Matt. 8:28 ἰσχύειν with an in infinitive

Matthew's version of the Gerasene Demoniac pericope is quite different from either Mark or Luke. This is just a technical note, the exegesis will come later.

Matt. 8:28 Καὶ ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ πέραν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ δύο δαιμονιζόμενοι ἐκ τῶν μνημείων ἐξερχόμενοι, χαλεποὶ λίαν, ὥστε μὴ ἰσχύειν τινὰ παρελθεῖν διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐκείνης.

BDAG, F. Danker 3rdEd under ἰσχύω says this verb can take an infinitive which we see above ὥστε μὴ ἰσχύειν τινὰ παρελθεῖν. What Danker doesn’t talk about and none of the NT greek grammars talk about is ἰσχύειν (an infinitive) taking another infinitive. My previous experience with NT grammars suggests that if A.T. Robertson doesn’t mention it, nor N. Turner, BDF, M. Zerwick and numerous lesser lights (R.Young, S.Porter, Moule, to name a few), if some syntax pattern goes without comment then it probably isn’t unusual. 

The following is evidence from Diodorus Siculus and Philo of ἰσχύω as an infinitive which joins statically with another infinitive. 

Diodorus Siculus Hist., Bibliotheca historica 10.30.1.1-5

  Ὅτι τοῦ Μιλτιάδου υἱὸς ὁ Κίμων, τελευτήσαντος
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ δημοσίᾳ φυλακῇ διὰ τὸ μὴ
ἰσχῦσαι ἐκτῖσαι τὸ ὄφλημα, ἵνα λάβῃ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ
πατρὸς εἰς ταφήν, ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν παρέ-
δωκε καὶ διεδέξατο τὸ ὄφλημα.

30 Cimon,  the son of Miltiades, when his father had died in the state prison because he was unable to pay in full the fine, in order that he might receive his father's body for burial, delivered himself up to prison and assumed the debt.

Philo Judaeus Phil., Legum allegoriarum libri Book 2, section 82, line 2

ἀλλὰ φέρε τινὰ ἰσχῦσαι ἀκοῦσαι, ὅτι τέτοκεν ἡ ἀρετὴ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν Ἰσαάκ, καὶ εὐθὺς συγχαρητικὸν ὕμνον ὑμνήσει.

(82) ... But suppose that any were able to hear that virtue has brought forth happiness, namely, Isaac, immediately he will sing a congratulatory hymn.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De posteritate Caini Section 72, line 2

τὰ γὰρ ἡδονῆς ὁλκοῦ δελέατα αὐστηρῷ τόνῳ καθελεῖν ἰσχῦσαι τὸν ἐφ' ἑκουσίοις ἔχει κατορθώμασιν ἔπαινον.

(72) for to be able, by a vigorous exertion, to destroy the baits of attractive pleasure, properly receives that praise which belongs to good actions, done with a deliberate purpose.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De fuga et inventione  Section 14, line 2

ὁρῶν δ' ὅτι πρὸς μάθησιν καὶ νόμιμον ἐπιστασίαν κεκώφωται, δρασμὸν εἰκότως βουλεύεται· δέδιε γάρ, μὴ πρὸς τῷ μηδὲν ἰσχῦσαι ὀνῆσαι ἔτι καὶ ζημιωθῇ.

(14) But seeing that he is dumb with respect to learning and to all desirable and legitimate authority, he very naturally thinks of flight. For he is afraid that in addition to not being able to derive any advantage, he may even be injured.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De confusione linguarum Section 120, line 3

πάντες γὰρ οἱ φαυλότατοι λαμβάνουσιν ἐννοίας περὶ τοῦ μὴ λήσειν τὸ θεῖον ἀδικοῦντες μηδὲ τὸ δίκην ὑφέξειν εἰσάπαν ἰσχῦσαι διακρούσασθαι· ἐπεὶ πόθεν ἴσασιν, ὅτι σκεδασθήσονται;

(120) For all the most wicked of men adopt ideas that they can never escape the knowledge of the deity when doing wrong, and that they shall never be able to ward off altogether the day of retribution.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De ebrietate
Section 112, line 3

 ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ φρέατος ἐξάρχει, οὐκέτι μόνον ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῶν παθῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ τὸ κάλλιστον κτημάτων, σοφίαν, ἀνανταγώνιστον ἰσχῦσαι λαβεῖν, ἣν ἀπεικάζει φρέατι· βαθεῖα γὰρ καὶ οὐκ ἐπιπόλαιος, γλυκὺ ἀναδιδοῦσα νᾶμα καλοκἀγαθίας διψώσαις ψυχαῖς, ἀναγκαιότατον ὁμοῦ καὶ ἥδιστον ποτόν·

