Once Again: The Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך in the Abrahamic Blessing for the Nations

Abstract

The meaning of the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך in the Abrahamic blessing for the nations (Gen. 12.3b; 18.18; 22.18; 26.4; 28.14) has been a long-standing debate among scholars. Traditionally, scholars have assumed that the variation of the wording is stylistic. Therefore, they have usually argued that the force of the verb is either passive, middle or direct reflexive consistently in all five instances. More recently, some scholars have proposed that the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך bear distinct nuances, though they do not agree on those specific nuances. Based on grammatical evidence as well as support from the literary and narrative context of Genesis, this article argues that while the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך largely overlap in their meaning, they also bear distinct nuances—the Niphal is passive (‘be blessed’) and the Hithpael is an indirect reflexive that bears an estimative-declarative force (‘regard themselves as blessed’). Finally, this article will also discuss the theological implications arising from such an understanding.

Keywords

Hebrew grammar blessing of Abraham Genesis blessing for the nations

One of the key exegetical issues of the Abrahamic blessing for the nations in Genesis is the force of the verb ברך (‘to bless’). Scholars have debated vigorously how the nations are blessed due to Abraham and/or his offspring. The verb is in the Niphal stem in Gen. 12.3b, 18.18 and 28.14, but it is in the Hithpael stem in Gen. 22.18 and 26.4. Traditionally, scholars have assumed that the variation of the wording is stylistic. Therefore, they have usually argued that the force of the verb is either passive (‘be blessed’), middle (‘gain/receive/find blessings’) or direct reflexive (‘bless themselves’) consistently in all five instances.¹ In recent times, some scholars have proposed that the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך bear distinct nuances. Nonetheless, these scholars do not agree on the specific nuances of the Niphal and the Hithpael.²

Before we discuss the meaning of the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך, we will first need to determine from the context of Genesis whether the variations of the wording in Gen. 12.3b and its reiterations in Genesis (18.18; 22.18; 26.4; 28.14) exhibit distinguishable nuances, or if the variations are merely stylistic. By examining the wording of each instance and the semantic relationship of the other word pairs (e.g. גוי/משפחת and ארץ/אדמה) in the five instances of the Abrahamic blessing for the nations in Genesis, Section 1 will help us assess the extent to which the sense of the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך may be identical or distinct. Second, in Sections 2 and 3, we will discuss the meaning of the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך as well as their relationship with other stems of ברך. Based on the linguistic evidence in the discussion, we will evaluate the viability of understanding the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך in the Genesis narrative as passive, middle or reflexive. In these two sections, I will argue that while the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך largely overlap in their meaning, they also bear distinct nuances—the Niphal is passive and the Hithpael is an indirect reflexive that bears an estimative-declarative force.³ Lastly, I will explain the theological implications arising from such an understanding of the Hithpael of ברך in Gen. 22.18 and 26.4.

1. Variations of the Abrahamic Blessing for the Nations in Genesis

Besides the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך, there are two other sets of variations in the wording of the Abrahamic blessing for the nations in Genesis: (1) משפחת הארמה (‘families of the earth’; Gen. 12.3; 28.14) and גוײ הארץ (‘nations of the earth’; Gen. 18.18; 22.18; 26.4); (2) the blessing for the nations through Abraham (בו/בך, ‘in you/in him’; Gen. 12.3; 18.18), which is subsequently expanded to his offspring (בזרעך, ‘in your offspring’; Gen. 22.18; 26.4; 28.14). In order to help us determine if there is a difference in sense between the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך in Genesis, we need to see if these two other sets of variations show evidence of distinguishable nuances or if they are simply stylistic.

משפחת האדמה (‘families of the earth’) is used in Gen. 12.3b as a reminiscence of Genesis 10–11. משפחת (‘family’) occurs five times in Genesis 10, four times together with גוי (‘nation’), portraying how each clan of people eventually evolved into a nation. To show further the continuity of the later reiterations of this blessing, Gen. 18.18, 22.18 and 26.4 use גוײ הארץ instead of משפחת האדמה. As גוי carries strong political overtones, it is therefore natural to use it with ארץ, which has stronger political connotations than אדמה.⁴ Fokkelman also suggests that, in Gen. 12.3b, the use of אדמה is to clarify the universal aspect of the land, as ארץ is used earlier (Gen. 12.1) to refer to the land of Canaan.⁵ Hence, although אדמה and ארץ may have distinct and fine nuances in Gen. 12.1–7 and in the subsequent reiterations of the Abrahamic blessing, their overlap in terms of the universal connotation can be traced to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.

In Gen. 18.22–33, although Abraham interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah, they were still destroyed. The only one who was blessed because of Abraham's intercession was Lot, the ancestor of the Moabite and Ammonite nations (Gen. 19.29–38). Therefore, the use of the word גוי (‘nation’) in Gen. 18.18 instead of משפחת (‘family’) would fit the narrative context more naturally.

In Genesis 22, after Abraham was tested in the sacrificing of Isaac, God declared, ‘Your offspring shall possess the gates of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth (גוײ הארץ) be blessed’ (Gen. 22.17–18 esv). The language of possessing (ירש) the gates of the enemies alludes to the promise that the land of Canaan will be given to Abraham (Gen. 15.18–21) and points forward to the possession of the land of Canaan and the defeat of the nations in that land.⁶ Therefore, once again, the use of the word גוי (‘nation’) in Gen. 22.18 would fit the narrative context more naturally. As Gen. 22.17 has to do with the dominance of Abraham's offspring over other nations, the promise to bless the nations through Abraham in Gen. 12.3b is therefore reiterated as ‘through your offspring’ (בזרעך) in Gen. 22.18.

