What is the context?
The Lord promises one shepherd in place of the failed shepherds. He names this shepherd His servant David and says that he will feed the people.
The relationship is stated in two parts: the Lord will be their God, and David will be a prince among them. The promise brings faithful leadership together with belonging to the Lord.
How the name David is being used is the main question. The passage makes the promise without explicitly explaining whether the name identifies the earlier king restored to life or the ruler who fulfills the hope associated with David.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Henry and Wesley read David here as Christ, the promised ruler from David’s line and the good shepherd. Cambridge also understands the name through the character and rule of the coming Davidic leader rather than David personally returning.
Walvoord favors the resurrected David serving as a prince under Christ, whom he regards as the supreme king. His reasoning distinguishes David from the Son of David and places David among the people who share in Christ’s reign.
The difference concerns the identity of David in this promise, not whether Christ has supreme authority.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.