34 God bought us with his own blood

Last updated 08/19/15 this study is six pages long

Some say that when Acts 20:28 says the Church of God, which he bought with his own blood, it means that when
Jesus died on the Cross shedding his blood that God was/is Jesus.
On the face of it this might seem like a valid argument, however I will show that this interpretation is an incorrect
conclusion and that Acts 20:28 does NOT show Jesus to be God.
Your question to ask will be, is the final conclusion supported and proven by the rest of the study?
Whether you agree or disagree, in part or in whole, big or small, please email me any feedback to help improve this
study. I would also appreciate any help with its logic, grammar, typos, editing etc.
Before analyzing the passage in question in Acts 20:28, and the relationship of Christ with God, I am going to provide
some evidence that has to be taken into account when interpreting our passage.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3A
Part 3B
Part 3C
Part 4A
Part 4B
Part 4C
Part 5

God is Spirit, not Flesh and Blood

Jesus Came as Flesh and Blood
Translation Differences Whose Church
Translation Differences Whose Blood
Why is the Word "Son" added in Some Translations?
The Bible Says "his own"
We say "my God"
God Calls Jesus His Own Son
Acts 20:28

Part 1 God is Spirit, Not Flesh and Blood

Part 2 Jesus Came as Flesh and Blood
There is an in depth analysis 14B Who came in the flesh, God or Jesus linked here
It makes the point that God is Spirit and not flesh and blood, which negates any possibility of this passage identifying
God as having flesh and blood. It is important that before you read the rest of this study that you first go to the link and
read why God did not come, and why it was Jesus who did come as flesh, bones and blood.

Part 3A Translation Differences: Whose Church?

With regards to Acts 20:28 he following translations are not in agreement regarding who the church belonged to, God
or Jesus.
The Church of God.
Darby:
the assembly of God
AV:
to feed the church of God
DR:
to rule the church of God
ESV:
to care for the church of God
GW:
to be shepherds for God's church
HCSB:
to shepherd the church of God
The "church of God," Greek tou theou, is supported by the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Latin
Vulgate.
The Church of the Lord.
Amplified:
to shepherd the church of the Lord, or God,

ASV:
the church of the Lord
RSVCE:
to feed the church of the Lord
WE:
they are the Lord's people
Also NEB, REB, Moffat,
The "church of the Lord," Greek tou kuriou, is supported by the Codex Alexandrius, and Codex Bezantine.
Our first witness who can testify what the early manuscripts did say is the early Christian Irenaeus who wrote
Against Heresies around 180-185 A.D. This is the earliest known version of this verse. He writes:
"Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has placed you as
bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." (Book
III, 14).
The Church of Christ.
LAMSA
to feed the church of Christ, which
Etheridge
to pasture the church of the Meshiha (Christ)
Disciples NT to shepherd the church of Jesus Christ

Summary:
Although it is very clear that the vast majority of translations say the "church of God," there are a small amount that
say the "Church of the Lord." If it is "church of the Lord" it can refer to God or Jesus, therefore they could mean the
church of Jesus Christ. ("Church of God" is in the NT seven times, "Church of the Lord" does not appear outside of the
possibility in this passage). There are others that do say "the church of Jesus Christ."
No rule of reasoning compels us to conclude with certainty that one particular reading is correct based on its quantity
alone. We must remember that each of the Greek manuscripts we have are not the originals but are just copies which
can also contain transcription errors.
There is reasonable doubt as to whether it is the Church of God or Lord, we shouldn't use ambiguous scripture for our
doctrinal theory.

Part 3B Translation Differences: Whose blood?

The following translations are not in agreement regarding who the blood belonged to, some say God's and others say
Jesus'. Unlike the differences in the previous Part regarding ownership of the Church, these differences are a lot more
evenly balanced.
His Own Blood
ASV, AV, DR, ESV, GW, HCSB, ISV, KJV, NASB, NIRV, NIV, NKJV, NLT, TNIV, YLT
All these fifteen translations end in a similar way saying "obtained with his own blood," or "purchased with his own
blood," or "acquired with his own blood," all in reference to God.
He Owned the Blood
CEV:
with the blood of his own son.
CJB: ...
the cost of his own Son's blood
Darby:
purchased with the blood of his own.
GNT:
through the blood of his son
LEB:
obtained through the blood of his own Son.
NET:
obtained with the blood of his own Son.
NCV:
bought with the death of his own son.
NRSV:
obtained with the blood of his own Son.
RSV:
obtained with the blood of his own Son.
Voice:
through the blood of His own Son.
The quoted ten translations say "with the blood of His Son," or similar, referring to the blood of Jesus.

