Acts 20:28 | Exposing the False Trinity Doctrine

The King James Version (KJV) is mostly used in these lessons. Click here to access the KJV online.

Part A:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of G-d [Yahuwah], which he purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

The Trinitarian Claim

Trinitarians claim this verse shows that "Yahushua is G-d [Yahuwah]" because it was Yahushua who bought the church with his own blood and the passage says G-d [Yahuwah] bought the church with his own blood.

The Claim vs. The Facts

The facts show us that this Trinitarian claim is based on manuscript cherry picking and questionable translation practices. The facts also show us what Luke really intended.

The Problems with the Claim

Acts 20:28 is yet another passage which is disingenuously abused by Trinitarians apologists. Here we have a passage where Trinitarians claim that Yahushua must be the one called "G-d" since the church was purchased with G-d's own blood and Yahushua is therefore being identified as G-d [Yahuwah]. Like all the other passages in the Trinitarian's apologetic box, this passage is plagued with many critical issues which Trinitarian apologists conveniently forget to inform you about.

1. Manuscript Variations of Various Kinds

It is a well known academic fact that very important early manuscripts do not read "Church of G-d" but instead have "Church of the Lord." The fact that we have variant readings of this verse shows us that someone corrupted this verse. And that is not the end of the manuscript problem either. There are further discrepancies between manuscripts concerning this verse which affect its intended meaning here. And that results in problem upon problem, building a house upon the sand. And there is yet an even further problem of translation. In short, Trinitarians have no proof of what Luke actually wrote.

2. Yahuwah's Blood: The Flavour of Luke's Writings

Luke wrote the Book of Acts. Let us first consider the flavour of Luke's writings. Have you ever noticed the conspicuous absence of Luke's writings in Trinitarian apologetics "proof-texts"? Just take a look at the common proof-texts listed by Trinitarians and see how many quotations come from Luke. For this reason, it is common knowledge that Trinitarian commentators often remark that Luke stresses Yahushua's humanity, or some similar sentiment. This is the first fact that makes the Trinitarian claim highly unlikely.

You, the reader, should be able to see that something is very wrong with the Trinitarian claim even on the face of it. G-d's blood? With manuscripts variations staring us in the face, we are expected by Trinitarians to contend with the highly unlikely hypothesis that Luke wrote about G-d's blood. It immediately strikes everyone as an weird, incongruous, out of place, and unlikely to any reasonable person. It further necessitates the unbiblical Trinitarian notion that "Yahushua according to his human nature." is "G-d [Yahuwah] according to his human nature." It is in this respect, that Trinitarians want to believe that G-d [Yahuwah] did have blood. Are we really expected to believe it is ever going to be reasonable to refer to Yahuwah's human blood?

3. "The Most Difficult Manuscript Reading is the Best" Farce

Unbelievably, there are some who love to ride this crippled hobby horse. Whenever we have a situation where variations exist in the manuscripts, this notion basically states, "what appears to you to be wrong is most likely right." Really? The insanity of this claim is also based on the extremely naive premise that such manuscript corruptions necessarily involve a well-intentioned scribe attempting to correct a perceived mistake in the original copy.

With some variations from one scholar to the next, the idea here is essentially what follows. We are to imagine an ancient scribe is copying the book of Acts and when he comes to Acts 20:28 it appears to him that Luke is referring to "G-d's blood." And since this most certainly "looks wrong" to the scribe, he supposes this most certainly must be a mistake. And although he is well-intentioned, he naively sets out to correct the mistake and changes the word "G-d" to "Lord."

First, let us observe that a pinch of arrogance is required for this claim. We must assume that this scribe could not possibly be anywhere near as insightful as textual critics who know the Scripture contains "difficult sayings." Should we really suppose that the scribe in question would be that naive? Little children know the Bible contains difficult sayings. How much more a scribe? Knowing these basic facts, we should be able to see that it is not very likely that a scribe would come across a "difficult saying" and immediately assume it is a scribal mistake and correct it. Of course it could happen but it is not likely. And that is not the end of the problem.

Note how this scenario is also contrived up by the human imagination in order to justify the manuscript reading they want to believe is authentic. Strangely, some scholars and commentators pridefully think this idea is very insightful. It is ridiculous. We have absolutely no idea whatsoever how this corruption occurred. Some scribe corrupted this passage in one direction or the other. There are dozens of ways this corruption could have happened. That a well-intentioned scribe was trying to correct a perceived error is only one hypothetical possibility out of many possibilities.

To suppose no scribe would intentionally corrupt the Scriptures is equally naive. It supposes a strange Eutopian reality where not a single scribe existed who would ever conspire in their heart to do anything wrong. It is a ridiculous proposition. Did we not learn this when we read about the scribes of the Gospels? Doesn't Jeremiah 8:8 ever enter the picture? It is a well known fact that second century Christians mention how their manuscripts were being intentionally corrupted.

There are endless hypothetical scenarios that could have caused corruptions and we should be able to see how it is absolutely preposterous to claim it was most likely a corruption of a certain kind. What appears to be wrong is most likely right? Think about the absurdity of this claim. But even more than its absurdity is the implicit admission that the "G-d's blood" reading certainly appears to be wrong and that is why it must be right! Let the reader see the absurdity of this claim.

4. Trinitarian Translation Inconsistencies: A Cursory Look at the Problem

A review of various Trinitarian translations illlustrates the problem. Notice how Trinitarian scholars themselves have translated this passage:

• the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. (ASV).
• the assembly of G-d, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. (Darby).
• the church of G-d which he bought with the blood of his own Son. (JB).
• the church of G-d which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. (RSV)
• the church of G-d that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. (NET).