(112) And the same prophet begins a song to the well, not only for the destruction of the passions, but also because he has had strength given to him to acquire the most valuable of all possessions, namely incomparable wisdom, which he compares to a well; for it is deep, and not superficial, giving forth a sweet stream to souls who thirst for goodness and virtue, a drink at once most necessary and most sweet.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De plantatione Section 8 line 3

τὰς δυσωπίας οὖν εἴ τις ἀποδιδράσκειν βούλοιτο τὰς ἐν τοῖς διαπορηθεῖσι, λεγέτω μετὰ παρρησίας, ὅτι οὐδὲν τῶν ἐν ὕλαις κραταιὸν οὕτως, ὡς τὸν κόσμον ἀχθοφορεῖν ἰσχῦσαι, λόγος δὲ ὁ ἀίδιος θεοῦ τοῦ αἰωνίου τὸ ὀχυρώτατον καὶ βεβαιότατον ἔρεισμα τῶν ὅλων ἐστίν.

(8) If therefore any one wishes to escape from the difficulties of this question which present themselves in the different doubts thus raised, let him speak freely and say that there is nothing in any material of such power as to be able to support this weight of the world. But it is the eternal law of the everlasting God which is the most supporting and firm foundation of the universe.

Philo Judaeus Phil., Quis rerum divinarum heres sit Section 143  

 ἔοικεν οὖν ὁ θεὸς μόνος ἀκρι- βοδίκαιος εἶναι καὶ μέσα μόνος δύνασθαι διαιρεῖν τά τε σώματα καὶ πράγματα, ὡς μηδὲν τῶν τμημάτων μηδ' ἀκαρεῖ καὶ ἀμερεῖ τινι πλέον ἢ ἔλαττον γενέσθαι, τῆς δ' ἀνωτάτω καὶ ἄκρας ἰσότητος μεταλαχεῖν ἰσχῦσαι. εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸ ἴσον μίαν εἶχεν ἰδέαν, ἱκανῶς ἂν τὰ λεχθέντα εἴρητο, πλειόνων δ' οὐσῶν οὐκ ἀποκνητέον τὰ ἁρμόττοντα προσθεῖναι. 

God alone therefore seems to be exactly just, and to be the only being able to divide in the middle bodies and things, in such a manner that none of the divisions shall be greater or less than the other by the smallest and most indivisible portion, and he alone is able to attain to sublime and perfect equality.

Gerasene Demoniac & Christology

Luke 8:28 “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beseech you, do not torment me.” RSV

Luke 8:32 Now a large herd of swine was feeding there on the hillside; and they begged him to let them enter these. So he gave them leave. RSV

Luke 8:38 The man from whom the demons had gone begged that he might be with him; but he sent him away, saying,  39 “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.” And he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him. RSV

Luke 8:38 ἐδεῖτο δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀφ᾿ οὗ ἐξεληλύθει τὰ δαιμόνια εἶναι σὺν αὐτῷ· ἀπέλυσεν δὲ αὐτὸν λέγων·  39 ὑπόστρεφε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου καὶ διηγοῦ ὅσα σοι ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καθ᾿ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν κηρύσσων ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς.

In the pericope of the Gerasene Demoniac, the manner in which Jesus is addressed by Legion “Son of the Most High God?” has obvious christological significance and the exchange between Jesus and Leigon demonstrates Jesus’ authority over unclean spirits when Legion begs permission permission to go into the heard of swine.  The theological significance is somewhat less obvious at the end of the story where Jesus tells the man, now free of demons, to go home and tell his story to his people.  

Luke 8:39 “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.” And he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him. RSV

The literal rendering of the RSV preserves both the ambiguity and parallelism of the original. Focusing our attention on the end of Luke’s version we see a formal pattern repeated:


... how much God has done for you
... ὅσα ἐποίησεν σοι ὁ θεός R-P[1]
... ὅσα σοι ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός NA27
... how much Jesus had done for him
... ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς  NA27 & R-P[1]

