Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Psalm 102:16 For the LORD has built up Zion; He has appeared in His glory. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Psalm 102:16 For the LORD has built up Zion; He has appeared in His glory and brilliance; |
Subject: Prophetic perfect tense in other verses? |
Bible Note: Greetings Candy Lee! "For the LORD builds up Zion; he appears in his glory;" [ESV] Psalm 102:16 is an interesting verse. The ESV (above) has carried over a present tense form of the verse, while the NASB carries over a past tense verse form. I interpret this verse to be describing the Second Coming of Christ and His reign in the millennial kingdom. So, if our interpretation of the 'timing' of this verse is correct, then why is there a 'shift' in verb tense from future tense (in verses 13-15) to past tense (in verses 16-17)? Why doesn't it remain in the future tense? As you know, the Psalms are written poetically, with a certain rhythm and parallelism. Therefore, "tonal stress" in the Psalms is not accomplished through rhyme and meter (as is what we would use today), but on rhythm and parallelism. That helps to explain why we see certain accents on important words and stanzas.. In parallelism, the poet states an idea in the first line, then reinforces it by various means in the succeeding line or lines. The most common type is synonymous parallelism, in which the second line essentially repeats the idea of the first (Ex: Psalm 3:1). In antithetic parallelism, the second line contains an idea opposite to that in the first (Ex. Psalm 1:6). In synthetic parallelism, the second or succeeding lines add to or develop the idea of the first (Ex. Psalm 1:1-2). In emblematic parallelism, the second line elevates the thought of the first, often by using a simile (Ex. Psalm 42:1). Parallelism is not restricted to two lines but may extend to strophes (smaller units of a few lines) and stanzas (longer units). The alphabetical acrostic is even used (Psalm 119). With this in mind, what type of parallelism is being used in Psalm 102:16 to help us understand the shift in verb tense from future tense (in verses 13-15) to past tense (in verses 16-17)? I believe that Psalm 102:16 is an example of synthetic parallelism, where the second or succeeding lines (verses 16-17) add to or develop the idea of the first (verses 13-15). And to explain the first idea, the poet shifted to a present or past tense verb form, not keeping to the future tense. In that way, we can grasp the fuller meaning of how the Lord will arise and have pity on Zion (verse 13). If we understand Psalm 102:12-17 in this way, then we can see that the NASB stands justified in rendering verses 16 and 17 in a past tense verb form, rather than a future tense, which may not be as accurate as a past or present tense rendering of these verses (16 and 17). Blessings to you, Makarios |