The book of Ecclesiastes has a long and storied history of interpretation. From the arguments at the Council of Jamnia over canonicity, Jerome’s Neoplatonic allegorical reading, and the literal and theological readings of Luther and Melanchthon during the Reformation, to more recent historical-critical approaches and psychoanalytic readings, certainty of interpretation only exists in its uncertainty. However, an important question remains to the canonically conscious reader, which is whether the message of Ecclesiastes, as certain scholars espouse, is an alternative vision or negative witness to the gospel of Christ. Without a clear understanding of Ecclesiastes through an exploration of the inner workings of Qohelet, the value and even canonicity of the book may be undermined. However, a proper theological-psychological reading of Ecclesiastes not only points to the gospel, but it is also paramount to understanding and appropriating the gospel of Christ. To pursue the argument, the research engages two unlikely conversation partners: Carl Jung’s psychoanalytic theory and Karl Barth’s forensic apocalyptic theology. The research begins by engaging the inflated and alienated ego in Jungian psychology and applying these concepts to the experience of Qohelet. At this point, the topics of sacred objects and the meaning of הֶ֫בֶל are also addressed. Next, the analysis moves into an exploration of the unconscious Self in Jung’s psychoanalytic theory as well as an examination of the shadow and divine imaging as they relate to Qohelet. The natural next step is a dive into Jung’s process of individuation, or what the Apostle Paul refers to as sanctification. Finally, the analysis concludes by pulling Barth’s forensic apocalyptic theology into the conversation and applying it not only to the difficult concept of עוֹלָם in Ecclesiastes 3:11, but also to the controversial content surrounding the concept of righteousness in Ecclesiastes 7:15-20.

Prolegomena

Even in the briefest studies of discipline integration, such as the one that follows, the immediate and obvious critique is that the work inappropriately imposes modern concepts and structures anachronistically upon the biblical text. Although the assertion is intuitively obvious,  Qohelet knew nothing of Carl Jung or any form of modern psychological or psychoanalytic theories. From a broad conceptual perspective, Robin Scroggs points in the right direction by explaining that a “psychological interpretation of the biblical text can best be seen as a handmaiden to a better understanding of God’s acts of salvation: the servant of, not the substitute for, theology.”^[1] Furthermore, to suggest that one particular psychological model necessarily trumps all others with regard to engaging biblical texts misses the point. Accordingly, the direction of the research utilizes Carl Jung’s psychoanalytic concepts to assist the modern reader in understanding the original intended meaning of the Preacher whereby psychology acts as a servant to the text rather than its master.

Inflated Ego in Ecclesiastes

The internal exasperation reflected within the first two verses of the book of Ecclesiastes begs for an examination of the inner working and turmoil of the Preacher: “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (Eccl 1:2).^[2] Accordingly, to understand Qohelet’s encounter, it is not unreasonable to engage the psychological aspects of the Preacher. According to psychologist Carl Jung, the human soul or psyche consists of two parts: the conscious and unconscious. Zacharias Kotzé explains that the conscious consists of various parts of the personality including the ego, which is the core of consciousness.^[3] Craig Bartholomew expands the conversation by noting that the ego is considered the subjective identity, and the Self is considered the objective identity.

Ecclesiastes and Psychoanalysis: Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms

^[4] In general, from a developmental perspective, the ego develops in the first half of life, and the Self develops in the second half of life.^[5] Specifically, the following analysis addresses the development of the ego and the Self reflected in Qohelet’s journey in Ecclesiastes. Although, in reality, it is impossible to separate the ego from the Self, for purposes of analysis, issues surrounding the ego are primarily addressed in this section while the next section addresses issues surrounding the Self.

Within the first few chapters of Ecclesiastes, it is difficult to miss the length that Qohelet goes to find meaning through various aspects of ego inflation to overcome the angst associated with הֶ֫בֶל. Edward Edinger points out that the inflated ego is an ego that is blown up beyond the proper size; it is “unrealistically large and unrealistically important.”^[6] The inflated ego arrogates itself to the Self; thus, at this stage, the ego and Self are unhealthily indistinguishable.^[7] In other words, the conscious, subjective identity, attempts to become what it is not on par with the status of the essence of humanity, the objective Self. Jung explains that the “ego stands to the Self as the moved to the mover…The Self…is an a priori existent out of which the ego evolves.”^[8] One might call the Self the true self, the true unconscious Self. Although the ego is part of the conscious Self, it informs the individual’s persona. The persona is informed by cultural expectations and societal norms and manifests itself through the ego, which presents to the world the person the individual wants to project to others. The ego uses the persona to represent the overblown, inflated sense of the individual.

Stories pertaining to the ego’s self-inflation began long before Qohelet. In the Garden, Peter Rollins asserts that God did not prohibit Adam and Eve from eating fruit that would satisfy them, but instead, Adam and Eve “were faced with a prohibition that made them think that the fruit would satisfy them.”^[9] In other words, the ego attempted to inflate itself by finding the object that would rid itself from dissatisfaction. Rollins calls the object a “sacred object,” which is the “thing” that the ego is convinced will remove its lack.^[10] Unfortunately, the sacred object is an illusion. The moment the ego obtains the sacred object, the ego recognizes its nonexistence, its inability to satisfy. Accordingly, Edinger explains that the inflated state ultimately leads to a fall that results in alienation, which occurs when the ego detaches from the Self, and the individual feels unworthy and unacceptable.^[11] In sum, when the ego recognizes the sacred object does not solve its lack, the result is disillusionment and despair. The ego’s next step is often to reach for another sacred object, which then leads to further alienation as discussed below. It is here that the conscious ego’s relevance to the book of Ecclesiastes begins to emerge.

The words of Qohelet, the Preacher, begin the book of Ecclesiastes by immediately listing several sacred objects. The first sacred object identified by Qohelet is labor or toil (Eccl 1:3). According to Bartholomew, the context of Ecclesiastes clearly conveys that Qohelet attempts to find meaning from work, but he cannot (Eccl 2:18-23, 3:9-13, 4:4).^[12] Based on the accomplishments of the Preacher, which included building houses, vineyards, gardens, parks, and pools, as well as obtaining slaves, herds, silver, gold, singers, and concubines, it appears the Preacher’s conscious ego pursued numerous sacred objects in an effort to find meaning (Eccl 2:1-8). Unfortunately, all Qohelet’s efforts failed to satisfy; his toil was הֶ֫בֶל.