When the promise is reiterated to Isaac in Gen. 26.3–5, it clearly alludes to the event in Gen. 22.15–18.⁷ Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the wording of the blessing for the nations in Gen. 26.4 replicates Gen. 22.18 exactly. In Gen. 28.13–15, the Abrahamic promise is reiterated to Jacob for the first time. It is also the last reiteration of the Abrahamic blessing for the nations. Isaac had sent Jacob away with his blessing, specifically praying that God would give ‘the blessing of Abraham’ to him and his offspring (Gen. 28.4). Therefore, the wording of Gen. 28.14 replicates the promise given to Abraham for the first time in Gen. 12.3, with the addition of ובזרעך (‘and in your offspring’) at the end of the clause, forming an inclusio with Gen. 12.3. Thus, the wording of Gen. 28.14 captures the development of the means of blessing from Abraham himself (Gen. 12.3; 18.18) to his offspring (Gen. 22.14; 26.4).

It may, therefore, be established that these two sets of variations in the wording of the blessing for the nations, namely גוײ הארץ/משפחת האדמה (‘families of the earth’/‘nations of the earth’) and בזרעך/בו/בך (‘in you/in him/in your offspring’), are intentional and bear a slight difference in nuance. Nonetheless, the semantic overlap between גוי/משפחת and ארץ/אדמה, as well as the universal connotations, should not be played down. In view of this, it is most likely that the variation between the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך also signals a slight difference in nuance with a substantial overlap in meaning.

2. The Niphal of ברך

The Niphal of ברך occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible, all in the context of the Abrahamic blessing for the nations (Gen. 12.3; 18.18; 28.14).⁸ Therefore, we can only consider the possible syntactical force of the Niphal in other roots and the context of Genesis to determine the force of the Niphal of ברך.

The force of the Niphal in the Hebrew Bible is mainly middle or passive, and it is rarely reflexive.⁹ A verb may be said to be passive when the action of the verb is done to the subject by an agent implied or expressed (e.g. ‘the door is opened’).¹⁰ A verb may be said to be middle when the subject acts in a way concerning itself (e.g. ‘the door opens’), and the middle frequently involves an intransitive verb.¹¹ The middle differs from the reflexive in that the reflexive focuses on the action that is performed upon the subject (e.g. ‘I wash myself’), while the middle verb somehow concerns the subject, but with a low degree of elaboration of events compared with the reflexive (e.g. ‘she becomes upset’).¹²

Interlinguistically, verbs that bear the middle sense may be categorized as verbs of ‘grooming’, ‘self-move’, ‘posture and bodily contortions’, ‘gathering and assembling’, ‘action one might typically do for one's own benefit’, ‘events that are, or are represented as, spontaneous’, ‘emotion’, or ‘performative speech action’ that involves emotion or undertaking.¹³ Niphal verbs bearing the middle force can also be classified under these categories, for example: אזר (‘girded [with]’), נשא (‘motion away from’), םתר (‘hide’), אםף (‘gather together’), הפך (‘turn or change’), נחם (‘be sorry, have compassion’), שבע (‘swear’) and נבא (‘prophesy’).¹⁴ Note also that the performative speech action middle verbs in Niphal, such as שבע (‘swear’) and נבא (‘prophesy’), do not have a corresponding verbal stem expressing the active voice.¹⁵

Scholars who argue for a middle force of the Niphal render the phrase as ‘find/acquire blessings’ and give the reason that since the Pual and the Qal passive of ברך clearly denote the passive voice, the Niphal here is chosen deliberately to give a different nuance.¹⁶ However, the relationship between the verbal stems is not always neatly predictable, and their semantic ranges frequently overlap.¹⁷ Context is still the key in determining the force of a verbal stem when it is used. Furthermore, although the Niphal is frequently middle, its use in Gen. 12.3 does not fit into the interlinguistic category of ‘performative speech action middle’. This is because the Niphal of ברך has a corresponding Piel stem that denotes the active voice.¹⁸ In addition, the translation ‘will gain/receive/find blessing in you’ does not reflect a middle voice, which would require ‘bless’ to be the verb and a low elaboration of events.¹⁹ Such a translation is actually an active voice semantically, with ‘gain/receive/find’ as the verb, and there is a clear elaboration of events (i.e. ‘the nations’ is the subject and ‘blessing’ is the object).²⁰

Those scholars who take a direct reflexive reading of the Niphal in Gen. 12.3b base their argument on the Hithpael as a direct reflexive in Gen. 22.18; 26.4, and Ps. 72.17. Since the Hithpael is rarely passive, the Niphal in Gen. 12.3 should be read as reflexive in light of the Hithpael used in Gen. 22.18 and 26.4. In this understanding, the name of Abraham is used in blessings (e.g. ‘may God bless you like Abraham’; cf. Gen. 48.20).²¹

However, as mentioned above, it is likely that the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך in the Abrahamic blessing for the nations bear slightly different nuances. A reflexive reading of the Hithpael need not entail a corresponding reflexive reading of the Niphal. Furthermore, it is important to read Gen. 12.3b in light of the whole patriarchal narrative in Genesis, which strongly favours a passive rendering of the Niphal in Gen. 12.3b.²²

First, Gen. 12.1–3 is related to the primeval narrative in that Abraham shall be the means by which God will accomplish his original intention to bless humankind (Gen. 1.28) in response to the sin and alienation of humans from God in the primeval narrative (Gen. 3–11).²³ It is clear that God is the divine agent in the blessing for the nations. This divine agency is also indicated in Gen. 12.3a, which describes how God will bless or curse people on account of their relationship with Abraham. Therefore, it is likely that the preposition ב in Gen. 12.3b indicates the means of the blessing, but not the agent or the name by which the blessing is invoked.²⁴

Second, the patriarchal narrative repeatedly portrays how other people are blessed or cursed by God on account of Abraham and his descendants (e.g. Abimelech, Laban, Potiphar, Pharaoh, Egypt). Nowhere in the narrative do we see people actively seeking blessing for themselves by their association with Abraham or invoking his name as a formula and paradigm of blessing, as a direct reflexive reading would entail. Only in one account is Abraham's name invoked by Isaac when he blessed Jacob (Gen. 28.4). Even so, Isaac is not invoking Abraham as a paradigm of blessing, but rather suggesting that he and Jacob are the successors of God's promise to Abraham.²⁵ The rest of the Pentateuch follows the same pattern (e.g. Gen. 31.55; 48.15–16, 20; 49.1–28; Num. 6.22–27; 23.7–11, 18–24; 24.2–9; Deut. 1.11; 26.12–15; 33.1–29).