Summary:
From the twenty five translations analyzed fifteen of them say that the blood is God's and ten say that the blood belongs
to his Son. Outside of these quoted others that I found, probably another twenty or so, indicate it is the blood of God.
This gives us even more reason not to use this ambiguous verse to support a doctrinal theory.
Because this is the only verse in the bible that could say that God has blood, the doubt caused by the ten translation
differences means that the argument that it is God's personal blood has become considerably weaker.

Part 3C Why is the Word "Son" added in Some Translations?

Every bible translation in existence adds words into the text from Genesis to Revelation in order for the text to make
sense to those translators, it is not something that has only happened in certain translations.
The word "son" is not in the Greek texts, it is added by the translators to make sense of the Greek word order which is
"the blood of his own" not "his own blood." If the word "son" wasn't added we might ask "his own what"? The rest of
Part 3C is borrowed from another author.
John 1:11

He came unto his own, and his own did not

receive him.

He came unto his own [people] and his own [people]

did not receive him.

John 13:1

having loved his own that were in the world, he

loved them to the end

having loved his own [disciples] he loved them to the

end

John
19:27

After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy

mother. And from that hour, the disciple took
her to his own. (Douey-Rheims)

Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.'

And from that hour, the disciple took her [to his own
home].

1
Timothy
5:8

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and

especially for those of his household, he has
denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

But if anyone does not provide for his own [family],

and especially for those of his household, he has
denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

And being let go, they went to their own

And being let go, they went to their own [Christian

brethren]

Acts 21:6

we went into the ship and they returned to their

own

we went into the ship and they returned to their own

[lives/families]

Acts
24:23

and to forbid none of his own from providing for

him and coming to him

and to forbid none of his own [friends] from

providing for him and coming to him

Acts
28:20

the church... he purchased with the blood of his

own

the church... he purchased with the blood of his own

[son]

Acts 4:23

In all the above examples, one is expected to infer what the speaker or writer is talking about since the object in
question is not stated. It is only implied by the context. Several other translations have added each word in question.
The literal word for word translations shown above imply a concept that is not explicitly mentioned in the original
Greek text but is most certainly implied. Hence, we can see quite clearly that the word "son" was indeed implied at
Acts 20:28, It was common in Koine Greek to use the word "own" in this respect and leave the reader to understand
what is implied but not stated. The Implied Meaning is what the writer expects the reader to understand. We can see
plainly that there is nothing unusual about first century Greek writers using the word idios ("own") without an
accompanying noun and that an idea was simply implied and expected to be understood by the reader. In fact, we can
see from the above evidences in Acts that Luke himself has a habit of writing this way. He does the very same thing

four times in this same book of Acts. In each and every case, we are left to infer what the word "own" intends to imply
to us.
Summary:
When the context ends "he purchased with the blood of his own," we see from several examples that this was a
common way of writing in the book of Acts and that an additional word "son" is implied at the end of the sentence.

Part 4A The Bible Says "his own"

There are several times when the bible says "his own," not referring to a part of a person rather to something that is
near and dear to that person.
Mathew 9:1 he crossed over and came to his own city
In modern day language most of us refer to a town we live in, a town we temporarily borrow, as "our own town."
NIV Acts 4:23 On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the
priests and elders had said to them.

chief

The people of the land were not relatives and were not "owned" by Peter and John, they were individuals. The meaning
of this sentence is to signify that they were friends, most likely Christians of the same beliefs.
LEB Acts 24:23 He ordered* the centurion for him to be guarded and to have some freedom, and in no way to
prevent any of his own people from serving him
The people were not even his descendants but they were people close to him in some way.
1 Corinthians 7:2 each man should have his own wife
The wife of a man is someone who belongs to him through marriage.
Philippians 3:12 because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
At a point Christ did not own him, then at a later point he did.
Summary:
Mathew 9:1
Acts 4:23
Acts 24:23
1 Corinthians 7:2
Philippians 3:12

most of us refer to a town we live in, a town we temporarily borrow, as "our own town."
The people were not relatives or "owned" by Peter and John, they were individuals
The people were not even his descendants but they were people close to him in some way.
The wife of a man is someone who belongs to him through marriage.
At a point Christ did not own him, then at a later point he did.