The meaning of the Hebrew word, הֶ֫בֶל, is heavily debated among scholars. Several scholars suggest a multivalent meaning. Choon-Loong Seow proposes ephemeral, incomprehensible, or of little consequence.^[13] However, the multivalent view faces logical challenges. Michael Fox states that if “X is transitory; Y is futile; and Z is trivial,” then the assertion that all is הֶ֫בֶל in Ecclesiastes 1:14 becomes meaningless.^[14] Bartholomew provides an omnivalent definition and asserts that הֶ֫בֶל means enigmatic.^[15] Unfortunately, the ambiguity of Bartholomew’s definition leaves the interpreter puzzled. Eric Ortlund explains that outside of Ecclesiastes the term means empty, breath, or idols.^[16] The semantic range and depth of the extrabiblical meanings have one thing in common: lack. The word “empty” suggests that all the sacred objects identified by Qohelet lack meaning, the word “breath” suggests that the sacred object is elusive because its potential immediately disappears the moment the individual grasps the object, and the word “idol” properly defines the nature of the sacred object, which is a thing other than God that the individual believes will provide wholeness and satisfaction. Importantly, the omnivalent approach does not suggest a lack in degree, but instead, a lack in kind. The lack referred to by the Preacher is not a lack that needs a little more success or toil or sex to find wholeness, but, as will be shown, the lack points to the need for a new kind of life, a new kind of being, a completely new kind of reality. In sum, everything under the sun that Qohelet utilizes to feed the inflated ego to find satisfaction, personal meaning, worth, and value lacks the ability to satisfy: It is all הֶ֫בֶל.

Importantly, the items described as הֶ֫בֶל are not necessarily negative in Ecclesiastes. As mentioned above, Qohelet exhibited hard work and apparently obtained material rewards in response to his toil, which is often commended in biblical wisdom literature (see Prov 14:23). Other examples of positive sacred objects include the natural world, such as the sun, wind, and streams (Eccl 1:5-11), wisdom and knowledge (Eccl 1:12-18), and even God-given wealth, possessions, and honor (Eccl 6:1-3). Regardless of whether the sacred objects pursued to fulfill the ego’s inflationary needs have a negative connotation, such as concubines and self-indulgence, or a positive connotation, such as wisdom and knowledge, each one lacks the ability to provide meaning and significance. Ultimately, Qohelet’s pursuit of sacred objects resulted in a misalignment of the ego from the Self also known as a dis-integration of being, which leads to what Jungian psychology refers to as ego alienation.

Alienated Ego in Ecclesiastes

The disillusionment experienced by Qohelet upon realizing the significant limitations of sacred objects to inflate the ego allows for the Preacher to enter the next, quite painful, stage of soul formation: alienation. Once the ego perceives it has exhausted the idea that any of the sacred objects provide the solution, only one option remains. The only way out of הֶ֫בֶל is for the inflated, idolatrous ego to be decentered from the Self through alienation. Although Kierkegaard predates Jung, he sums up the painful, but necessary process that Jung points to as follows: “Man’s life is wasted who lived on, so deceived by the joys of life or by its sorrows that he never became eternally and decisively conscious of himself as spirit…before this God, which gain of infinity is never attained except through despair.”^[17] Moving from the inflated ego to the alienated ego is a painful process precisely because the ego desires to clinch onto its inflated state, holding on to the illusion of control, which explains why the ego, at times, may move from one sacred object to another for an entire lifetime. Kierkegaard recognizes the wasted lives of those who stick with a life driven by the ego and avoid the necessity of despair, alienation, and death of the ego. Movement from an inflated ego to an alienated ego is a prerequisite for soul formation that provides a foundation for moving toward a healthy ego-Self relationship. Accordingly, a brief analysis of ego alienation within the book of Ecclesiastes is necessary.

Examples of movement from inflated ego to alienated ego, which is a process required of all individuals experiencing soul formation, abound in the words of the Preacher. The disillusionment and despair drip from the words of Qohelet. Scholars, at times, assume the language of alienation is nefarious, but, as Kierkegaard notes, despair and disillusionment is an absolutely necessary step in the process of the ego’s demise. Qohelet thought that education would work (Eccl 1:18), or pleasure would work (Eccl 2:1-3), or affairs (Eccl 2:8), or prosperity (Eccl 2:9-10) or hard work (Eccl 2:11), or accomplishments (Eccl 2:18-19), or wisdom (Eccl 2:26), or money (Eccl 5:8-17). Nothing worked. Nothing solved the problem. At the end of each day, the ego felt empty, completely unworthy, unable to accept himself…alienated. Accordingly, an exasperated Qohelet declares that one might as well just eat, drink, and enjoy life (Eccl 2:24-25). As Peter Enns explains, Qohelet’s carpe diem passages are far from promoting hedonism, and instead, they suggest a deep resignation as the Preacher ends the passage admitting that this too is also הֶ֫בֶל (Eccl 2:26).^[18] In other words, food, drink, and enjoyment do come from the “hand of God” (Eccl 2:25), but the point is not that God encourages nothing more than eating, drinking, and being merry. Instead, the point is that God is in control of all aspects of הֶ֫בֶל. It appears that Qohelet recognizes that God desires for him to experience disillusionment, which causes even more consternation. However, the disillusionment, alienation, and despair are exactly what is necessary for the ego to become disoriented or repositioned in relation to the Self.

