him because the one who sheds it is his own.

periepoiēsato — “to obtain”: God gains a people for himself

The verb peripoiéomai (“to obtain, to gain for oneself”) belongs to the covenant language of the Old Testament. God “obtains” his people for himself: “Remember your congregation, which you have purchased of old” (Ps 74:2 LXX ektēsō); “the people whom I formed for myself” (Isa 43:21); “a people for his own possession” (laós eis peripoíēsin, 1 Pet 2:9).

In all these testimonies God the Father is the subject of the obtaining, and what is obtained is a people, not a payment to a creditor. Acts 20:28 stands in this line: the Father gains his church as his own possession. The means of this obtaining is the blood of his Son — the self-giving of Christ, not a blood of God’s own self.

Comparison of interpretations

Reference to the Racovian Catechism

The Racovian Catechism treats Acts 20:28 expressly as the seventh of the opponents’ “proof-texts” in which divine names are said to be ascribed to Christ. Its answer is two-staged: first grammatical (the articular ho theós in subject position is the Father, who in the context is distinguished from Christ), then substantive (why the blood of the Son may rightly be called “God’s own blood”).

“I answer that the name of God in this passage can, indeed must, be referred to God the Father himself: on the one hand because the word ‘God’ has the article attached, and that in subject position, neither of which is anywhere found of Christ; on the other hand because in this very address he is several times most clearly distinguished from God, in verses 21 and 24.”

Racovian Catechism, “The divine names of Christ,” section “The blood of God and the obtaining of the church”

The Catechism, however, does not let the matter rest with grammar but explains positively in what sense the blood of the Son may be called “blood of God”: “The Apostle calls the blood that Christ shed the own blood of God the Father for the reason that whatever is possessed by someone and stands under his right, even though it exists outside himself, is designated as his property.” Because Christ belonged “wholly and entirely to God” and there was nothing in him that did not stand under the Father’s right, his blood may rightly be called the own blood of God.

The point is decisive: the Catechism does not deny that Scripture can say “blood of God”; it denies only that this expression proves a sameness of essence between Father and Son. It asserts a belonging — the Son is God’s property, his blood is God’s concern. Between “God possesses this blood” and “God is the one who bleeds” lies the whole difference between the Socinian and the Trinitarian reading.

Book overview of the Socinian writings

Logical arguments

From the text-critical, grammatical, and theological findings the following arguments arise against the Trinitarian probative force of Acts 20:28:

1. Argument from the textual variant. The key word is disputed: alongside “the church of God” stands, widely attested, “the church of the Lord.” A verse whose decisive word fluctuates textually cannot bear a principal dogmatic burden — least of all one meant to support the whole doctrine of the Trinity.
2. Argument from the Syriac reading. The Peshitta, one of the oldest translations, reads “the church of Christ.” If “Christ” or “Lord” is original, then speaking of the blood is a matter of course and proves nothing about a deity of the one who bleeds.
3. Argument from word order. Diá tou haímatos tou idíou places tou idíou after the noun. This suggests the substantival reading “through the blood of his own” (= his Son); “his own blood” would rather have required tou idíou haímatos.
4. Argument from Rom 8:32. Paul uses the same expression ho ídios of the Son: “his own Son” (tou idíou hyioû). The absolute use of “his own” for the only Son is thereby attested in the New Testament and supports the reading of Acts 20:28.
5. Argument from the article. Ho theós with the article in subject position designates the Father in the New Testament. This construction is nowhere applied by Scripture to Christ as such. Therefore in v. 28 the Father is the acting subject.
6. Argument from context. In vv. 21 and 24 Paul, in the same address, expressly distinguishes “God” from the “Lord Jesus.” The “God” of v. 28 is the same as that of vv. 21, 24 — hence the Father, not Christ.
7. Argument from the concept of God. God is spirit (John 4:24), invisible (1 Tim 1:17); he alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16). A being that literally has blood and dies cannot be this God. “His blood” must therefore be the language of ownership.
8. Argument from Pauline usage. “The church of God” is in Paul a fixed designation for the church of the Father (1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; Gal 1:13). Consistency requires understanding the word here too of the Father — who obtains the church for himself through the blood of his Son.

Biblical cross-references

The following passages illuminate the usage and sense of Acts 20:28:

Acts 20:21, 24 — God and the Lord Jesus distinguished

In the same farewell Paul testifies to “repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 21) and “the gospel of the grace of God” (v. 24). The “God” whose church v. 28 names is the same who here is distinguished from the “Lord Jesus” — hence the Father.

Romans 8:32 — “his own Son” (tou idíou hyioû)

“He who did not spare his own Son.” Paul uses exactly the expression ho ídios of the Son. It attests that “his own” can designate, in New Testament Greek, the only Son — the bridge to the reading “through the blood of his own” in Acts 20:28.

John 4:24 — “God is spirit”

“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” A spiritual being has no blood. If Acts 20:28 speaks of the Father, then “his own blood” cannot possibly be taken literally and must be the language of ownership.

1 Timothy 6:16 — God alone has immortality

“who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light.” The one God does not die and sheds no blood. Whoever bleeds and dies in v. 28 is not this God but his Son.

1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:13 — “the church of God” as a standard expression

Paul writes “to the church of God that is in Corinth” (1 Cor 1:2) and speaks of having “persecuted the church of God” (Gal 1:13). “The church of God” is with him throughout the church of the Father. Acts 20:28 fits into this usage.

Psalm 74:2 — “the congregation you have purchased”

“Remember your congregation, which you have purchased of old” (LXX ektēsō). The obtaining of a people is Old Testament covenant language, whose subject is God the Father. Acts 20:28 takes it up: the Father gains his church for himself.

