וְרָאשֵׁ֣י הַ֠לְוִיִּ֠ם חֲשַׁבְיָ֨ה שֵֽׁרֵבְיָ֜ה וְיֵשׁ֤וּעַ בֶּן־קַדְמִיאֵל֙ וַאֲחֵיהֶ֣ם לְנֶגְדָּ֔ם לְהַלֵּ֣ל לְהוֹד֔וֹת בְּמִצְוַ֖ת דָּוִ֣יד אִישׁ־הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים מִשְׁמָ֖ר לְעֻמַּ֥ת מִשְׁמָֽר׃
The heads of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, Jeshua son of Kadmiel, and their brothers served opposite them, singing praise and thanksgiving hymns by the ordinance of David the agent of God—served opposite them in shifts;
(The above rendering is the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
The phrase under study is the title applied to David: אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים. As usual, the situating noun אִישׁ is used to put attention on a situation of interest, while succinctly depicting that situation schematically. Its use calls attention to the situation—a fact that is the key to the proper understanding of this verse.
Of all the many mentions of David in the Tanakh, why is this title applied to him only here and nearby in verse 36 (and 2 Chr 8:14)? Because its ideological implications are germane: attributing these revived Temple practices to David as their founder means that they have divine approval. The implicit claim is the equivalent in the realm of ritual to saying that a certain law dates “from Sinai.”
As noted at Josh 14:6, the mechanical NJPS rendering “man of God” is inappropriate for two reasons:
As for the choice of “agent of God” as the revised rendering, see my comment at Josh 14:6.