Although disorientation or detachment from the Self ultimately leads to soul formation, the process encompasses a more comprehensive disengagement. Morton Kaplan broadens the concept of detachment by explaining that alienation occurs as the individual recognizes that his status, lifestyle, relationships, work, and all other identifications are no longer correlated in any meaningful way.^[19] In other words, it is not just recognizing that these sacred objects do not satisfy; it is recognizing that these sacred objects have attached to the personhood of the individual. Freedom can only occur through extraction. Unfortunately, painful metaphors may be the only explanation: It is like ripping off a band-aid or pulling a leach from the skin. The sacred objects have, in some way, “become” the person thus forging an ontological reality. Accordingly, Karl Haden concludes that the alienation faced by Qohelet is timeless and universal and requires a comprehensive “detachment from the universe at large, from society, and from one’s own self.”^[20] Although many of Qohelet’s attachments have already been discussed, two more require attention. First, the attachment to control, and second, the attachment to life itself, which are two highly correlated topics. Ecclesiastes 9:12 spotlights Qohelet’s alienation when his exasperation leads him to compare humanity with birds caught in a snare because man does not have control over anything including the method and time of his death. The detachment of the ego from the Self ultimately includes a detachment from control and detachment from life itself, which, paradoxically, will eventually point to relief, freedom, life, and the lack of lack. However, at this stage in Qohelet’s soul formation, only extreme disillusionment and despair are powerful enough to loosen the grip of the conscious, alienated ego from these two forces of identity.

Various modern solutions have been proposed to rid individuals from the alienated state. Haden provides a list of these potential solutions: (1) individual effort in the form of willpower, (2) Marxist economic determinisms, (3) various forms of social transformation, and (4) psychoanalytic treatment, to name a few.^[21] Although psychoanalytic treatment does assist in explaining the process of ego inflation and alienation within the book of Ecclesiastes, on its own, it ultimately has little to offer as a remedy. Accordingly, Qohelet would render all these solutions הֶ֫בֶל. Finally, before moving forward, a further analysis of the Self is necessary to understand the importance of the process of detachment of the inflated and alienated ego from the Self.

Self in Ecclesiastes

In light of Qohelet’s crisis of meaning, the only path forward is the defeat of the alienated ego, which entails a realignment of the conscious ego with the unconscious Self. As Jung explains, “The Self, in its efforts at self-realization, reaches out beyond the ego-personality on all sides…and confronts it with problems which it would like to avoid…for this reason the experience of the Self is always a defeat for the ego.”^[22] Accordingly, a further exploration of the Self in Jungian psychology is necessary to open the pathways of growth for the Preacher. As mentioned above, the ego is part of the human conscious, and, in Jungian psychology, the human psyche consists of two parts: the conscious ego and unconscious Self. Helen Efthimiadis-Keith explains that, for Jung, the unconscious Self consists of both the personal unconscious, formed experientially, and the collective unconscious, formed by timeless archetypes.^[23] Finally, and importantly, within the unconscious Self is the individual’s shadow, which houses the reprehensible qualities that are repressed and denied.^[24] Repression occurs when the ego pushes down the ugliness, and projection occurs when individuals blame others for the ugliness inherent within. In sum, the unconscious Self is at the core of human psyche and the key to Qohelet’s connection to God.

The unconscious Self is the location of all divine activity. Edinger goes so far as to assert that “the Self is most simply described as the inner empirical deity and is identical with the imago Dei.^[25] Divine image bearing separates humanity from animals, but it is not related to human abilities. Instead, according to Michael Heiser, the image of God is a status, an ontological reality whereby God intends humans to be Him.^[26] Edinger boldly states that “the aim of all religious practices is to keep the individual (ego) related to the deity (Self).”^[27] Edinger’s deification is not a form of pantheism, theosis, or idolatry. Instead, as Bartholomew explains, it is the realization that the Self is dependent upon God, and thus soul formation is primarily about an encounter with the true Self.^[28] In other words, as Edinger observes, after an intense alienation of the ego, the Self breaks into the conscious and the ego becomes experientially aware of the need to subordinate itself to the Self.”^[29] When the conscious recognizes that the Self is the being of reality, the defeat of the ego allows the conscious to face the shadow. As Nietzsche states, “One becomes Two,” and, per Jung, “the greater figure [Self], which one always was but which remained invisible, appears to the lesser personality [ego] with the force of a revelation.”^[30] Without question, the process of ego subordination is evident within the words of the Preacher in the book of Ecclesiastes. 

Unlike Job, the events that may have precursored Qohelet’s existential crisis are not unequivocally known. However, it is apparent that Qohelet has entered what Jungian psychologists might call a mid-life crisis. In Jung’s words, “We cannot live the afternoon of life according to the programme of life’s morning; for…what in the morning was true will at evening have become a lie.”^[31] The second chapter of Ecclesiastes encompasses both timeframes of life. Qohelet appears to have first looked back and boasted that he had accomplished great works, built beautiful houses, and planted luscious vineyards (Eccl 2:4), while he simultaneously looked forward to the second half of life, considered what he had done, and realized that it was all הֶ֫בֶל (Eccl 2:11). The crisis is not only evidence of alienation, but an opportunity for the ego to realign with the unconscious Self. Bartholomew suggests that the source of the conflict within Qohelet may be evident in Ecclesiastes 5:3 and 5:7.^[32] These verses refer to Qohelet’s recurring dreams regarding business affairs that imply that the events leading to the crisis may have come from the effect of certain business transactions or possibly workaholism. Qohelet’s reference to dreams is an important piece of Jungian psychology. Bobroff explains that, for Jung, listening to dreams is a method for accessing the unconscious Self.^[33] Accordingly, Ecclesiastes 5 provides clear evidence that Qohelet’s unconscious Self is being tapped. John Welch explains that in Jungian psychology disturbing dreams are the unconscious demanding to be heard because “there is more to our meaning than the ego would have us believe.”^[34]

The obvious encounter with the unconscious Self within the words of Qohelet reveals the clash between the Preacher’s epistemology and his quest for an inner, but yet apparently still unknown, reality. Enns asserts that Qohelet is a no-nonsense “evidentialist,” not in the modern sense, but in the sense that knowledge obtains results from experience.^[35] In other words, Qohelet’s knowledge arises not from revelation, but from his experience “under the sun” (Eccl 1:3). It is not that Qohelet has experienced everything, but, as Enns continues, there are no new event categories.^[36] This is like that…once one recognizes that “this” does not satisfy, then it becomes obvious that “that” does not satisfy even if “that” has not been directly experienced. Accordingly, as Bartholomew points out, Qohelet is initially limited to only what the ego knows through experience, and the Preacher’s pain is part of a journey toward a “growing awareness of the Self of which ego is only a part.”^[37] In short, the crisis of meaning occurs precisely because all things meaningful are now suspect of meaning. At this point, in light of Jungian psychoanalytic theory, Qohelet currently faces two choices: (1) he can repress the experiences and the pain, or (2) he can surrender and enter into the frightening realm of life where control takes a backseat to uncertainty.^[38] Because Qohelet is willing to face the pain and disillusionment, he opens the possibility of not only a detachment of the ego from the Self, but also a realignment of the ego with the Self through a process that Jung calls individuation.

