The New
World Translation (NWT), utilized by Jehovah’s Witnesses, has been subject to
scrutiny for its rendering of certain biblical passages, particularly those
with implications for the deity of Jesus Christ. One prominent example is Acts
20:28, where the NWT inserts the word "Son" into the phrase "the
blood of his own," altering the verse’s meaning to align with the
Watchtower Society’s theological framework. This article examines the textual
and grammatical basis of the verse, the theological motivations behind the
NWT’s rendering, and addresses common defenses raised by Jehovah’s Witnesses’
apologists, demonstrating that the traditional translation is both textually
accurate and theologically coherent.
Textual
and Grammatical Analysis
The King
James Version (KJV) renders Acts 20:28 as: "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." The original Greek text reads: "ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου." The phrase "διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου" translates literally to
"through the blood of his own," where "τοῦ ἰδίου" (tou idiou) is an
adjectival phrase modifying "blood" (αἵματος, haimatos), indicating
"his own blood." The subject of the clause, "he," refers to
God, suggesting that God purchased the church with his own blood.
In
contrast, the NWT renders the verse as: "to shepherd the congregation of
God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son." The insertion of
"Son" (υἱοῦ, huiou) is not supported by any extant Greek manuscript. Textual
criticism confirms that the phrase "διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου" is consistent across all
known manuscripts, with no evidence for the inclusion of "Son."
Variants exist for the phrase "the church of God" (τοῦ θεοῦ) versus "the church of the
Lord" (τοῦ κυρίου), as noted in the Nestle-Aland critical apparatus, but these do
not affect the phrase in question. Early translations, such as the Sahidic
Coptic and the Peshitta, further corroborate the reading "his own
blood," reinforcing the textual integrity of the traditional rendering (Stack
Exchange: Acts 20:28 variants).
Some
scholars, such as F. J. A. Hort, have speculated that the original text might
have included "Son" (υἱοῦ), which was accidentally omitted due to its
similarity to "τοῦ ἰδίου." However, this hypothesis lacks manuscript support and is
widely rejected by contemporary scholars. Others have proposed construing
"τοῦ ἰδίου" substantivally, meaning "of his own [one],"
implying the Son. This interpretation is grammatically possible but unlikely
for several reasons. First, other Christological titles in the New Testament,
such as "the Beloved" or "the Righteous One," have multiple
attestations and were recognized by the early church, whereas "his
own" as a title for Christ is unattested elsewhere. Second, the adjectival
reading, "his own blood," is the simplest and most natural
interpretation, as acknowledged even by the NWT Reference Bible, which notes
that this is "the usual translation" ([NWT Reference Bible, p.
1580]). Third, the substantival reading appears driven by theological prejudice
against the notion of "God’s blood," rather than by textual evidence.
Fourth, early copyists who were uncomfortable with the phrase altered
"God" to "Lord" rather than reinterpreting "τοῦ ἰδίου," indicating that they
understood it adjectivally. Fifth, early Christian writers, such as Ignatius of
Antioch, used phrases like "the blood of God," suggesting that the
adjectival reading was accepted in the early church. Sixth, similar New
Testament passages, such as Ephesians 1:7 ("through his blood") and
Hebrews 13:12 ("through his own blood"), use comparable language,
supporting the adjectival interpretation.
Theological
Motivations for the NWT’s Rendering
The
Watchtower Society’s insertion of "Son" into Acts 20:28 reflects
their theological stance that denies the full deity of Jesus Christ, viewing
him as a created being subordinate to God the Father. By rendering the verse as
"the blood of his own Son," the NWT avoids the implication that God
has blood, which would affirm Christ’s divinity within the framework of the
incarnation. This alteration aligns with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ broader pattern
of modifying passages that suggest Christ’s deity, such as John 1:1, where
"the Word was God" is rendered "the Word was a god." In
Acts 20:28, the addition of "Son" separates the act of shedding blood
from God, reinforcing the Watchtower’s non-Trinitarian theology.
