Ps. 78.70-71 (David, the shepherd of men)

And he chose David / his servant
and took him / from the sheep folds
from tending ewes / he brought him
to shepherd Jacob / his people
and Israel / his inheritance. 


From Zion to the sanctuary, from Judah to David. We notice here the further individualizing of God’s ‘choosing’. What began as a tribe has now come to be a single man with a name. David is the only person identified in the whole psalm. Every other party is either abstractly defined (as, “the foe” or “the enemy”) or is a tribe (Ephraim). Perhaps importantly, neither Moses nor Aaron are mentioned (this will be important in regard to the final verse). Likewise, the previous mountain that had the Shiloh tabernacle was only referred to as “the mountain his right hand had got.” Now, the mountain has a name: Zion. This detail is important for several reasons: with David we have finally come to the historical moment of the king. With the naming of an individual there is a sense of the psalm’s ‘arrival’ at its goal. Following the momentum of the psalm, with the ‘awakened warrior’, we see that God is choosing to deal with Israel in a very different way than he did before. This new path is one that finds in God’s most ‘alert’ (‘awake’) stage this single individual. It may seem surprising: that in response to Israel’s continued rebellion God chooses not to act in a more abstract mode of power but rather in a more localized form. David and Zion are an increased form of God’s shepherding power over Israel. God is more awake in his election of David and Zion. We may even say this: that in David and Zion we see a display of God’s concern for Israel greater than the exodus itself. They become the concrete modes of God’s delivering and shepherding power. This is not mere speculation. 

We can see this in at least three different ways. David the Shepherd. These verses highlight that God’s choosing-and-taking of David is grounded in David’s ‘shepherding’ ability (he is ‘Peter-like’ in that Peter was first a fisherman and then became a fisher-of-men). This image clearly relates back to God’s action on behalf of Israel at the very initiation of their exodus from Egypt. The ‘path’ out of the curse-laden Egypt was described as God’s leading Israel “like a flock” (vs. 52). Further, it was God’s ‘hand’ that delivered them (vs. 42). Now, that “hand-power” is given over to David, who has “skillful hands to lead them”. (vs. 72). David, taken and brought. Zion is described as built by God, like the earth. David is described as ‘taken and brought’. This is significant. Israel has been described twice in this psalm as ‘brought’ by God. First, they are ‘brought’ through the sea in the exodus (vs. 13). Then, they are ‘brought’ into the Land, his holy territory (vs. 53). Both times, however, Israel astonishingly rebels. David, by contrast has an ‘upright heart’ and leads them with skill. (vs. 72). The point is that David has become the new Israel; its representative.  And his ‘being brought’ to kingship is as momentous (indeed more so) than Israel’s original exodus and entrance into the Land. Israel is both delivered and settled in David. David, Jacob and Israel. This point is also seen in the pairing of Jacob and Israel. On one level this simply refers to the entire kingdom, north and south. However, it also refers back to verses 5 and 21. Verse 5 refers to the institution of Torah in Jacob and Israel. Verse 21 to their failure to follow Torah and God’s consuming wrath. Hence, in David we now have a king who is to be unifying force that settles not just the land, but Jacob and Israel itself. What was dis-unified by their rebellion is now unified by David and “his upright heart” and “hands” (vs. 72).  The third reason we will save for the concluding verse. 

A formal observation. The formal structure of this verse is rather eloquent. It moves from “his servant” to shepherd of “his people”. The transition line is: “from tending ewes he brought him – to shepherd Jacob, his people”. The line itself moves from the pasture to the kingship effortlessly by way of the “literal-metaphor” of shepherding. The transition is from the animal realm to the human (from “ewes” to Jacob), and yet the image remains (a ‘shepherd’ being a common term for king in the ancient world). The structure itself looks like this as the verse, in a way, mirrors itself: A. David his servant. B. Shepherd taken from sheep folds. C. brought from ewes to Jacob. B1. Shepherd his people. A1. Israel his inheritance.