Individuation in Ecclesiastes

In Christian vernacular, individuation is most closely aligned with the concept of sanctification. Bradford Mullen explains that sanctification is a state of functioning properly or even flawlessly, which ultimately means to be like God, which can only occur as the individual lives according to his or her new identity in Christ (Rom 4:12-21).^[39] With similar overtones, Darrell Smith explains that individuation is a Jungian concept whereby the individual becomes an “indivisible unity or whole.”^[40] Importantly, individuation is a life-long process where, as Efthimiadis-Keith states, “each human being is driven to become the indivisible whole that she or he potentially is.”^[41] More specifically, it is the process in Jungian psychology of the conscious subordinating itself to the unconscious, which in turn supplies the conscious with content that expands human consciousness.^[42] In a Hegelian dialectic, the conscious ego aligns with the thesis, the unconscious Self aligns with the antithesis, and the new Self that results from the ego realigning to the Self is the synthesis.^[43]

According to Jung, the individuation process occurs in five stages. Efthimiadis-Keith succinctly summarizes the stages: (1) complete identification with society, (2) separation from the other, (3) differentiation of moral properties, (4) realization of social reality and individual consciousness, and (5) individual identity or self-realization.^[44] The first stage occurs when the individual is not aware of his identity apart from society. Qohelet’s reflections upon the material success of his earlier years (Eccl 2:4-8) in light of his later disillusionment highlights his assumption that societal norms should have satisfied and proves that the Preacher’s original identification of personhood was attached to society. The painful process of separation from sacred objects in stage two is also seen in Qohelet’s exasperated responses. For example, the Preacher metaphorically throws up his hands and states that there must be “nothing better for a person than he should eat and drink and find enjoyment” (Eccl 2:24). Next, according to Terence Dawson, stage three consists of “testing the collective morality of society.”^[45] Although controversy surrounds Ecclesiastes 7:15-16, it appears possible that Qohelet is testing his own moral code when equating the righteous with the wicked and then exhorting his readers: “Be  not overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself?” Stage four is the moment when the collective norms lose their power. Qohelet’s stage four experience occurs when he faces ego alienation, as discussed above. The final stage of individuation occurs when the conscious has the ability to question the ego, face the shadow, and ultimately reintegrate into society. It is this topic of individual identity and self-realization that now needs developed.

In order for the realization of individual identity to occur at stage five of individuation, a breakthrough, turning point, or revelation must occur. Bartholomew believes that the turning point for Qohelet starts at Ecclesiastes 11 and continues through chapter 12.^[46] Qohelet seems to acknowledge or at least hint at the possibility of a new reality when stating, “Light is sweet, and it is pleasant for the eyes to see the sun” (Eccl 11:7). Welch explains that by moving away from the ego, the contrary pole of the Self “represents new life and would allow more of the Self to come to light.”^[47] Bartholomew suggests that the shift in Qohelet is the ego reaching for realignment with the Self on its way to health.^[48] Jungian psychology, according to Welch, would see the process occurring in two steps: (1) the conscious hearing the unconscious and then (2) the conscious relating the content from the unconscious back to the conscious.^[49] Accordingly, in Ecclesiastes 11:7-12:7 the reader witnesses Qohelet’s gradual unpacking of the unconscious Self being revealed to the conscious. The importance of Ecclesiastes 12:1 must not be underestimated when the Preacher states, “Remember also your Creator.” Although the verses following the exhortation to “remember” address the stark reality of physical death, Bartholomew argues that with these words Qohelet has had a “profound realization that the ego is not God.”^[50] The verses that follow (Eccl 12:2-8), which acknowledge the inability to control death, speak to and support Qohelet’s new realization. Qohelet’s epistemology has its limitations, and he now recognizes those limits. Ultimately, Qohelet’s experience of realignment not only occurs because the ego aligns with the Self, but also occurs because of the divine nature of the Self. God desires an ontological transformation at the deepest level of being, a transformation that Qohelet has already recognized but his ego wants to avoid. The potential ontological shift is addressed in one of the most pivotal verses in Ecclesiastes. 

Ecclesiastes 3:11 is considered one of the most difficult verses for interpreters: “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity (עוֹלָם) into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.” The challenging verse may be a key to unlocking the door to Qohelet’s enigmatic search for meaning. Francis Brown, Samuel Driver, and Charles Briggs (BDB) identify two primary definitions of עוֹלָם: (1) of past time such as an ancient time and (2) of future time such as a continuous existence.^[51] Tremper Longman identifies four competing scholarly positions: “(1) eternity, (2) world, (3) course of the world, and (4) knowledge or ignorance.”^[52] Within the immediate context of Ecclesiastes, scholarly consensus focuses on the first, eternity, and the fourth, knowledge and ignorance.^[53] In light of the contextual clues in Ecclesiastes 3:14 where Qohelet admits that God’s work lasts forever, or for eternity (עוֹלָם), it seems most reasonable to conclude that the meaning of עוֹלָם points in the direction of a continuous existence of some sort. However, exactly how the עוֹלָם can inhabit the heart remains unanswered. James Williams asserts that עוֹלָם is whatever lies “at the core of existence” that makes man distinctive and moves man towards God.^[54] Accordingly, Longman suggests that placing עוֹלָם into the heart of man may be analogous to the inhabitation of the imago Dei.^[55] Finally, in the same vein, BDB returns the possibility that עוֹלָם means “of divine existence” (cf. Gen 21:33; Isa 40:28; Deut 32:40; Dan 12:7).^[56] However, the challenge the interpreter faces is the positive nature of the definition.