The parallelism is disrupted a little bit in the reading adopted by the NA27 σοι ἐποίησεν “for you has done” instead of ἐποίησεν σοι “has done for you” Byzantine Textform[1]. This word orderer variation is somewhat less important than the position of ὁ θεός “God” the subject which is clause final and in-focus in both NA27 and R-P[1]. Placing the subject-agent ὁ θεός “God” at the end of the clause signifies that ὁ θεός “God” is the most salient information. Obviously the RSV converts this into standard English syntax but preserves the parallel structure. What is lost in the English rendering is the in-focus salience marking of ὁ θεός “God” which isn’t easy to accomplish in natural sounding English. Now we should take careful note that in the second statement Jesus the subject-agent is also found in clause final position and here both NA27 and R-P[1] have identical word order. This marks Jesus as the most salient information. To sum up, the subject-agent is marked for salience in both clauses, telling us that it is important that God did this and that Jesus did this.


christological significance

What is not at all obvious is the intended christological significance of this exchange between Jesus and the man released from demonic domination. Jesus tells the man to go home and give a report to his people what God had done for him but the man goes home and tells everyone he can find what Jesus did for him. There is ambiguity here. Did the man disobey Jesus? Does the author of the gospel intend for us dwell on the difference between what Jesus said and what the man said? Jesus tells the man to declare what God did for him. However, Jesus is the speaker-agent in the verbal exchange with Legion. What are the christological implications? The Gerasene man tells it the way he experienced it which is not the way Jesus framed it for him. 

My first inclination is to read this in light of Jesus repeated statements in John’s gospel[2] about being sent by “The Father” to speak for Him and do mighty works as the Father’s agent. On this reading, Jesus would be telling the Gerasene man that God was ultimately responsible for his deliverance and that he should give God the credit when telling his story.

On further reflection I am wondering if there might be something more here. The original text marks as salient the discrepancy between Jesus words and the words used by the Gerasene man. The question of who delivered the Gerasene man from demonic control is highlighted. The fact of his deliverance is not as important as who delivered him. What if we suggest that Jesus is claiming not only to speak and work on behalf of God but also speak and work as God himself. I can hear in my mind  multiple objections that would raised against that sort of reading of Luke. Never the less, I find it worth contemplating.    


[1] The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 Compiled and Arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont
Chilton  2005

[2] I do not habitually keep Jesus from one gospel separated in my mind from the Jesus of another Gospel.

adnominal genitive and semantic inference.

The adnominal genitive merely predicates that there is a meaningful relation between the (pro)noun in the genitive and the head nominal. It is up to the addressee to infer the nature of that relation in the context of the utterance. When New Testament writers want to increase the level of explication, they may choose and indeed do choose more specific morphosyntactic devices. Compare the more explicit tēn ek theou dikaiōsunēn,“the righteousness from God” in Philippians 3:9a containing the source preposition ek with the more implicit adnominal genitive in Romans1:17, dikaiōsunē theou, “righteousness of God.”[1]

In the opening words of the Apocalypse of St. John, "the revelation of Jesus Christ" apokalupsis Ihsou Christou, John left the relationship between the head noun apokalupsis and genitives Ihsou Christou underdetermined (unspecified). As it stands the genitive tells us that there is some meaningful relationship between the head noun and the nouns in genitive case. That is the total extent of what is in the "code." In linguistic terminology that is the explicature (what is explicit in the text). The implicitures (what is implied, but derived by inference) are multiple. In other words, had John wanted to narrow down the explicit meaning he would have used a preposition with Jesus Christ, indicating that Jesus was the source, subject, agent, object, ... of the revelation. But John didn't do that so it is reasonable to conclude that he didn't intend to restrict the meaning to any one of these options.

I suspect there might be some greek readers who think that  apokalupsis Ihsou Christou in Rev 1:1 is an obvious example of the subjective genitive. Certainly there are plenty of commentators who read it that way, D. Aune (Rev. WBC, v1 p.6) translates it "This is a revelation from Jesus Christ ..." which makes Jesus the source but in the notes he calls it a subjective genitive. A. J. Hort breaks from the heard, but few follow him. It isn't important IMO whether we follow Hort or the rest of them.

The problem is the compelling urge (an artifact of bad grammars and instruction) to nail down the semantic significance with either/or style analysis, where the essence of the adnominal genitive is semantic open-endedness  (see N. Turner Syntax, pp. 210-211 and M. Zerwick pp. 13-14). Overly specific translation "a revelation from Jesus Christ" dramatically alters the meaning by placing undo stress on the "source" aspect of the genitive. G. Beale (Rev. NIGTC p. 184) gets it right, John intentionally left the meaning of apokalupsis Ihsou Christou open-ended.


[1] Biblical Scholars, Translators and Bible Translations, Lourens de Vries, S&I 2, no. 2 (2008): 141-159