The uses of the term "his own" or "my own" shown here indicate things that are not a part of the person, but things that
are near and dear to the person.

Part 4B We Say "my God," not meaning He is a part of our body.

The term "my God" is in the ESV bible one hundred and fifty two times, never in one instance to we think that the
person making the statement means that God is a part of the person. On all occasions we understand it to mean the God
that the person worships.
Genesis 28:21 Then the LORD shall be my God.
Daniel 6:22 My God sent his angel and shut the mouth of lions

Philippians 4:19 And my God will supply every need of yours

Summary:
When someone says "my God" we understand it to be the God the person worships, not a part of the person speaking.

Part 4C God calls Jesus "his own"

Usually when someone says this is "my own" we make an assessment as to whether it is a part of their person, or if it is
something they acquired in some way. "My nose" is personal, "my friend" is non personal.
Mathew 3:17 And a voice from heaven said This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased.
God said Jesus is "my son," Jesus belongs to God.
God loves His Son, God loves another being
God is pleased with another being.
Luke 9:35 And a voice came out of the crowd saying, "This is my son, my chosen one, listen to him"
God says Jesus is "my Son."
He also said he had chosen Jesus.
Acts 13:33 as also it is written in the second Psalm, "you are my son, today I have begotten you"
Acts quotes the Psalm saying that Jesus is God's own son
Romans 8:3 By sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin
God sent "his own son"
Hebrews 5:5 but was appointed by him who said to him, "you are my son, today I have begotten you"
God said "you are my son,"
Summary:
Mathew 3:17 God said Jesus is "my son," Jesus belongs to God.
A Son of God is distinct from God, the word Son indicates later origin.
Luke 9:35
God says that Jesus is His Son.
Acts 13:33
Acts quotes the Psalm saying that Jesus is God's own son
Romans 8:3 God sent "his own son"
Hebrews 5:5 God says "you are my son"
Jesus the Son, belongs to God the Father just as all creation belongs to God.
A Son of God is distinct from God, the word Son indicates later origin.
Jesus is owned by God in a different way to that of God's voice, for instance, which is a part of who/what He is.
There is an in depth analysis 02C Jesus the Son of God Before Creation linked here 2015

Part 5 Acts 20:20-28

A look at verses 20-28,
Acts 20:20-28

20 how

I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and
from house to house,
21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 But
I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and
the ministry
that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will
see my face again.
26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all,
27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
28 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.
Vs20 Paul is in Ephesus talking to the elders of the Church
Vs21 Repentance toward God in addition to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Vs24 Ministry from the Lord Jesus in addition to testifying to the gospel of grace of God.
Vs25 The gospel of grace is closely related to the kingdom in this verse.
Vs26 Paul's statement is similar to that of Ezekiel 33:1-6 in that he is telling others how to avoid God's wrath and if
they don't take the advice it is their fault not Paul's.
Vs28 The "Church of God" is the Church that is owned by God.
"His own blood" is the blood of Christ who is owned by God.
His own Church, his own blood.
Does Acts 20:28 mean that Jesus' blood is God's own personal blood? Actually no, figuratively yes.
If we look at it from the point of view that God owns everything in the universe then yes.
From another point of view, when we have children we refer to them as our own flesh and blood although if they died
through loss of blood we would still have all our blood. God is Jesus,' and our, Father both in heaven and on the earth
so we understand that figuratively Jesus, and people, is/are God's flesh and blood.
Summaries and Final Conclusion
Part 1 God is Spirit, not flesh and blood.
Part 2 Jesus came as flesh and blood
Part 3A Although it is very clear that the vast majority of translations say the "church of God," there are a small
amount that say the "Church of the Lord." If it is "church of the Lord" it can refer to God or Jesus,
therefore they could mean the church of Jesus Christ. ("Church of God" is in the NT seven times, "Church
of the Lord" does not appear outside of the possibility in this passage).
There is reasonable doubt as to whether it is the Church of God or Lord, we shouldn't use ambiguous
scripture for our doctrinal theory.
Part 3B From the twenty five translations analyzed fifteen of them say that the blood is God's and ten say that the
blood belongs to his Son. Outside of these quoted others that I found, probably another twenty or so,
indicate it is the blood of God. This gives us even more reason not to use this ambiguous verse to support
a doctrinal theory.
Because this is the only verse in the bible that could say that God has blood, the doubt caused by the ten
translation differences means that the argument that it is God's personal blood has become considerably
weaker.
Part 3C When the context ends "he purchased with the blood of his own," we see from several examples that this
was a common way of writing in the book of Acts and that an additional word "son" is implied at the end
of the sentence.
Part 4A The uses of the term "his own" or "my own" shown here indicate things that are not a part of the person,
but things that are near and dear to the person.