Although in the first half of the verse Qohelet appears to suggest that עוֹלָם in the heart of man might be part of  God’s beautiful creation, in the second half of the verse the Preacher is once again disillusioned and frustrated. Haden agrees with Williams by suggesting that עוֹלָם is the source of “man’s deepest yearning for meaning.”^[57] However, the splash of eternal divinity within the individual that yearns for meaning, according to Qohelet, cannot be truly grasped by human creatures: “He cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end” (Eccl 3:11b). Longman explains the meaning of the verse by asserting that, according to the Preacher, God is toying with His creation by instilling a desire for something that is beyond the reach of humanity, which exasperates Qohelet.^[58] Paradoxically, Longman is exactly right. Qohelet’s frustration comes from not being able to control עוֹלָם. The ego cannot control God on its own terms. God cannot be controlled any more than any of the other sacred objects the ego worships. Any apparent control of sacred objects is illusory. Qohelet is now face to face with the reality that his problem is placed deep within (עוֹלָם), which causes a yearning for significance that has only one solution – divine existence (עוֹלָם). In other words, the divine existence placed within Qohelet is both the problem and the solution. Williamson goes so far as to assert that עוֹלָם is the opposite of הֶ֫בֶל, “the mystery of the whole…the deepest source of human striving….And perhaps God does not want man to attain (control) this עוֹלָם.^[59] The solution is not a human solution that can be figured out, controlled, or even grasped by human knowledge, which frustrates Qohelet’s ego. It is only when Qohelet’s ego decides to subordinate itself to the divine existence (עוֹלָם) within the Self that healthy ego alignment with the Self occurs – the process of Jungian individuation and Christian sanctification. At this point, the connection between the book of Ecclesiastes and the gospel of Christ begins to unfold.

Apocalypticism in Ecclesiastes

Throughout Ecclesiastes’ history of interpretation, many prominent scholars have suggested that Qohelet’s message is the antithesis to the gospel. Referencing Ecclesiastes, Francis Watson states, “Nowhere else in holy scripture is there so forthrightly set out an alternative vision to that of the gospel, a rival version of the truth.”^[60] Furthermore, J. A. Loader argues that Ecclesiastes actually provides a negative witness to the gospel message.^[61] To make such assertions misses the point of Ecclesiastes. Qohelet’s journey is a search for becoming human where the ego and Self are aligned, where the unconscious becomes conscious, and where thoughts, emotions, and actions arise from the unconscious Self. Accordingly, Hendrick Rookmaaker asserts that Christ died “in order that we might be living human beings.”^[62] Christ’s death was more than the forgiveness of sins extended to humanity as a precursor to entering heaven; it was about making a new humanity (Romans 6:1-14) where freedom, love, and meaning are possible.^[63] The transformation moves well beyond the ego, well beyond conscious beliefs, willpower, thoughts, emotions, or experiences and occurs deep within humanity, within the Self. As Bartholomew states, “God is concerned to transform us at our deepest level of being, and He does that through the painful journey of loosening our attachments on what makes our life meaningful so that we can find true meaning in Him.”^[64] The process of unionization is crucial for understanding how Ecclesiastes not only points to, but also synthesizes the gospel.

One way of understanding the connection between the divine existence (עוֹלָם) in Ecclesiastes 3:11 and the gospel of Christ is through the apostle Paul’s cosmic-apocalypticism. The direction of the relationship is critical. In one sense, the only way to understand Ecclesiastes is by looking forward. Without question, Qohelet deeply identified humanity’s colossal problem, which is man’s search for meaning, and the Preacher points to the need for a solution. However, in another sense, the only way to understand Ecclesiastes is by looking backward. As Douglas Campbell explains, telling the story of Jesus solely in light of the problem dictates who Jesus is prior to His arrival, a concept known as theological foundationalism.^[65] In other words, only in the rear-view mirror can humanity attempt to understand the message of the gospel. In sum, both the message of Ecclesiastes and the message of the gospel inform each other. Both directions, forward and backward, are required to facilitate a proper interpretation.

Numerous prominent scholars support the school of an apocalyptic perspective of Paul. For this very brief engagement with Ecclesiastes, Karl Barth and J. Louis Martyn, under the influence of Barth, will be the primary interlocutors. Martyn’s apocalyptic eschatology and Barth’s forensic apocalyptic theology both inform the discussion.^[66] Starting with definitions, J. Louis Martyn explains that the focus of Pauline apocalyptic eschatology centers on “God’s liberating invasion of the cosmos” enacted in Christ as the old creation is crucified (Gal 2:20) and the new creation breaks into reality via the Holy Spirit.^[67] Immediately, the connections to Qohelet and Jung begin to emerge. The old creation points to an inflated and alienated ego-driven life, a life disjoined from the Self, that ultimately leads to the exasperation and frustration experienced by Qohelet. Paul explains that Qohelet’s frustration was divinely determined and necessary for individuation (sanctification) when stating, “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from bondage” (Rom 8:20-21). Qohelet also recognizes the necessity of a new creation that must break into reality, a divine presence or eternity (עוֹלָם) (Eccl 3:11) that must be placed into the heart of man even though the process is both humanly incomprehensible and completely outside of his control. Accordingly, Martyn asserts that the invasion causes an “epistemological crisis” because it upends the ego and worldview of the individual.^[68] Without question, Qohelet’s evidentialist epistemology is being deconstructed. Importantly, Martyn adds that the new cosmic reality creates an apocalyptic confrontation where the anti-God (evil) powers highlight the real problem that needs solved and causes the individual to see with bifocals “both the evil age and the new creation simultaneously.”^[69] In Jungian parlance, when the apocalyptic event occurs not only does the Holy Spirit infuse into the divine container of the Self, but the individual is able to simultaneously see and face the unconscious shadow within the Self. In sum, Qohelet’s endless frustration developed from an intentional subjection to futility of the inflated and alienated ego (the old creation) and from the recognition that an apocalyptic confrontation with the Self would be the only solution, a confrontation that Qohelet could not control.

