After everything that has been said in the other thread and here, I don't have anything to offer except a stray thought:
The Hebrew has lmšḥh bhm wlmlʾ-bh
, where (w)lmlʾ-bh
is an infinitive, so it would be awkward for lmšḥh
not also to be an infinitive (compare English "I want food and drink" and "I want to eat and to drink" but awkward "I want food and to drink"). Purely from context it seems to me it must be an infinitive, as the pointing indicates. It's true that mšḥh
can also represent 4888 in Strong's, a noun, but it requires different pointing, and either way we're looking at something that isn't a finite
verb (and keep in mind that Hebrew infinitives themselves can be used as substantives).
NKJV has "to be anointed in them" (infinitive showing purpose), NIV has "so that they can be anointed [...] in them" (finite clause showing purpose), and NASB has the literal variant "for anointing in them" (preposition of purpose plus noun). Note that these can all be read as saying that the clothes will be anointed in the sons rather than the sons in the clothes. As usual the NKJV is quite literal and does nothing to avoid an awkward reading, the NIV rephrases things, and the literal NASB variant rephrases things slightly but still avoids a finite verb to keep things mostly literal. These all seem perfectly acceptable to me, some are more literal and some are clearer.
If you want a reference, Heinrich Ewald talks about this form of *mšḥ in his Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache
. He says it's an intransitive (qal) infinitive. The identification with mišḥâ in Strong's does seem to be a misclassification.