Part 4B When someone says "my God" we understand it to be the God the person worships, not a part of the
speaking.

person

Part 4C Jesus the Son, belongs to God the Father just as all creation belongs to God.
A Son of God is distinct from God, the word Son indicates later origin.
Jesus is owned by God in a different way to that of God's voice, for instance, which is a part of who/what
He is.
Part 5 Does Acts 20:28 mean that Jesus' blood is God's own personal blood? Actually no, figuratively yes.
If we look at it from the point of view that God owns everything in the universe then yes.
From another point of view, when we have children we refer to them as our own flesh and blood although
if they died through loss of blood we would still have all our blood. God is Jesus,' and our, Father both in
heaven and on the earth so we understand that figuratively Jesus, and people, is/are God's flesh and blood.

Final Conclusion:
God is spirit and does not have a physical body or flesh and blood, according to scripture.
Jesus had blood and flesh and a physical body.
The main argument against God having flesh and blood is found in the link to 14B In the flesh, God or Jesus. Once you
have read it you will realize the futility in trying to say that this verse says "God has blood."
There are two doubtful translation differences that cast far too much uncertainty on the true wording of Acts 20:28. The
translators are unsure if it is "God's church" or "the Lord's church, therefore we don't know for certain if this passage
says "the church of God" or the "church of the Lord Jesus." The translators are also unsure if it is the blood of God or
the blood of God's Son. There is a fairly strong possibility that this passage says "the church of the Lord (Jesus) which
he obtained with his own blood" or another possibility that this passage says "the church of God which be obtained
with the blood of His own son." One doubtful word is enough to say that we shouldn't use this passage as supporting
evidence for a theory, two doubtful words strongly confirms that fact.
As per the examples in 3C, the word "Son" could easily be implied as belonging in the sentence to show that the blood
is that of God's own son. This is a third doubt that causes more ambiguity to vs28.
When God says it is his "own blood" He doesn't have to mean that it is from his personal body, he can easily mean that
he owns the body from which the blood came. It is His own Son that lost the blood. We say "our own flesh and blood"
when we refer to members of our own family when in fact it is their flesh and blood not ours. Jesus belongs to God as
His "own Son" and therefore His "own blood." There are several bible passages where God says "my son" or others say
"His own son" and in the same way that the Son is His, the blood is His.
God is Jesus' father regarding genealogy, therefore just as we call our offspring our flesh and blood, God referred to
Jesus as His blood to show that God is Jesus' actual father regarding genealogy and so Jesus blood is Gods blood in a
sense.
If this were the only verse in the bible on this subject the argument would still be ambiguous due to who the church
belonged to, God or the Lord, and whether it actually says God's blood or Jesus' blood. But because of the strength of
the passages in 14B in the flesh God or Jesus, it is evident that the blood can only be that of Jesus Christ. This is
because God does not have flesh and blood.
Therefore nothing in Acts 20:28 show that Jesus is God