1 Peter 2:9 — “a people for his own possession”

“But you are … a people for his own possession” (laós eis peripoíēsin). The same word-field of “obtaining” designates the church as God’s possession, not as a purchase price. The emphasis lies on belonging, not on transaction.

Objections and Socinian answers

Objection 1: “The text says ‘God,’ and God here obtains through his blood — therefore Christ is God.”

The inference presupposes three things as settled, all three of which are questionable: that “God” is the original reading, that “his own blood” grammatically means the blood of God, and that “God” here designates Christ. Text-critically, “Lord” stands with equal weight (the Peshitta even “Christ”); grammatically, tou idíou can be read as “his own” (= his Son); and ho theós with the article designates the Father.

Even if one presupposes “God” as certain, it does not follow that God bleeds in essence. The Father is spirit (John 4:24) and immortal (1 Tim 6:16); “his blood” can therefore only be the language of ownership — the blood that belongs to him because his Son sheds it. The Racovian Catechism shows precisely this: the blood is called “God’s own” because Christ belonged wholly to God, not because God himself were the one who bleeds.

Objection 2: “‘His own blood’ requires that the one who bleeds and ‘God’ are the same person.”

The objection hangs entirely on the adjectival construal “his own blood.” But this is precisely not the most obvious one grammatically: the postposition tou haímatos tou idíou suggests “the blood of his own.” Then the blood belongs to another — the Son — and God obtains through this blood.

And even the adjectival construal does not compel identity of essence. One calls a thing “someone’s own” when it belongs to him by right, even when it exists outside himself — so the Catechism. A father can speak of “my blood that was shed” when his son falls. “Own” designates belonging, not identity. Between “God’s own blood” and “God is the one who bleeds” yawns exactly the difference that the objection overlooks.

Objection 3: “But the oldest manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) read ‘God.’”

That “God” is offered by weighty witnesses must be granted — but “Lord” is likewise offered by ancient and good witnesses (Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae) and a broad tradition, and the Syriac Bible reads “Christ.” So it is not certainty against arbitrariness, but reading against reading.

According to a recognized text-critical principle, the more difficult reading is often the more original. “The church of the Lord” is the rarer, more offensive expression; “the church of God” could be an assimilation to Paul’s normal usage. Decisive for the matter, however, is this: even with the reading “God,” the verse remains, through grammar (tou idíou, the article) and context (vv. 21, 24), a statement about the Father and the blood of his Son. The textual question does not decide the doctrine by itself.

Objection 4: “If God has an ‘own Son’ whose blood is called his own, then this Son is divine.”

The close belonging of the Son to God the Socinian teaching in no way denies — on the contrary. Christ is “the own Son of God, begotten by God himself through the Holy Spirit” (so the Catechism on Luke 1:35). But belonging is not sameness of essence. A son belongs wholly to his father and yet is not the same person and not “the one God.”

Scripture calls Christ God’s property in the same sense in which it has him “made Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36) and exalted above all things (Phil 2:9) — as a conferred, received majesty. To be an “own Son” designates the unique nearness and mission, not a second eternal divine person. The Son has a God over him (John 20:17; Eph 1:17) — and whoever has a God over him is not himself the one God.

Objection 5: “The Church has always read the verse as ‘God has suffered.’”

That pious turns of phrase like “blood of God” arose early is true — but it was precisely the early Church that wrestled fiercely over these formulas. The sentence “one of the Trinity has suffered” (Theopaschism) was disputed for centuries, because it seemed to violate the impassibility of God. A formula that the Church itself accepted only with reservations is of no use as a plain proof from Scripture.

Furthermore, the Socinian reading is no innovation against grammar, but its exact observance. It reads the article, the word order, the context, and the textual variants — and finds the Father as subject and the Son as the one who bleeds. That is not arrogance against tradition, but faithfulness to the text that tradition itself has handed down. Where the formula “blood of God” is meant reverently, it means the blood of the one who belongs wholly to God — and that is exactly what the Catechism says.

Theological consequences

Connected verses

The following passages support, deepen, or contrast the interpretation presented here:

• John 20:28 — Thomas’s “my Lord and my God” as an acknowledged, conferred majesty; the Catechism treats both passages in the same breath.
• John 17:3 — the Father as the “only true God,” from whom the sent Christ is distinguished.
• 1 Timothy 2:5 — one God and one mediator, “the man Christ Jesus”: God and Christ remain distinguished.
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 — “one God, the Father … and one Lord, Jesus Christ”: the Pauline assignment of theós and kýrios.
• 1 John 5:20 — the “true God” and the article argument; reference to the Father despite the preceding mention of Christ.
• Romans 9:5 — “God, blessed forever”: punctuation and predication as a parallel case of interpretation.

Summary

As a proof of the deity of Christ, Acts 20:28 is questionable on three counts. Text-critically, the key word fluctuates between “the church of God” and “the church of the Lord,” and the Peshitta reads “of Christ.” Grammatically, the word order tou haímatos tou idíou permits the reading “through the blood of his own” — of his Son — as Rom 8:32 uses the same expression of the Son. And ho theós with the article in subject position designates the Father, who in the context (vv. 21, 24) is expressly distinguished from the Lord Jesus.

The Racovian Catechism draws from this the twofold conclusion: the “God” of v. 28 is the Father; and where Scripture nonetheless says “his own blood,” it speaks the language of ownership — the blood is called “God’s own” because Christ belonged wholly to God, not because God himself were the one who bleeds. Between “God possesses this blood” and “God is the one who bleeds” lies the whole distance of the two interpretations.

Understood in Socinian terms, Acts 20:28 is no witness to a suffering God, but a word about the precious church of the Father, obtained through the self-giving of his Son. The point of the verse thereby remains untouched and emerges even more clearly: because the flock is so dearly bought, its shepherds are to watch over it with the utmost faithfulness.