BDB calls the form an imperfect.
The jussive isn't always morphological observable. This is only the case in certain verb groups, such as hiphiels, III he verbs, and II -ayin/ II -yod/waw verbs.
It could be a jussive because it is clause initial and because the syntax is otherwise unusual.
As for Bibleworks, that is just one interepretation. A-F and Westminster Morphology, both on Logos, often disagree with each other.
Psalm 15 shows that you don't need a complete sentence when answering a question.
I think v. 2 is a complete sentence. Unlike in English, Hebrew doesn't need a verb to make it complete. The NET translation you give does just that.
I don't see an ounce of difference in meaning
If yissa' starts a new clause, it could be interpreted as a promise, like yimot in Ps 15:5b (as you note). If it is the predicate of v. 4, it is part of the answer to the question in v. 3. But in that case, it seems to be it would be an odd answer, a kind of indirect answer.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.