Theological
Significance of the Traditional Rendering
The
traditional translation of Acts 20:28, "the church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood," has profound theological implications,
affirming the deity of Christ through the doctrine of the communicatio
idiomatum. This Christological concept, formalized at the Council of
Chalcedon in 451 AD, posits that the divine and human natures of Christ are
united in one person without confusion, change, division, or separation.
Consequently, attributes of either nature can be ascribed to the person of
Christ. Thus, while God in His divine essence is immortal and impassible,
Christ, as God incarnate, assumed a human nature capable of shedding blood. The
communicatio idiomatum allows the statement "God purchased the church
with his own blood" to be theologically coherent, as the person who shed
blood is both fully God and fully man.
This
interpretation is consistent with other New Testament passages that attribute
human experiences to the divine Christ. For example, Acts 3:15 refers to Jesus
as "the Author of life" whom the Jews killed, and 1 Corinthians 2:8
speaks of "the Lord of glory" being crucified. These passages rely on
the same Christological framework, where the divine person of Christ undergoes
human experiences through his incarnate nature. The traditional rendering of
Acts 20:28 thus underscores the infinite value of Christ’s sacrifice, as only
the God-man could achieve redemption for humanity.
Addressing
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Apologetic Defenses
Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ apologists commonly raise two objections to the traditional
translation of Acts 20:28. The first is that "God cannot have blood,"
as God is a spirit and thus incapable of physical attributes like blood. This
objection misunderstands the doctrine of the Incarnation and the communicatio
idiomatum. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is one person with two natures,
divine and human. While God in His divine essence does not have blood, the
divine Son, through the incarnation, assumed a human nature capable of shedding
blood. Thus, the person of Christ, who is fully God, can be said to have shed
"God’s blood" without compromising divine immutability. This
understanding resolves the apparent paradox and aligns with the New Testament’s
portrayal of Christ’s dual nature, as seen in passages like John 1:14
("the Word became flesh") and Colossians 2:9 ("in him the whole
fullness of deity dwells bodily").
The second
objection is that other translations render Acts 20:28 similarly to the NWT,
suggesting that their interpretation is not unique. While some translations,
such as the New Jerusalem Bible and the New Revised Standard Version, interpret
"his own" as referring to the Son, these are in the minority. The
majority of translations, including the KJV, NIV, ESV, and NASB, render the
phrase as "his own blood," reflecting the Greek text’s clear meaning.
Moreover, the scholarly consensus, as evidenced by critical editions like the
Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, supports the adjectival reading of "τοῦ ἰδίου" as "his own
blood." Even translations that interpret "his own" as referring
to the Son are making an interpretive choice, not a direct translation, as the
Greek text does not include "Son." The NWT’s rendering is particularly
problematic because it is driven by a theological agenda to deny Christ’s
deity, rather than by fidelity to the text.
Supporting
Evidence from Early Christian Writings
Early
Christian writers provide further evidence for the traditional interpretation
of Acts 20:28. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early second century, refers
to "the blood of God" in his Letter to the Ephesians: "Being
imitators of God and rekindling yourselves in the blood of God, you have
perfectly accomplished the work that was connatural to you.". This phrase,
likely influenced by Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28,
reflects the early church’s understanding that the divine Christ shed his blood
for the church. Ignatius’s use of "the blood of God" indicates that
the adjectival reading of "τοῦ ἰδίου" was accepted in early Christianity,
further undermining the substantival interpretation favored by the NWT.
Conclusion
The NWT’s
insertion of "Son" into Acts 20:28 is textually unjustified and
theologically motivated by the Watchtower Society’s denial of Christ’s deity.
The original Greek text, supported by all extant manuscripts and early
translations, clearly states that God purchased the church "with his own
blood." This rendering affirms the deity of Christ through the doctrine of
the communicatio idiomatum, which allows human attributes like shedding blood
to be ascribed to the divine person of Christ. The traditional interpretation
is consistent with other New Testament passages and early Christian writings,
such as those of Ignatius of Antioch. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ defenses, such as
the claim that "God cannot have blood" or that other translations
support their rendering, fail to withstand scrutiny when examined against the
textual evidence and theological framework of historic Christianity. Acts
20:28, when properly translated, stands as a powerful testament to the deity of
Christ and the infinite value of his redemptive sacrifice.