This passive force of the Niphal of ברך is also clear in Gen. 18.18 and 28.14. As we have seen above, the descendants of Lot, who became the Moabite and the Ammonite nations (Gen. 19.37–38), owed their existence to Abraham due to his intercession, and thus they are blessed on account of Abraham.²⁶ In Gen. 28.14, the passive nuance is supported by the subsequent context of Genesis, where Laban is blessed because of Jacob (Gen. 30.27) and also where ‘all [the peoples of] the earth’ (כלﬞ¯הארץ) come to buy grain from Joseph during the famine (Gen. 41.57). In this way, כל גוײ הארץ (‘all the nations of the earth’) are blessed on account of Joseph, the offspring of Abraham and Jacob.²⁷

Also, in his study on the Niphal in the Hebrew Bible, Siebesma notes that ‘for those roots of which the ni. and pu. occur in a passive relationship to pi. there may possibly be a case of complementary functions or cumulative preference. In this context the ni. shows preference for usage of the perf. whereas the pu. favors that of the imperf.’²⁸ It is noteworthy that, in the Hebrew Bible, the Niphal of ברך is attested only in the perfect form and the Pual only in the imperfect and participial forms.²⁹ Therefore, Siebesma's observation lends weight to my argument that the Niphal perfect and the Pual imperfect forms are both the passive counterpart of the Piel of ברך.

3. The Hithpael of ברך

Other than Gen. 22.18 and 26.4, the Hithpael of ברך also occurs in Deut. 29.18 (Eng. 29.19); Ps. 72.17, Isa. 65.16 (×2) and Jer. 4.2. Hence, it would be useful to analyse the force of the Hithpael of ברך outside of Genesis in order to help us determine its force in Gen. 22.18 and 26.4.³⁰

a. The Hithpael of ברך outside of Genesis

Deuteronomy 29.18 (Eng. 29.19) occurs in the context of the covenantal blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 27–30. Moses warns against complacency and willful disobedience, saying, ‘Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the Lord our God to go and serve the gods of those nations …, one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself (התברך) in his heart, saying, “I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart”’ (Deut. 29.18–19 esv).

Nearly all the English translations recognize the reflexive force of the Hithpael in Deut. 29.18.³¹ From the context, it is evident that the complacent and wilful person regards himself/herself to be blessed (or to be in a state of blessedness), because no calamity has ensued even though he/she has been wilfully disobedient.³² Therefore, the force of the Hithpael here may be better understood as an estimative-declarative indirect reflexive, denoting the idea of presenting oneself in a certain way or declaring oneself to be in a certain state without regard to the question of truthfulness.³³

Isaiah 65 speaks of God condemning his rebellious people who break the covenantal stipulations by their idolatry, and he expresses his determination to destroy them in judgment (Isa. 65.1–12). Nonetheless, there will be a remnant among the people that will be restored, in contrast to those who shall be judged (Isa. 65.13–15). Consequently, ‘he who blesses himself (המתברך) in the land shall bless himself (יתברך) by the God of truth, and he who takes an oath in the land shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten and are hidden from my eyes’ (Isa. 65.16 esv).³⁴

Some scholars interpret the Hithpael of ברך in Isa. 65.16 as invoking a blessing using the name of Yhwh due to the parallel of swearing by the name of God in the second colon.³⁵ However, it may also be plausible to take the Hithpael as an estimative-declarative indirect reflexive and render the verse in English thus: ‘he who recognizes himself as blessed (or in a state of blessedness) in the land shall declare his blessedness on account of the God of truth’.³⁶ The people thus acknowledge and declare their blessedness because God has restored them (Isa. 65.16a).

I would argue similarly for the Hithpael of ברך in Ps. 72.17. Psalm 72 is a messianic psalm in which the universal reign of the king is projected (Ps. 72.8) and celebrated. Not only does the nation of Israel benefit from his reign (Ps. 72.1–7), but all the vassal nations benefit from the king's righteous reign (Ps. 72.8–16).³⁷ As a result, his name and his fame endure forever, with the result that the nations ‘declare themselves as blessed (ויתברכו) on account of him’ and ‘all nations call him blessed (יאשרוהו)’.³⁸ The meaning of אשר (‘pronounce blessed, deem successful or consider fortunate’) bears a strong estimative-declarative force.³⁹ Its parallel with the Hithpael of ברך therefore gives weight to the Hithpael as having a declarative force as well.

Jeremiah 4.2 occurs within the context of the call to repentance and the restoration of Israel (Jer. 3.6–4.4). Jeremiah prophesies that if Israel would repent and return to the Lord, then the nations shall declare themselves as blessed on account of God (והתברכו בו גו גוים),⁴⁰ and they shall boast on account of God (ובו יתהללו) (Jer. 4.1–2; cf. 9.23–24).⁴¹ הלל when used as a Hithpael reflexive (‘to boast, have confidence, gloat’)⁴² has a strong estimative-declarative force.⁴³ Thus, the chiastic parallel of והתברכו with יתהללו favours the estimative-declarative nuance of והתברכו.

