The article argues that quoting the Lamsa translation of Acts 20:28, as the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) often does, is not a sound approach to understanding scripture. It critiques the INC for using the Lamsa, which is based on the Syriac Peshitta rather than the original Greek New Testament, leading to differences in translation, such as “church of Christ” versus “church of God.” The article contends that this selective use of the Lamsa translation reflects either a misunderstanding or disregard for the translation’s origin and that the INC manipulates scripture to fit their doctrinal beliefs, rather than deriving doctrine from scripture itself. It concludes by emphasizing the importance of studying God’s word with care and integrity, unlike the INC’s approach.
The phrase “church of God” is the reading in most early Greek manuscripts of Acts 20:28; however, some manuscripts, notably Codex Bezae (5th century), contain the variant “church of the Lord” (ἐκκλησία τοῦ κυρίου). This reading, though less common, has strong historical and theological support, particularly when considering the early development of Christian doctrine and the reverence for Christ as Lord (Κύριος).
The early Christian use of Κύριος (Lord) as a title for Jesus reflects His centrality in the church’s life and mission. The term “church of the Lord” emphasizes that Christ is the head and owner of the church (Ephesians 1:22–23), aligning with Paul’s consistent portrayal of Christ’s lordship over the church. If the original text of Acts 20:28 did indeed refer to the “church of the Lord,” this would affirm the high Christology that dominated early Christian thought, where Jesus was recognized not only as the Savior but also as the Lord of the church.
One crucial aspect often overlooked in textual criticism is the possibility that a substantial number of early manuscripts have been lost due to the natural wear and destruction of ancient texts, particularly in the centuries before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This reality leaves open the possibility that earlier copies of Acts 20:28 may have contained the reading “church of the Lord” rather than “church of God”.
Textual Criticism – the scholarly discipline concerned with the study of ancient manuscripts to determine the original or most authentic text of a written work.
It is well-documented that thousands of manuscripts have been lost over time, and only a small fraction has survived, many of which date from much later than the original autographs. Given this gap, it is plausible that scribal variations occurred in the transmission process. The phrase “church of God” could have been influenced by the theological and doctrinal developments of the early church, ascribing God the Father more explicitly as the head of the church in an effort to solidify Trinitarian doctrine.
Thus, it is theoretically possible that the original text of Acts 20:28 referred to the “church of the Lord”, with the term “Lord” referring to Christ. This reading may have been altered in later manuscripts to “church of God” due to theological motivations aimed at emphasizing the unity of the Godhead or distinguishing the church from early heretical movements.
If we consider the reading “church of the Lord” to be original, it is entirely consistent with New Testament theology, which frequently refers to Christ as the Lord who purchased the church with His blood. For example:
1 Corinthians 6:20: “For you were bought with a price.”
1 Peter 1:18-19: “…you were redeemed…with the precious blood of Christ.”
In these and other passages, Christ is clearly identified as the one who shed His blood for the church, thus making Him the rightful owner and head of the church. The phrase “church of the Lord” in Acts 20:28, therefore, aligns with the overall teaching of the New Testament, which attributes the church’s salvation and its establishment to Christ’s sacrificial death.
This understanding aligns with the Iglesia Ni Cristo’s teaching which insists that God does not have blood. The “church of the Lord” reading would accurately reflect the fact that it was Christ, the Lord, who purchased the church with His blood, without needing to address the disputes regarding Christ’s nature in the same way the “church of God” reading does.
If we accept the possibility that the original reading was “church of the Lord”, this raises important questions about the Lamsa translation’s accuracy in rendering “church of Christ” instead. While “church of Christ” is not explicitly found in the Greek manuscripts of Acts 20:28, it is possible that the Syriac tradition, from which Lamsa translates, carried forward a theological tradition that emphasized Christ’s headship over the church.
Given the theological and historical uncertainties surrounding the transmission of the text, the Lamsa translation may not be entirely off-base, especially if the early Syriac Christians had access to manuscripts or traditions that reflected an understanding of Christ’s centrality to the church’s identity.
Moreover, even if “church of Christ” is not the precise wording of Acts 20:28, the phrase is still theologically accurate. The “church of Christ” and “church of the Lord” both affirm the same truth: the church belongs to the one who redeemed it through His blood, namely Christ.
True Iglesia Information 