Now how can we accept this passage as "evidence" for their doctrine when Trinitarian scholars themselves do not agree that Yahushua is identified as "G-d [Yahuwah]" in this passage? How do they expect anyone to rest their faith upon such doubtful evidence?

Some Trinitarian scholars believe it said "church of the Lord" while others have "church of G-d" and among those who believe it said "church of G-d" are those who insist it means "church of G-d which He bought with the blood of His own Son."

5. The Manuscripts

Important early manuscript evidence, such as Codex Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Bezae Cantabrigensis, Sahidic Coptic, read "church of the Lord" and not "church of G-d."

Note to the Reader: I have not yet taken the time to list out the various manuscript readings of this verse on this page. In the meantime, you can do a quick search to quickly discover that there are several variations of this verse in the early manuscripts.

6. Early Church Testimony

We do not have the original manuscripts of the books written in the Bible. Our earliest manuscripts are copies prepared centuries after they were originally written. Some manuscripts read "church of G-d" while many others read "church of the Lord." Our first witness who can testify what the earliest 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).

Obviously, Irenaeus was quoting from a very early version of Acts which read "Church of the Lord" and not "Church of G-d." Irenaeus was also extremely adamant about teaching the true teachings passed down by the apostles, and in fact, that just happens to be the topic under discussion when he makes this quotation. While that fact in itself does not prove his reading is correct, we must at least take it into honest consideration. The point here is that his quotation demonstrates that very early manuscripts did indeed indeed read as "Church of the Lord" at Acts 20:28. While it is theoretically possible that other manuscripts were also circulating at that time which showed "church of G-d," the fact that Irenaeus quotes it as "church of the Lord" is enough to completely render the Trinitarian claim null and void. It is downright irresponsible to appeal to the "church of G-d" rendering of this verse and suggestively imply it is certain that this is what Luke wrote, when that is most certainly not the case. We are not certain what he actually wrote. We do have important manuscripts which read "church of the Lord" and this evidence from Irenaeus suggests a very strong indication that this certainly may have been what Luke actually wrote at Acts 20:28. Unless a Trinitarian can undeniably prove otherwise, he has no business using Acts 20:28 as Scriptural evidence for his doctrine. But let us not stop here. Even if we suppose Luke did write "church of G-d" let us also see how the problem does not end there for the Trinitarian apologist.

Part B:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of G-d [Yahuwah], which he purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

7. The Purchaser

Another problem is that the Trinitarian claim has Yahuwah purchasing the Church.

Through Yahusua's blood we have become Yahuwah's own possession, for his renewed covenant.

This obviously means those who comprise the church were purchased from among men. However, it leaves us with a serious problem. The question is: G-d [Yahuwah] purchased these people from who?

Yahuwah as the Creator of everything does not need to purchase His own creation. It makes no sense whatsoever! "The earth is Yahuwah's and everything in it; the world and all its inhabitants." (Psalm 24:1; cf. 1 Cor 10:26)

It makes absolutely no sense to suggest Yahuwah purchased men from someone else!

Something is very obviously wrong with the Trinitarian claim!!

Analysis of the Facts

[BREAK]

Conclusion

There are several determining factors:

• The text appealed to by Trinitarians is highly questionable concerning its authenticity.
• Many Trinitarian Greek scholars believe it is intended to mean "blood of his own son”.
• Important manuscripts read "church of the Lord" and others read "church of G-d."
• Even if the "church of G-d" is assumed to be authentic, there are significant translation issues between several Trinitarian translations.
• Irenaeus, an early Christian deeply concerned with preaching the apostolic tradition, quotes this verse as "church of the Lord," and this is the earliest evidence we have for the authenticity of this verse.
• It was quite common in the Bible, and especially in Luke's writings, to use the word "own" in this manner expecting the reader to infer whatever beloved thing is implied. The RSV, a Trinitarian translation, records the passage as "blood of his own son."
• It is also known that the ancient Greeks spoke in this manner using this kind of terminology to refer to their beloved possessions, especially their families. And indeed we know that Yahushua was Yahuwah the Father's beloved Son and the Scriptures routinely refer to Yahushua in this manner.
• Given the forceful nature of the evidence, Trinitarians have no grounds for objecting to a "blood of his own son" translation.

If nothing else, Acts 20:28 is plagued with so many difficulties that it renders the passage completely useless as evidence. The Trinitarian cherry picked manuscript reading and translation amounts to no evidence.

Luke may not have even wrote "Church of G-d" but instead wrote "Church of the Lord" as Irenaeus' early quotation indicates. Either way, any reasonable person can see that the Trinitarian claim is obviously the most unlikely of Luke's intentions.

The reasonable person can also see that "Yahuwah's blood" stands weirdly out of place in the Scriptures. And even if the passage was written by Luke to say "church of G-d", we can see clearly that it was common to use the term "own" in this manner with the expectation the reader would understand the implied inference to Yahuwah's beloved son. The implication is not hard to figure out since we are all expected to know it was Yahuwah's son who shed his blood.

Through Yahushua's blood we have become Yahuwah's own possession, for his renewed covenant.

No matter how you slice it and dice it, this Trinitarian claim is based on nothing but his own personal desires to have it as he would like.

• https://www.worldslastchance.com/topical-biblical-studies/anti-trinitarian-studies
• http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/acts20_28.html