Therefore, we note that, for the Hithpael of ברך outside of Genesis, Deut. 29.18 clearly bears an estimative-declarative meaning, and such a nuance is also plausible in Ps. 72.17; Isa. 65.16, and Jer. 4.2.⁴⁴ Nonetheless, in all three latter instances, an estimative-declarative indirect reflexive nuance of the Hithpael does not preclude a passive nuance. It presumes that each of the subjects of the verb is already in a state of blessedness. The subjects do not actively seek to bless themselves—as a direct reflexive would entail—but acknowledge and declare that they have been blessed by God or by the king.⁴⁵ Therefore, while the Hithpael and the Niphal of ברך overlap in the passive sense, the Hithpael differs slightly in that the subjects of the verb regard themselves as being blessed.⁴⁶

b. The Hithpael of ברך in Genesis 22.18 and 26.4 and Its Theological Implications

This understanding of the estimative-declarative indirect reflexive nuance of the Hithpael of ברך also fits the narrative context of Gen. 22.18 and 26.4. Among the people who are blessed because of Abraham's descendants (e.g. Laban, Potiphar, Pharaoh, Egypt), Laban actually acknowledges and declares himself to be blessed by Yhwh because of Jacob (Gen. 30.27). As the reiteration of the blessing for the nations in Gen. 26.3–4 clearly alludes to the event in Gen. 22.16–18, the meaning of the Hithpael of ברך may be taken to be the same in both instances.⁴⁷ Considering the estimative-declarative indirect reflexive force of the Hithpael of ברך outside of Genesis and that a slightly different nuance is intended in the variations of the wording in the Abrahamic blessing for the nations, the phrase in Gen. 22.18 and 26.4 may be rendered as ‘all the nations of the earth shall regard or declare themselves as blessed on account of your offspring’.⁴⁸

The ו-consecutive perfect Hithpael (והתברכו) in Gen. 22.18 seems to indicate that the blessing for the nations is a consequence of Abraham's offspring possessing the gates of the enemies.⁴⁹ On the one hand, it is not clear in the context of Genesis why the nations would regard or declare themselves as blessed on account of their subjugation to the rule of Abraham's offspring. On the other hand, given the possibility of an individual offspring associated with the royal lineage being referred to here, Gen. 22.18 may have an implication awaiting its fulfilment beyond the narrative context of the Pentateuch.⁵⁰ Therefore, it is noteworthy that Psalm 72 picks up this motif and portrays how the vassal nations shall regard and declare themselves as blessed because of the righteous rule of the ideal king of Israel.⁵¹

Two theological implications arise from this estimative-declarative understanding of the Hithpael of ברך in Gen. 22.18 and 26.4. First, it brings across the element of recognition and acknowledgment on the part of the nations with regard to how Yhwh has blessed them through the offspring of Abraham. Second, unlike the direct reflexive understanding of the Hithpael of ברך, which causes the focus to be on the nations’ initiative in ‘blessing themselves’ by using the name of Abraham or his offspring, the estimative-declarative understanding of the Hithpael, together with the passive understanding of the Niphal, underscores the offspring of Abraham as the means by which Yhwh accomplishes his original intention to bless humankind (cf. Gen. 1.28), which had been alienated from him since the primeval times (cf. Gen. 3–11).⁵²

4. Conclusion

From the study above, we have seen that the literary context of Genesis indicates that the variations of the wording in the Abrahamic blessing for the nations are very likely intentional, and that the word pairs (בזרעך/בו/בך, ארץ/אדמה,גוי/משפחת and התברכו/נברכו) bear a slight difference in nuance, although their meanings largely overlap. Based on grammatical and contextual evidence, I have shown that the Niphal of ברך is not semantically middle or reflexive but bears a passive meaning. On the other hand, I have also argued that the Hithpael of ברך outside of Genesis (Deut. 29.18; Ps. 72.17; Isa. 65.16; Jer. 4.2) is an indirect reflexive and bears a clear estimative-declarative force, and this meaning sheds light on our understanding of Gen. 22.18 and 26.4: ‘all the nations of the earth shall regard or declare themselves as blessed on account of [Abraham's] offspring’. Such a meaning of the Hithpael overlaps with the Niphal in the passive sense, but has a slightly different nuance in the subject's recognition of ‘being blessed’. This understanding of the Hithpael of ברך in Gen. 22.18 and 26.4 finds support from both the literary and narrative context of Genesis. It is congruent with the literary context, which points to a substantial overlap in meaning with a slight difference in nuance. It is also compatible with the narrative context, which indicates instances in which people of other nations are blessed or acknowledge that they have been blessed on account of Abraham and his offspring. Thus, it also highlights the element of acknowledgment on the part of the nations in recognizing how Yhwh has blessed them through Abraham's offspring. Together with the passive understanding of the Niphal of ברך, it affirms the function of the blessing of Abraham in the Genesis narrative as YHWH's reconciliatory initiative to bless alienated humankind by means of Abraham's offspring, and this blessing has implications beyond the Pentateuchal narrative (cf. Ps. 72.17).

Footnotes

1.

E.g. passive: kjv; tniv; nasb; nrsv; esv; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 375–76; middle: Hans W. Wolff, ‘Das Kerygma des Jahwisten’, EvT 24 (1964), pp. 79–80 n. 31; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC, 1; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), pp. 277–78; direct reflexive: rsv; njb; neb; Rashi, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi's Commentary: Genesis and Exodus (trans. M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann; Jerusalem: The Silbermann Family, 1972), pp. 49, 117; Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (trans. John J. Scullion; CC; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), pp. 151–52; R.W.L. Moberly, The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 123. The lxx consistently translates all five instances with the future passive (ἐνɛυλoγηθήσoνται), while the Targums (Tg. Neof; Tg. Ps.-J.; Tg. Onq.) consistently render it with the Ithpaal stem (יתברכון).

2.

E.g. Keith N. Grüneberg, Abraham, Blessing, and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 in its Narrative Context (BZAW, 332; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2003), pp. 220, 235, 241; John H. Walton, Genesis (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), pp. 393–94; M. Daniel Carroll Rodas, ‘Blessing the Nations: Toward a Biblical Theology of Mission from Genesis’, BBR 10 (2000), pp. 23–24; Magdalene L. Frettlöh, Theologie des Segens: Biblische und dogmatische Wahrnehmungen (Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998), p. 296; Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and its Covenantal Development in Genesis (JSOTSup, 315; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), p. 228; André Flury-Schölch, Abrahams Segen und die Völker: Synchrone und diachrone Untersuchungen zu Gen 12, 1–3 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der intertextuellen Beziehungen zu Gen 18; 22; 26; 28; Sir 44; Jer 4 und Ps 72 (FB, 115; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2007), pp. 322–26; Richard Benton, ‘The Niphal and Hitpael of ברך in the Patriarchal Narratives’, KUSATU 8/9 (2008), pp. 1–17. Most of them take the Niphal to be passive, except for Williamson (middle) and Frettlöh (tolerative). All of them take the Hithpael to be reflexive, but they do not agree on the specific force of the Hithpael. The various proposals include, for example, direct reflexive (Carroll Rodas, Flury-Schölch), benefactive (Williamson), speech action middle (Grüneberg), and situational aspect reflecting process (Benton).