It is difficult to engage any modern discussion of the gospel without also addressing the doctrine of justification in light of the Reformation. For Calvin, humanity’s sin was transferred to Christ and Christ’s righteousness was transferred to humanity via Christ’s sinless obedience. Specifically, God declared humanity righteous by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9). The innocent declaration or righteous status of the believer was viewed from a legal perspective by the Reformers, a forensic righteousness. The challenge, according to Smythe, regarding the forensic nature of Calvin’s perspective is that he cannot completely refute the charge that his theology proposes a form of “legal fiction.”^[70] In other words, the answer to how exactly the sinner becomes innocent is missing. Granted, Calvin does assert a  process of sanctification to solve the problem, but a cleaned-up sinner is still a sinner. Accordingly, Smythe contends that the advantage that Barth has over Calvin comes in the form of a dual mandate: Not only does Barth assert an alien righteousness granted as a gift to the believer (Rom 5:17), but he also requires the destruction of the sinner to effectuate the sinner’s innocence (Gal 2:20).^[71] For Barth, the apocalyptic breakthrough of  the new creation is not restorative; it is “creatio ex nihilo.^[72]

Once again, the connections between the gospel, Ecclesiastes and Jungian psychology are unmistakable. In Jungian terms, the process of individuation cannot occur without the pain and suffering associated with the destruction of the sinner, the death of the ego. However, the only path to destruction is the cross, for even if an individual successfully destroys the ego without the regenerative work of God placing His divine substance within man’s heart (Eccl 3:11), then the only remaining force is the anti-God influence of the shadow within the unconscious Self to arise to power. Accordingly, Barth necessarily places a strong emphasis on both the eschatological and forensic aspects of justification, for justification “is a forward-looking sovereign declaration that makes us to be, in a moment’s time, that which we are not yet but will be.”^[73] The inaugurated eschatology in Barth’s theology points to an actualization of the apocalyptic Christ-event appropriated only through faith. For Barth, the justification accomplished in Christ is an objective reality, “we are really made to be righteous,” and the individual’s appropriation of the gift of righteousness is a subjective outworking of the Spirit’s placement within man’s heart.^[74] As mentioned above, for Jung, the unconscious Self is the objective identity, while the conscious ego is the subjective identity. Accordingly, as the conscious ego admits defeat through crucifixion, the objective divinity within the Self not only reveals its will to the conscious ego, but it also frees the ego to face his shadow, stop attempting to be what he is not, and instead be who he is.

Not only did Qohelet recognize the necessity of a new creation that must break into reality (Eccl 3:11), but he also deeply understood the need for righteousness. However, like a young Martin Luther, the whole idea of righteousness frustrated the Preacher. A passage that scholars continue to debate is Ecclesiastes 7:15-20 where Qohelet admits that the righteous are not always rewarded and the wicked are not always punished. The Preacher then controversially states, “Be not overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise….Be not overly wicked, neither be a fool…for the one who fears God shall come out from both of them….Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” Eric Ortlund asserts that Qohelet provides a warning in these verses not only against wickedness, but against a righteousness that does not fear God.^[75] Qohelet deeply understands that a man-made righteousness is not the solution for two reasons. First, as Ortlund explains, a type of man-made, self-focused righteousness that believes it can control God for personal blessing is actually the opposite of  righteousness, and it leads to הֶ֫בֶל.^[76] Second, as Qohelet notes, even if a perfect righteousness would be efficacious, it is impossible because no man on earth has a track record of not sinning (Eccl 7:20). However, the question that Qohelet leaves unanswered is profoundly important: What if there was a perfectly righteous man? In other words, is it possible that a perfect righteousness may be the key to solving Qohelet’s ultimate problem of lack (הֶ֫בֶל)? Ortlund observes the connection by noting that a righteousness that fears God, a righteousness with no ulterior motives, and a righteousness that demands nothing from others certainly sounds very much like the righteousness of Christ that solves the problem of lack (הֶ֫בֶל) in the gospel message of the New Testament.^[77]

The question that remains is exactly how living with an ego crucified on the cross and realigned with a newly created Self, which is inhabited by both the forces of עוֹלָם and righteousness that undermine הֶ֫בֶל, might impact daily life. Williams suggests that it would mean that a man could toil but forever have new opportunity; it would mean man could enjoy success without fearing futility; it would mean greed would no longer be necessary because no lack would exist.^[78] For Jung, it would mean individuation; for Paul, it would mean sanctification; and for Qohelet, it would mean freedom from הֶ֫בֶל.

Conclusion

Far from being the antithesis of the gospel of Christ, the book of Ecclesiastes expertly synthesizes the experiential reality that every human must face to encounter Christ. The experience of an inflated ego driven by sacred objects, the experience of an alienated ego when the realization occurs that all is הֶ֫בֶל, the experience of knowing that deep within exists an unconscious Self where divinity needs awakened, and an experience of individuation that attempts to manifest through human effort but recognizes the impossibility are all part of man’s appropriation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to which the Preacher points. Qohelet knew he had a desperate need for עוֹלָם and righteousness. He desperately needed something to solve the lack (הֶ֫בֶל). The solution was on the tip of the Preacher’s tongue, but more poignantly, proleptically deep within. Paradoxically, Qohelet’s problem did not point to a solution, but instead, the solution of Christ on the cross points to his problem. Qohelet’s problem could not be seen because his problem was that he was alive and needed to die, a problem only visible after the solution is found. Fortunately, for Qohelet, Yahweh, a name avoided by the Preacher, did not just effectuate his death on the cross with Christ, but Yahweh also broke into the world and created a new cosmic reality, a new self that unites humanity with God and ironically vaporizes הֶ֫בֶל via the indwelling Breath (πνεῦμα, רוּחַ). Without question, a proper theological-psychological reading of Ecclesiastes not only points to the gospel, but also is paramount in understanding and appropriating the gospel of Jesus Christ. Finally, opportunities for further research abound. First, interdisciplinary studies continue to be a wide-open field within the area of theological studies. Second, much more work is needed  around the concept of the potential ontological realities of apocalyptic eschatology. Third, the exact nature of the Holy Spirit’s role within the conversation also remains fertile soil for exploration.

