The Blood in Acts 20:28 and the Question of God's Nature

Acts 20:28 must first be read in its narrative and theological context. Paul is addressing the elders from Ephesus who have met him at Miletus. He exhorts them:

"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."

There are several key elements:

1. The elders have a pastoral responsibility for "the flock."
2. The Holy Spirit has made them overseers.
3. Their task is to feed "the church of God."
4. That church (assembly) is said to be "purchased with his own blood."

subsection*1. "The Flock" and the "Church of God"

The term "flock" is a shepherding metaphor commonly associated with Israel. Jesus speaks of a "little flock" in the Gospels, and the image of God's people as a flock is pervasive in the Hebrew Scriptures. In Acts 20:28, Paul is speaking to elders of a mixed assembly that includes Jewish believers. The language of "flock" and "church of God" fits that setting, highlighting that this assembly is an expression of God's people, purchased and belonging to Him.

The word "church" (ekklesia) simply means "assembly." It should not be read through modern denominational categories. Here it is "the church of God," that is, the assembly belonging to God, the people whom God has acquired for Himself.

subsection*2. Whose Blood?

The controversial phrase is "which he hath purchased with his own blood." On a straightforward grammatical reading, "he" refers back to "God": God purchased the church with "his own blood."

Jehovah's Witnesses object to the idea of "the blood of God" because they deny the full, eternal deity of Christ and hold to a unitarian understanding of God. They argue that the text must be speaking of Christ's blood only, and that the word "God" here cannot denote the same subject as "his own blood."

From a biblical and theological standpoint several issues need to be clarified.

subsubsectiona. Does God the Father Have Blood?

If by "God" we are thinking specifically of the Father, who is spirit, then strictly speaking He does not have blood. Blood is a physical substance. The Father, being spirit, does not possess a physical body. When Scripture speaks of anthropomorphic features of the Father (His "hand," His "eyes," etc.), those are analogical or symbolic, not literal descriptions of physical parts.

Therefore, if we insist that "God" here refers exclusively to the Father, then "with his own blood" cannot mean the Father's literal blood and would have to be taken symbolically---an interpretation that does not fit naturally with the context, which is about a concrete, historical purchase through the sacrificial death of Christ. The New Testament consistently treats Christ's blood as real, physical blood shed in a real death.

subsubsectionb. The Use of "God" and the Godhead

A key question is whether the New Testament use of "God" (theos) in some passages can refer to the Godhead as a whole rather than exclusively to the Father. Often "God" does indeed refer specifically to the Father. In other places "God" is used in a context that clearly includes the Son in the identity of the one true God. Systematic theology speaks here of the "Godhead," that is, the triune reality of Father, Son, and Spirit.

If Acts 20:28 uses "God" in this broader sense---referring to the one Godhead---then the phrase "his own blood" is not problematic. The Godhead has entered into human history in the person of the Son; the Son possesses a genuine human body and sheds genuine human blood. One could then say, in a theologically accurate way, that God purchased the church with "his own blood," because the Son is fully and truly God.

An analogy may help: a human being is body, soul, and spirit. It is perfectly natural to say, "I am bleeding," even though strictly speaking it is the body that bleeds, not the immaterial soul or spirit. We do not normally separate those aspects in everyday speech. In a similar way, Scripture can speak of "God" shedding blood in the person of the incarnate Son, without violating the distinction of persons within the Godhead.

subsubsectionc.~Is Acts 20:28 a Good Starting Point in Discussion with Jehovah's Witnesses?

While Acts 20:28 can be understood in a robustly trinitarian sense, it may not be the best starting point for conversation with Jehovah's Witnesses for several reasons:

1. Ambiguity in Their Framework. Because they presuppose a unitarian understanding of "God," they will simply reinterpret the verse to avoid admitting that God has blood. They will say it must refer to Christ only and will press the point that "God" here is used in a looser sense.
2. The amount of preliminary work required. To use this verse effectively, one would first need to establish from a broader biblical study that: beginitemize
3. The New Testament sometimes uses "God" in contexts that include the Son.
4. The Son shares in the full identity and attributes of God.
5. It is therefore legitimate to speak of the Godhead acting in and through the incarnate Son, including in His sacrificial death.

That is a substantial theological and exegetical project, better undertaken in a broader study than in a brief exchange. item Better Texts Are Available. There are other passages that more straightforwardly present the deity of Christ and the unity of the Father and the Son without immediately raising the technical question of "God's blood." endenumerate

For these reasons, while Acts 20:28 supports orthodox Christology and can be read as a strong trinitarian statement---God purchasing the assembly with His own blood in Christ---it is not the most strategic proof text to lead with in a discussion with Jehovah's Witnesses.

subsection*3. A Responsible Reading of Acts 20:28

Given the exegetical and theological considerations, a responsible reading of Acts 20:28 would say:

• The subject "God" refers to the one true God, the Godhead, who has acted in history through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son.
• The phrase "his own blood" refers to the literal blood of Christ, who is fully God and fully man.
• Therefore, it is accurate to say that God purchased the church with "his own blood," because the blood shed was the blood of the incarnate Son, who is God.

At the same time, care should be taken not to confuse the persons within the Godhead. We should not say that the Father as such has a body and blood; rather, the Son, who shares the one nature of God, took to Himself a true human nature and in that human nature shed His blood.

In summary, Acts 20:28 bears strong witness to the costliness of the church's redemption and coheres well with the orthodox confession that the one true God has redeemed His people through the blood of His Son. It is a useful text for deepening trinitarian understanding among believers, even if it may not be the most immediately effective verse for engaging the specific theological claims of Jehovah's Witnesses.