3.

A direct reflexive is where the subject is also the direct object of the verbal action (e.g. ‘I washed my hands’). An indirect reflexive is where the subject is also the indirect object of the verbal action often with the direct object expressed (e.g. ‘I took off my hat [from myself]’). For examples in Hebrew, see Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §26.2d; hereafter referred to as IBHS.

4.

Daniel I. Block, ‘Nations/Nationality’, in NIDOTTE, IV, p. 966; Michael A. Grisanti, אךמה, in NIDOTTE, I, p. 273.

5.

J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (The Biblical Seminar, 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1991), pp. 60–61 n. 35.

6.

See, e.g., Num. 21.21–35; 33.50–53; Deut. 7.1. The use of the language of possessing (שרי) the land of Canaan and the defeat of the nations (גךים) is strong in these passages.

7.

On the allusion of Gen. 26.4 to Gen. 22.18, see also Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 194; Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26 (NAC, 1B; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), p. 405.

8.

The number of occurrences of ברך (‘to bless’) in the verbal stems are: Qal passive participle—72; Niphal—3; Piel—235; Pual—13; Hithpael—7. For the distribution of these occurrences in each of the biblical books, see Christopher W. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK: ‘To Bless’ in the Old Testament (SBLDS, 95; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), p. 185. The Niphal is attested only in the perfect form; the Piel is attested in the perfect, imperfect, participle, infinitive construct, infinitive absolute, and imperative forms; the Pual is attested only in the imperfect and participle forms; and the Hithpael is attested in the perfect, imperfect, and participle forms.

9.

IBHS, §23.1h. Although Joüon claims that the principal meaning of the Niphal is reflexive, Grüneberg convincingly argues that these traditional classifications of Niphals as reflexive are more properly understood as middle (Grüneberg, Abraham, pp. 46–65; Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew [trans. T. Muraoka; SubBi, 14; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblio, 1991], I, §51c).

10.

For examples of Niphal verbs used passively, see IBHS, §23.2.2.

11.

Suzanne Kemmer, The Middle Voice (TSL, 23; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993), p. 243; IBHS, §20.2j. Kemmer lists two properties that are characteristic of the middle system: (1) initiator as affected entity; and (2) low degree of elaboration of events.

12.

Kemmer notes that the reflexive has a relatively higher elaboration of events than the middle, and it follows the pattern of the two-participant event (Kemmer, Middle Voice, pp. 215–17). Kemmer provides the following examples to illustrate the differences: (1) ‘He looks at himself and his father in the mirror’. The active voice (‘he sees his father’) is a highly elaborated two-participant event (transitive event with distinct participants, i.e., the man and his father). Although the reflexive voice (‘he sees himself’) is a one-participant event, it follows the pattern of the active voice. The object and the subject are clearly elaborated, although both refer to the same person. (2) ‘He becomes angry and angers his father’. The middle voice (‘he becomes angry’) has a low elaboration of events as it does not elaborate the object (he could be angry with himself or with his father). The active voice (‘he angers his father’) clearly elaborates the event in that his father is angry with him.

13.

Kemmer, Middle Voice, pp. 53–67, 143–44, 267–70; S.W. Boyd, ‘A Synchronic Analysis of the Medio-Passive-Reflexive in Biblical Hebrew’ (PhD dissertation, Hebrew Union College, 1993), pp. 170ff., cited by Grüneberg, Abraham, pp. 48–56. Kemmer's classification is based on a number of languages that have marked morphemes for the middle voice.

14.

Grüneberg, Abraham, pp. 48–56. Van der Merwe et al. state that when the verbs occur in the Niphal, but not in the Qal, they express an active meaning of the verb (C.H.J. van der Merwe, J.A. Naudé and J.H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar [BLH, 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], pp. 78, 84). However, the examples that they list (םתר [‘creep away’], מלט [‘slip away’]) are mainly self-move verbs that are more properly classified as semantically middle rather than active. Van der Merwe et al. have confused the rendering of the Niphal as an active voice in English with the inter-linguistic category of the semantic middle.

15.

DCH, V, pp. 582–83; HALOT, II, p. 659; IV, pp. 1397–99.

16.

Wolff, ‘Kerygma’, pp. 79–80 n. 31; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, p. 277; Mitchell, Meaning of BRK, p. 31 n. 3.

17.

Ornan has shown that other than the Pual and the Hophal, which have consistent predictable relationship with the Piel and the Hiphil, respectively, other stems of the same root either have no relationship or have unpredictable relationships with each other (e.g. the Niphal with Qal, Piel, Hiphil and Hithpael) (Uzzi Ornan, ‘Hebrew Grammar: Detailed Survey: Verb Formation’, EncJud, VIII, pp. 588–89). The semantic range of the verbal stems can also overlap, as, for example, in (1) Lev. 18.24: ‘Do not defile yourselves (תטמאו) with all these things, for with all these things the nations are defiled (נטמאו)’; and (2) 2 Sam. 10.6: ‘Now the Ammonites saw that they had become odious (נבאשו) to David’; cf. 1 Chron. 19.6: ‘Now the Ammonites saw that they had made themselves odious (התבאשו) to David’ (emphasis added) (IBHS, §23.4h; 23.6.4). I have rendered the Niphal as passive and the Hithpael as reflexive in the above translations for the sake of highlighting the Hebrew stems. However, for both examples above, it is contextually plausible to describe the Niphal and the Hithpael of טמא and באש as both bearing the same nuance, either reflexive or passive, or the Hithpael could bear the reflexive nuance and the Niphal the passive. Nonetheless, Benton has recently shown that the use of the Niphal and the Hithpael of the same root in similar contexts could signal a subtle distinction in terms of the state and the process of the verb (known as ‘situation aspect’ in linguistic terms). The examples that Benton cites, namely Lev. 11.43–44 and Dan. 2.1–3, are similar to those cited in IBHS above (Benton, ‘Niphal and Hitpael’, pp. 9–12). Benton's cross-linguistic evidence shows how various languages—English, German, Spanish and Tagalog—distinguish the state and process of the passive verb with syntactical markers (Benton, ‘Niphal and Hitpael’, pp. 3–8). Benton then shows how this distinction can be seen in the Niphal and the Hithpael stems of the Hebrew language. Therefore, Benton's work shows that the Niphal and the Hithpael of the same root in similar contexts overlap in their passive meaning but exhibit a distinguishable nuance between the state (Niphal) and the process (Hithpael) (Benton, ‘Niphal and Hitpael’, p. 14).