_________________________________________

[1] Robin Scroggs, “Psychology as a Tool to Interpret the Text: Emerging Trends in Biblical Thought,” The Christian Century 99, no. 10 (March 24, 1982): 336.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).

[3] Zacharias Kotzé, “Jung, Individuation, and Moral Relativity in Qohelet 7:16-17,” Journal of Religion and Health 53, no. 2 (April 2014): 514.

[4] Craig G. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, ed. Tremper Longman III, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 377.

[5] The term “Self” is capitalized in Jungian psychology as standard practice. However, the capitalization does not infer that God is identical with the Self, which Jung acknowledges is heretical. See C. G. Jung, “Dogma and Natural Symbols,” in Psychology and Religion (New Haven: Yale University, 1938), 78–79.

[6] Edward F. Edinger, Ego and Archetype (Boston: Shambhala, 1992), 7.

[7] Ibid.

[8] C. G. Jung, “The Psychology of the Mass,” in Collected Works of C. G. Jung: Psychology and Religion: West and East, ed. R. F. C. Hull and Gerhard Adler, vol. 11 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1958), 259.

[9] Peter Rollins, The Divine Magician: The Disappearance of Religion and the Discovery of Faith (New York: Howard, 2015), 15.

[10] Ibid., 21.

[11] Edinger, Ego and Archetype, 40, 62.

[12] Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 145.

[13] Choon-Leong Seow, Ecclesiastes, vol. 18C, The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 102.

[14] Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 36.

[15] Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 106.

[16] Eric Ortlund, “The Gospel in the Book of Ecclesiastes,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56, no. 4 (December 2013): 700.

[17] Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition of Edification & Awakening by Anti-Climacus, trans. Alastair Hannay (New York: Penguin Classics, 1989), 26–27.

[18] Peter Enns, Ecclesiastes, The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 49–50.

[19] Morton A. Kaplan, Alienation and Identification (New York: Free Press, 1976), 119.

[20] N Karl Haden, “Qoheleth and the Problem of Alienation,” Christian Scholar’s Review 17, no. 1 (September 1987): 54–55.

[21] Ibid., 54-55. Haden also notes that certain existentialists assert that alienation is not only unavoidable but permanent. Furthermore, certain structuralists and post-structuralists, such as Peter Rollins, suggest a dialectic that avoids solving the problem of alienation, and instead, advocate embracing the alienation as the only solution to an unsolvable quandary.

[22] C. G. Jung, “The Conjunction,” in Collected Works of C. G. Jung: Mysterium Coniunctionis, ed. R. F. C. Hull and Gerhard Adler, vol. 14 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1963), 545–546.

[23] Helen Efthimiadis-Keith, “Genesis 2:18-25 from a Jungian and Feminist-Deconstructionist Point of View,” Old Testament Essays 23, no. 1 (2010): 48. Although timeless archetypes are allusive, one might consider the metaphor of a mother goose mourning the loss of a gosling as a representation of a deeply embedded cognitive, rather than physical, instinct.

[24] Ibid., 511.

[25] Edinger, Ego and Archetype, 3.

[26] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 43. Italics mine.

[27] Edinger, Ego and Archetype, 63–64.

[28] Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 379.

[29] Edinger, Ego and Archetype, 69.

[30] C. G. Jung, “Concerning Rebirth,” in Collected Works of C. G. Jung: Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, ed. R. F. C. Hull and Gerhard Adler, vol. 9 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1959), 121.

[31] C. G. Jung, “The Stages of Life,” in Collected Works of C. G. Jung: Structure & Dynamics of the Psyche, ed. R. F. C. Hull and Gerhard Adler, vol. 8 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1960), 399.

[32] Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 379.

[33] Bobroff, Knowledge in a Nutshell, 72. Although dream interpretation is not the solution to Qohelet’s search, Bobroff notes that from the Jacob of the Bible to the Epic of Gilgamesh a respect for dream interpretation has an ancient and respected history.

[34] John Welch, Spiritual Pilgrims: Carl Jung and Teresa of Avila (New York: Paulist, 1982), 81.

[35] Enns, Ecclesiastes, 118.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 380.

[38] See C. G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, Revised. (New York: Vintage, 1989), 170–199. In the chapter entitled “Confrontation with the Unconscious,” Jung explores his unconscious pain, emotional breakdown, and eventual madness that occurs as he addresses similar fears to that of Qohelet.

[39] Bradford A. Mullen, “Sanctification,” Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 708–712.

[40] Darrell Smith, “Individuation,” Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology & Counseling, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 619.

[41] Efthimiadis-Keith, “Genesis 2,” 49.

[42] C. G. Jung, “The Function of the Unconscious,” in Collected Works of C. G. Jung: Two Essays in Analytical Psychology, ed. R. F. C. Hull and Gerhard Adler, vol. 7 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1953), 184.

[43] Smith, “Individuation,” 619. Importantly, the synthesis in a Hegelian dialectic is not reconciliation, but movement that occurs where the tension of contradiction remains.

[44] Efthimiadis-Keith, “Genesis 2,” 50–51.

[45] Terence Dawson, “Jung, Literature, and Literary Criticism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Jung, ed. Polly Young-Eisendrath and Terence Dawson (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997), 267.

[46] Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 381.

[47] Welch, Spiritual Pilgrims, 151. Italics mine.

[48] Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 381.

[49] Welch, Spiritual Pilgrims, 154.

[50] Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 381.

[51] Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, “עוֹלָם,” The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 761–763.

[52] Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 121.

[53] Ibid.

[54] James G. Williams, “What Does It Profit A Man?: The Wisdom of Koheleth,” Judaism 20, no. 2 (Spring 1971): 182.

[55] Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 119.

[56] Brown, Driver, and Briggs,”עוֹלָם,” 762.

[57] Haden, “Qoheleth and the Problem of Alienation,” 61.

[58] Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 119.

[59] Robert Williamson, The Forgotten Books of the Bible: Recovering the Five Scrolls for Today (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 182.

