A Useful Fiction
The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by one shepherd. Ecclesiastes 12:11 NIV
One shepherd – This phrase, “given by one shepherd,” is almost the same no matter what English translation you choose. It is also the typical treatment in Jewish context. On this basis, rabbinic tradition claims “an extraordinary openness to different opinions in the study of Torah, with which wisdom is midrashically identified.”[1] Fox notes that the rabbis connect this passage with Exodus 20:1 (“all these words”) claiming, “All scholars of Torah are speaking God’s words, as it were, even when arriving at diverse and contradictory opinions. Some of these scholars must be wrong, but God is speaking through them too, for not only the substance of the words but the very activity of studying Torah and judging thereby is Torah and proceeds from the ultimate source of wisdom, the ‘one Shepherd.’”[2]
Of course, Christian exegetes could follow the same logic, particularly if they choose to read “one Shepherd” (with the capital S) as a reference to the Christ. Whenever Christians speak in his name, their words express a kind of divine revelation, authorized by the Shepherd, even if they actually express contradiction.
This approach by Jews or Christians provides a ready justification of theological diversity. The enormous multiplicity of Protestant denominations is just multiple truths. Diversity reigns supreme. Perhaps you’ve heard such an explanation. There’s only one problem. The text doesn’t actually say this.
“The difficulty with the traditional understanding of ‘by one Shepherd’ is that the metaphor of shepherd for God refers to his role protecting and providing for people—a role that is not relevant here. A shepherd does not ‘give’ words or commands. Nor, unlike law and prophecy, are the words of the wise ever considered to be given by God. . . . This verse should be translated, ‘The words of the sages are like goads/And [those of] the masters of collections are like implanted nails, stuck in by a shepherd.’”[3]
The purpose is to prod, to direct, to guide by confrontation, not to provide divine revelation. Does this mean that midrashic exposition or Christian homilies are of no value? Of course not. They help us dig deeper into the text. But they are not on par with God’s direct revelation. They can be mistaken. They need analysis. Not every sermon is sanctified. Not every midrash mesmerizing. Exercise your mind. Explore. Question. Eat the meat, leave the bones.
Topical Index: one shepherd, revelation, midrash, sermon, Ecclesiastes 12:11
[1] Michael V. Fox, The JPS Bible Commentary: Ecclesiastes (JPS., 2004), p. 84.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
Thus, the prodding and pricking of the “collections of the masters” are intended to confront us in our context of living so as to guide us to a truthful actualization of reality— living in consideration and respect of God’s divine self-revelation (as was described by the apostle, Paul, in his letter to the Romans; cf. Romans 1:18-32).
On the one hand, God has made himself known, such that mankind “is without excuse, as they did not see fit to recognize/acknowledge God.” Thus God gave them over to a “debased mind” to do the things “not proper.”
On the other hand, to those who have “seen fit to recognize/acknowledge God,” the words and collections of the sages/masters/wise prod God’s flock along— goading, pricking, spurring, provoking, and jabbing— seeking to exhort and urge God’s flock on until He makes them to lie in green pastures beside still waters, fearing no evil, trusting both rod and staff as comfort in the looming treat of adversity that comes by those who do the things “not proper.”
“God’s revelation in its objective reality is the person of Jesus Christ. In establishing this we have not explained revelation, or made it obvious, or brought it into a series of the other objects of our knowledge. On the contrary, in establishing this and looking back at it we have described and designate it a mystery, and not only a mystery but the prime mystery. In other words, it becomes the object of our knowledge; it finds a way of becoming the content of our experience and our thought; it gives itself to be apprehended by our contemplation and our categories. But it does that beyond the range of what we regard as possible for our contemplation and perception, beyond the confines of our experience and thought. It comes to us as a Novum (new thing) which, when it becomes an object for us, we cannot incorporate in the series of our other objects, cannot compare with them, cannot deduce from their context, cannot regard as analogous with them. It comes to us as a datum with no point of connexion with any other previous datum.” – Karl Barth CD I.2, 172