18.

The case of the Niphal of דבר (‘to speak’) is somewhat similar. Its force is not a performative speech action middle but reciprocal (Ps. 119.23; Ezek. 33.30; Mal. 3.13, 16), and it has a corresponding Piel stem denoting the active voice (see also DCH, II, pp. 387–88; HALOT, I, p. 210).

19.

Schreiner suggests the Niphal of שאל as a parallel to the Niphal of ברך in Gen. 12.3 (Josef Schreiner, ‘Segen für die Völker in der Verheissung an die Väter’, BZ 6 [1962], pp. 1–31 [7 n. 21]). However, in all the instances in which the Niphal of שאל is used in the Hebrew Bible (1 Sam. 20.6, 28; Neh. 13.6), it means ‘to request leave of absence’ and not ‘to ask for oneself’ (HALOT, IV, p. 1373). In addition, Grüneberg notes that, even if the Niphal of שאל means ‘ask for oneself’, then the parallel in Gen. 12.3 would be ‘bless for oneself’ and not ‘obtain blessing’ (Grüneberg, Abraham, p. 66 n. 156).

20.

For examples on the elaboration of events in active and middle voices, see n. 12 above.

21.

See n. 1 above for the bibliography of scholars who hold this view, as listed in the ‘direct reflexive’ category.

22.

See also nn. 1–2 above for the list of scholars who argue for a passive understanding of the Niphal of ברך.

23.

David J.A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2nd edn, 1997), pp. 85–86; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, pp. li-lii, 275.

24.

See DCH, II, pp. 83–84; HALOT, I, p. 105, on the use of the preposition ב as introducing the means or the instrument. See also, William J. Dumbrell, ‘The Covenant with Abraham’, RTR 41 (1982), pp. 42–50 (49), who notes that the parallel phrase in Gen. 21.12 ‘tips the scale in favour of an instrumental sense’ for Gen. 12.3.

25.

In Gen. 26.2–5, God appeared to Isaac and passed on to him his promise to Abraham. Isaac would most likely have known that he was the chosen seed of Abraham, not Ishmael (Gen. 17.15–21; 22.17–18), and that Jacob would be the chosen seed rather than Esau (Gen. 25.22–23).

26.

27.

See also Gordon J. Wenham, Exploring the Old Testament. I. A Guide to the Pentateuch (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), p. 156.

28.

P.A. Siebesma, The Function of the Niph'al in Biblical Hebrew (SSN, 28; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1991), pp. 148, 171. Siebesma's observations are based on a number of roots (other than ברך) in which the Niphal and the Pual occur in passive relationship to Piel. However, the reason for such preference in form for certain stems is unclear.

29.

See n. 8 above.

30.

In a recent study, Flury-Schölch discusses the meaning of the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך in the Abrahamic blessing for the nations by comparing Gen. 12.3b with the Hebrew texts of parallel passages, such as Gen. 18.18; 22.18; 26.3; 28.14; Ps. 72.17; Jer. 4.2; Sir 44.21 MS B. However, he leaves out Deut. 29.18 and Isa. 65.16 from his discussion, because the syntactical structure of these two passages is different from the other passages (Flury-Schölch, Abrahams Segen, pp. 127–31). While syntactical similarity is an important factor in determining if the passages allude to Gen. 12.3b, the meaning of the Hithpael of ברך. in Deut. 29.18 and Isa. 65.16, even if these two passages do not allude to Gen. 12.3b, is still important to help us understand its semantic range. By excluding Deut. 29.18 and Isa. 65.16, Flury-Schölch has then not considered the full extent of the available lexical data in his discussion.

31.

The English translations may be classified as: (1) direct reflexive—‘blesses himself/bless themselves’ (esv; nkjv; nrsv), ‘invoke a blessing on himself/themselves’ (niv; tniv), ‘congratulate themselves’ (nlt), ‘flatter himself’ (neb; reb); and (2) speech action as middle voice—‘boast’ (nasb). Commentators usually render the Hithpael of ברך here as a direct reflexive. E.g. Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (trans. Dorothea Barton; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), p. 178; S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC, 5; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 3rd edn, 1986), p. 325; Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 355. The lxx uses the aorist middle subjunctive (ἐπιϕημί σηται, ‘he will flatter himself’), and the Targums reflect a variety of translations (Tg. Neof.: ויתפיים, ‘he is persuaded’; Tg. Onq.: ויחשיב, ‘he thinks’; Tg. Ps.-J.: ויתייאש, ‘he despairs’).

32.

See also Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 (WBC, 6B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), pp. 720–21; Mitchell, Meaning of BRK, pp. 124–25. On the other hand, Grüneberg argues that the Hithpael plausibly denotes ‘an uttering of blessing’ in Deut. 29.18, even though he admits he is uncertain ‘what the verb encodes’ precisely (Grüneberg, Abraham, p. 219). However, the content of the speech is clearly not a pronouncement of blessing, but a statement reflecting how the person regards him/herself.