[60] Francis Watson, Text, Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 283–287.

[61] Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 39.

[62] Hendrik Roelof Rookmaaker, Our Calling and God’s Hand in History, ed. Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker (Carlisle, UK: Piquant, 2003), 171.

[63] Ibid.

[64] Ibid. Italics mine.

[65] Douglas A. Campbell, “Romans and the Apocalyptic Reading of Paul,” in Preaching Romans: Four Perspectives, ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019), 42.

[66] See Shannon Nicole Smythe, Forensic Apocalyptic Theology: Karl Barth and the Doctrine of Justification (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 6-9. Alongside Douglas Campbell, Nicole Smyth identifies the following scholars integral to an apocalyptic reading of Paul: Karl Barth, Ernst Käsemann, J. Christiaan Beker, J. Louis Martyn, Leander Keck, and Beverly Gaventa.

[67] J. Louis Martyn, “The Apocalyptic Gospel in Galatians,” Interpretation 54, no. 3 (July 2000): 254–255.

[68] J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (New Haven: Yale University, 2004), 104.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Smythe, Forensic Apocalyptic Theology, 146.

[71] Ibid.

[72] Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns, 6th ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), 101–102. Later, Ernst Käsemann also expands on the concept of creatio ex nihilo in the context of the doctrine of justification. See Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 35.

[73] Smythe, Forensic Apocalyptic Theology, 148.

[74] Ibid., 158. Emphasis mine.

[75] Ortlund, “The Gospel in the Book of Ecclesiastes,” 705.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid., 705–706.

[78] Williams, “What Does It Profit A Man?,” 183.

Bibliography

• Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. 6th ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1968.
• Bartholomew, Craig G. Ecclesiastes. Edited by Tremper Longman III. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.
• Bobroff, Gary. Knowledge in a Nutshell: Carl Jung. London: Arcturus, 2020.
• Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. “עוֹלָם.” The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.
• Campbell, Douglas A. “Romans and the Apocalyptic Reading of Paul.” In Preaching Romans: Four Perspectives, edited by Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019.
• Dawson, Terence. “Jung, Literature, and Literary Criticism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Jung, edited by Polly Young-Eisendrath and Terence Dawson, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997.
• Edinger, Edward F. Ego and Archetype. Boston: Shambhala, 1992.
• Efthimiadis-Keith, Helen. “Genesis 2:18-25 from a Jungian and Feminist-Deconstructionist Point of View.” Old Testament Essays 23, no. 1 (2010): 44–65.
• Enns, Peter. Ecclesiastes. The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.
• Fox, Michael V. A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010.
• Haden, N Karl. “Qoheleth and the Problem of Alienation.” Christian Scholar’s Review 17, no. 1 (September 1987): 52–66.
• Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015.
• Jung, C. G. “Concerning Rebirth.” In Collected Works of C. G. Jung: Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, edited by R. F. C. Hull and Gerhard Adler, 9:112–147. Princeton: Princeton University, 1959.
• ________. “Dogma and Natural Symbols.” In Psychology and Religion, 40–77. New Haven: Yale University, 1938.
• ________. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Revised. New York: Vintage, 1989.
• ________. “The Conjunction.” In Collected Works of C. G. Jung: Mysterium Coniunctionis, edited by R. F. C. Hull and Gerhard Adler, 14:457–553. Princeton: Princeton University, 1963.
• ________. “The Function of the Unconscious.” In Collected Works of C. G. Jung: Two Essays in Analytical Psychology, edited by R. F. C. Hull and Gerhard Adler, 7:173–187. Princeton: Princeton University, 1953.
• ________. “The Psychology of the Mass.” In Collected Works of C. G. Jung: Psychology and Religion: West and East, edited by R. F. C. Hull and Gerhard Adler, 11:247–296. Princeton: Princeton University, 1958.
• ________. “The Stages of Life.” In Collected Works of C. G. Jung: Structure & Dynamics of the Psyche, edited by R. F. C. Hull and Gerhard Adler, 8:387–403. Princeton: Princeton University, 1960.
• Kaplan, Morton A. Alienation and Identification. New York: Free Press, 1976.
• Kierkegaard, Søren. The Sickness unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition of Edification & Awakening by Anti-Climacus. Translated by Alastair Hannay. New York: Penguin Classics, 1989.
• Kotzé, Zacharias. “Jung, Individuation, and Moral Relativity in Qohelet 7:16-17.” Journal of Religion and Health 53, no. 2 (April 2014): 511–519.
• Longman III, Tremper. The Book of Ecclesiastes. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
• Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians. New Haven: Yale University, 2004.
• ________. “The Apocalyptic Gospel in Galatians.” Interpretation 54, no. 3 (July 2000): 246–266.
• Mullen, Bradford A. “Sanctification.” Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
• Ortlund, Eric. “The Gospel in the Book of Ecclesiastes.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56, no. 4 (December 2013): 697–706.
• Rollins, Peter. The Divine Magician: The Disappeaarance of Religion and the Discovery of Faith. New York: Howard, 2015.
• Rookmaaker, Hendrik Roelof. Our Calling and God’s Hand in History. Edited by Marleen Hengelaar-Rookmaaker. Carlisle, UK: Piquant, 2003.
• Scroggs, Robin. “Psychology as a Tool to Interpret the Text: Emerging Trends in Biblical Thought.” The Christian Century 99, no. 10 (March 24, 1982): 335–338.
• Seow, Choon-Leong. Ecclesiastes. Vol. 18C. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
• Smith, Darrell. “Individuation.” Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology & Counseling. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.
• Smythe, Shannon Nicole. Forensic Apocalyptic Theology: Karl Barth and the Doctrine of Justification. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016.
• Watson, Francis. Text, Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
• Welch, John. Spiritual Pilgrims: Carl Jung and Teresa of Avila. New York: Paulist, 1982.
• Williams, James G. “What Does It Profit A Man?: The Wisdom of Koheleth.” Judaism 20, no. 2 (Spring 1971): 179–193.
• Williamson, Robert. The Forgotten Books of the Bible: Recovering the Five Scrolls for Today. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018.