33.

Examples of other Hithpael verbs that have an estimative-declarative force include: התחל (‘pretend to be ill’, 2 Sam. 13.5); והתגדלתי והתקךשתי (‘I declare my greatness and declare my holiness’, Ezek. 38.23); התעשר (‘pretend to be rich’, Prov. 13.7). Waltke and O'Conner call this the ‘estimative-declarative reflexive’, and they note that such Hithpaels are indirect reflexives and are usually the counterpart of the Piel (IBHS, §26.2f). Not only does the context of Deut. 29.18 mt favour an estimative-declarative reflexive force, the Hithpael here also forms the counterpart of the Piel of ברך. Such an estimative-declarative understanding is also similar to the nuance reflected in the Tg. Neof. and Tg. Onq. (see n. 31 above). Contra Grüneberg, Abraham, pp. 205–206, who argues that the Hithpael of ברך is ‘unlikely to fall into this category’ without clearly explaining his reason. Yet he acknowledges that the Hithpael form, when it is related to the Piel, can also bear an estimative-declarative sense like the Piel (Grüneberg, Abraham, p. 206). See also n. 32 above on my response to Grüneberg's argument on Deut. 29.18.

34.

The Hithpael participle and imperfect of ברך are rendered in various English versions as: (1) direct reflexive—‘he who blesses himself … will bless himself’ (esv; nkjv); (2) speech action as middle voice—‘whoever invokes a blessing’ (tniv; nlt; nrsv; but nrsv translates the imperfect as ‘shall bless’); or (3) passive—‘he who is blessed … will be blessed’ (nasb). Most commentators render the Hithpael as a direct reflexive. See, e.g., John D.W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66 (WBC, 25; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), p. 340; John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 643; John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 20; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), p. 197; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 19B; New York: Doubleday, 2003), p. 280. The lxx translates the participle as passive (ὄ εὐλογηθήσɛται, ‘the one who is blessed’) and the imperfect as future (εὐλογήσουσιν, ‘they shall bless’), and Tg. Isa. renders both as active using the participle and the imperfect of ברך in the Pael stem.

35.

E.g. Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), p. 243; tniv; nlt; nrsv. Nonetheless, Brueggemann recognizes that those who seek Yhwh and are restored are blessed by the Lord, rejoicing in safe food, abundant drink and exuberant singing (Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 245).

36.

The preposition ב can have a causal force (i.e. on account of, because) here in accord with the context (DCH, II, p. 83; HALOT, I, p. 105). The understanding of the Hithpael in Isa. 65.16 as estimative-declarative is similar to the meaning expressed by the lxx (see n. 34 above). Contra Grüneberg, Abraham, p. 220 n. 112, who thinks that the same nuance cannot be applied to Isa. 65.15.

37.

Grüneberg argues that Ps. 72.17b should be translated as ‘all the nations shall use his name to utter a blessing’ to match the parallel יאשרוהו (‘shall call him blessed’) (Grüneberg, Abraham, pp. 213–14). He further argues that Ps. 72.8–11 clearly portrays the nations as tributary subjects of the king and that Ps. 72.4 does not imply that the king would look after the welfare of all the nations (Grüneberg, Abraham, p. 215). However, the כי introducing Ps. 72.12–14 suggests that the nations should serve him (Ps. 72.11) because he looks after their welfare (John Goldingay, Psalms [BCOTWP; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006–2007], II, p. 389; Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 [WBC, 20; Dallas: Word Books, 1990], p. 221; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr, ‘Psalm 72: An Historical and Messianic Current Example of Antiochene Hermeneutical Theoria’, JETS 52 [2009], pp. 257–70 [266]). The ideal king of Israel, as the suzerain king, looks after his vassal nations as their helper (עזר) when they are afflicted and threatened by invading enemies. Thompson notes that in most cases of the standard Near Eastern treaty pattern, ‘the economic and military support of the vassal was an essential element in the treaty’, and that ‘promises of help in time of danger and of blessing from the gods for loyal service’ were written into the treaty documents (J.A. Thompson, ‘Near Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the Religion of Israel’, JRH 3 [1964], pp. 1–19 [4]).

38.

English versions render the Hithpael of ברך in Ps. 72.17 as: (1) direct reflexive—‘bless themselves’ (nasb; see also Charles A. Briggs and Emilie G. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms II [ICC, 15; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907], p. 137; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150 [trans. Hilton C. Oswald; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], p. 75; Tate, Psalms 51–100, p. 200); or (2) passive—‘be blessed’ (esv; tniv; nlt; nkjv; nrsv; see also Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II, 51–100: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB, 17; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968], p. 179). The lxx renders it as passive (ɛὐλoγηθήσoνται), and Tg. Ket. uses the Ithpaal stem.

39.

Cf. DCH, I, p. 419; HALOT, I, p. 97.

40.

There is some ambiguity about to whom the ‘him’ in בו refers (Jer. 4.2). From the context, it likely refers to Yhwh because Jeremiah prophesied that, at the restoration of Israel, the nations will gather at the throne of Yhwh, and ‘they shall no longer walk according to the stubbornness of their own evil heart’ (Jer. 3.17). This prophecy points to the salvation of the nations, and thus how they will be blessed on account of Yhwh (see also J.A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], p. 213 n. 28; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25 [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986], p. 129). On the other hand, the Targum of Jeremiah (Tg. Neb.) and lxx take the pronominal suffix to refer to Israel.

41.

English versions render the Hithpael of ברך in Jer. 4.2 as: (1) direct reflexive—‘bless themselves’ (esv; nasb; nkjv; see also Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB, 21A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1999], p. 324; Thompson, Jeremiah, p. 205; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, p. 62; Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986], p. 155; Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25 [WBC, 26; Dallas: Word Books, 1991], p. 63); (2) passive—‘be blessed’ (niv; nrsv; F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations [NAC, 16; Nashville: Broadman, 1993], pp. 77, 79); or (3) speech action as middle voice: ‘invoke blessings’ (tniv). The Targum of Jeremiah (Tg. Neb.) uses the Ithpaal stem for the verb ברך. The lxx, however, renders the verb as future active (εὐλογήσουσιν), in contrast to the translators of Genesis and Ps. 71.17 lxx, who use the future passive (ἐνɛoυλoγηθήσoνται/ɛὐλoγηθήσoνται). The preposition ב is often used with the Hithpael of הלל as the ground of the boast or confidence (HALOT, I, p. 249). In this case, God is the basis of the confidence.

42.

DCH, II, p. 562; HALOT, I, p. 249.

43.

Those who ‘boast/have confidence in/gloat’ regard themselves with pride (estimative) and display their pride by verbalizing (declarative).

44.

Contra Grüneberg, Abraham, p. 220, who argues that ‘the hithpael [in Ps 72.17; Isa. 65.16; Jer. 4.2] most plausibly denotes simply an uttering of blessing’. Grüneberg's understanding of the Hithpael as ‘a speech action middle’ is based on his inference from דבר (‘speak’) and חנן (‘seek favour’), which are attested in both the Piel and Hithpael stems as speech actions (Grüneberg, Abraham, pp. 198–99). While ‘an uttering of blessing’ may be somewhat possible in Ps. 72.17; Isa. 65.16, and Jer. 4.2, such a meaning is unable to account for the force of the Hithpael in Deut. 29.18. In contrast, an estimative-declarative understanding of the Hithpael of ברך would fit all the five instances outside of Genesis.

45.

See also Josef Scharbert, ‘ברך’, in TDOT, II, p. 296, who notes that the Hithpael of ברך in Gen. 22.18; 26.3; Deut. 29.18 mt; Ps. 72.17; Isa. 65.16, and Jer. 4.2 means ‘to regard oneself as … blessed …, to pride oneself in being blessed’ by the person mentioned earlier in the text (i.e. Yhwh, patriarch, Israel, or king).

46.

This overlap in the passive sense concurs with Benton's research, which shows that the Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך are basically passive, but their nuances lie in the Niphal focusing on the resulting state and the Hithpael on the process (Benton, ‘Niphal and Hitpael’, pp. 13–14; see also n. 17 above). The results of Benton's research and mine are complementary. Benton's observations on the situational aspect of the Niphal and the Hithpael in the same root in a similar context contribute to the understanding of Hebrew verbal stems more broadly, while my observation on the estimative-declarative force is more specific on the Hithpael of ברך. Both the estimative-declarative indirect reflexive force and the progressive situational aspect are complementary to each other in understanding the meaning of the Hithpael of ברך.

47.

The verbal allusions include ‘the oath that I swore’ (Gen. 26.3; cf. Gen. 22.16) and ‘because Abraham obeyed my voice’ (Gen. 26.5; cf. Gen. 22.18b).

48.

Similar to other scholars who advocate a direct reflexive understanding of the Hithpael of ברך, Flury-Schölch argues that the Hithpael of ברך with the preposition ב is the reflexive counterpart of the Piel of ברך with ב in Gen. 48.28: ‘By you (בך) Israel will pronounce a blessing (יברך), saying, “May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh”’ (esv). Therefore, Gen. 22.18 and 26.4 should be understood as the nations wishing to be blessed like Abraham/Isaac/Israel, such that they would say, ‘May God make us like Abraham/Israel’ (Flury-Schölch, Abrahams Segen, pp. 322–24). While Flury-Schölch rightly recognizes the reflexive force of the Hithpael, his argument is unlikely for the following reasons. (1) He has not considered Deut. 29.18, which is significant in understanding the meaning of the Hithpael of ברך. I have shown that the estimative-declarative reflexive force of the Hithpael of ברך is apparent in all the texts outside of Genesis (see also Ps. 72.17; Isa. 65.16; Jer. 4.2). (2) As we have seen above, the word pairs in the variations of the Abrahamic blessing for the nations largely overlap in meaning, although there is a slight difference in nuance. An estimative-declarative reflexive understanding overlaps largely with the passive nuance of the Niphal in Gen. 12.3b, while it differs slightly in the subject's recognition of ‘being blessed’ (passive). The means of blessing—Abraham or his offspring—(בך/בזרעך, ‘on account of you/your offspring’) remains the same in both Gen. 12.3b and 22.18. Flury-Schlöch's understanding of the Hithpael of ברך as a direct reflexive has very little overlap with his understanding of the Niphal as passive. It also makes the name of the person a formula of blessing, rather than the person as the means of blessing. (3) As mentioned above, there are no instances in Genesis showing the nations’ wish to be blessed like Abraham and his offspring, but the narrative context favours a passive and an estimative-declarative reflexive understanding.

49.

See also Flury-Schölch, Abrahams Segen, p. 152.

50.

On the possibility of the offspring as an individual in Gen. 22.18 and the connection of this offspring with the royal lineage, see T.D. Alexander, ‘Further Observations on the Term “Seed” in Genesis’, TynBul 48 (1997), pp. 363–67; idem, ‘Royal Expectations in Genesis to Kings’, TynBul 49 (1998), pp. 202–206. Scholars who recognize the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise in Genesis beyond the Pentateuchal narrative include: Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 150–51; Alexander, ‘Royal Expectations’, pp. 187–212; J. Sailhamer, ‘Creation, Genesis 1–11, and the Canon’, BBR 10 (2000), pp. 89–106.

51.

The motif of the nations’ subjugation to Israel may also be seen in Gen. 27.29 and 49.8–10. There may be a hint that these nations can be blessed when they bless Israel (Gen. 27.29). Ps. 72.15, 17 possibly develops this understanding further, in that the psalmist exhorts nations to ‘bless him (יבךכנהו) all day long’ and ‘call him blessed (יאשרוהו)’. Nonetheless, the Piel is used in the nations’ pronouncement of blessing on Israel's king, which is distinguished from the use of Hithpael, in which they regard and declare themselves as blessed on account of the king.

52.

See p. 287 above on the function of the blessing of Abraham in the Genesis narrative.