Enjoyment and Its Discontents : Ecclesiastes in Dialogue

Philip Browning Helsel

Published online: 21 November 2008

Blanton-Peale Institute 2008

Abstract

pessimistic work. Instead, this article recommends Ecclesiastes, following Eunny P. Lee,

as contributing to pastoral theology through its embodied and pragmatic theology of

enjoyment in which practices of joy revitalize the human spirit. However, there are some

who are unable to experience satisfaction. The absence of reflection on this problem in

Ecclesiastes scholarship is considered the starting point of pastoral theology, and is

addressed by a turn to the frequently misunderstood passage in 7:16–18, bringing it into

conversation with the topographical model of the human person developed by Freud. At

the same time, the interpersonal aspects of enjoyment found in Ecclesiastes critique Freud

by suggesting how the fragmented parts of self-experience can be held together in an

interpersonal context.

The book of Ecclesiastes has frequently been mischaracterized as a cynical or

Keywords

Ecclesiastes Freud Pastoral theology Enjoyment Eunny P. Lee

Introduction

The book of Ecclesiastes has puzzled many readers of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures,

who feel lost in its maze of contradictions, in what seems to be its strident pessimism, and

in its apophatic approach to life’s greatest mysteries. For these reasons, along with its

apparent lack of traditional morality, it has been sidelined by Biblical interpreters. However,

those who mischaracterize the book as a cynical work may be missing some of its

richer significance. Gerhard von Rad scribed the book as ‘‘[standing] at the periphery of the

canon, a shrill voice of protest from ‘the farthest frontiers of Yahwistic faith’’’ (Lee

If the book itself has been marginalized by mainstream interpreters, it may pique the

interest of those who are working on the margins. For pastoral caregivers who examine that

which deepens and strengthens the human spirit, cultivating practices which bring meaning

and significance to life, the book of Ecclesiastes is commended as a rich resource, since it

2005).

P. Browning Helsel (

Princeton Theological Seminary, 303 Emmons Dr. Apt. 8B, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA

e-mail: helselphil@hotmail.com

&)

123

J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116

DOI 10.1007/s10943-008-9224-8

honestly reflects on the contradictions and limits of life, while persistently invoking

practices of enjoyment as a God-given gift and source of meaningful investment.

In recommending that pastoral theology draw from the book of Ecclesiastes, I am

suggesting that it is a natural fit with the tendency in pastoral and practical theology to

begin with the empirical as a source for truth and meaning. Framed like Wittgenstein’s

Philosophical Investigations

the landscape of experience,’’ a journey that is undertaken in a self-reflexive manner (Lee

, Ecclesiastes is ‘‘a report of a journey of consciousness over

2005

similar to other wisdom texts of the ancient Near East (Lee

Jennifer Koosed has shown how this self-reflexive journey involves embodiment, a fact

that is missed in English translations which replace Hebrew references to the human

body’s role in this exploration of wisdom with idiomatic translations that no longer

describe this reflexivity as an embodied aspect of existence (Koosed

who is interested in the dynamics of human healing finds in Ecclesiastes a particular

articulation of distinctively human problems, the full import of which can certainly not be

grasped by the twenty-first century reader. However, an appropriation of Ecclesiastes for

the modern reader who is concerned about the healing of the human person can be made,

and this appropriation can remain clear about the differences between the framework of

thought that appears within the world of the ancient Near East, and how current interpretations

of the human person may differ. Nevertheless, in spite of the distance of space

and time between the text and its modern reader, Ecclesiastes can be a fruitful conversation

partner for pastoral theology both because it is concerned with how human beings experience

enjoyment, and it analyzes this subject with a pragmatic and self-involved method

of exploration that reflects on bodily experience as a source of wisdom.

The first part of the paper will describe Qohelet’s theology of enjoyment as a helpful

theological sphere for pastoral theology to address. Qohelet’s calls to enjoyment are not

incidental to the book’s message, but are fundamental to his call to engage fully with the

significance of human life, appreciating the enjoyment that, in the face of all life’s

impermanence, can be experienced by human beings (Lee

enjoyment may seem to have little to do with the spirit or soul, which may seem to be

destined for higher or deeper satisfactions (Capps

that the ‘‘basic pleasures that sustain life’’ have theological significance, suggesting that the

ability to experience pleasure and satisfaction are intimately connected with our experience

of God (Lee

means to live in faithful response to God’s call in our lives, and the inability to enjoy

‘‘one’s portion’’ in life is a serious ethical and interpersonal problem, one that leads to

violation of the self, the other, and the world. Lee (

invitation and obligation, so much so that an important aspect of the spiritual journey is the

‘‘stewardship’’ of joy.

In the second half of this paper, this analysis turns to the gap in Lee’s own examination

of Ecclesiastes, her inability to explain the reasons why many people seem unable to

experience joy and satisfaction. In commending enjoyment, the book of Ecclesiastes is not

naı¨ve about the complexity of human persons. Indeed, Ecclesiastes gives ‘‘a conflicting

assessment of the value of enjoyment’’ (Lee

there is a disjuncture between the activities of everyday life that should lead to enjoyment

and the actual experience of joy. Qohelet seems to blame both God and humanity for this

inability to find satisfaction, but does not explain exactly how such a situation could have

arisen. It is at this point of disjuncture that pastoral theology is especially equipped to join

the analysis, since problems in human satisfaction have been a central psychological

, p. 15). The author ‘‘repeatedly speaks of conversing with his own heart’’ in a manner2005, p. 24). In her scholarship,2006). The interpreter2005). Engagement in such1994). However, Ecclesiastes suggests2005). For Ecclesiastes, experiencing enjoyment and pleasure is part of what it2005) shows how enjoyment is a divine2005). Qohelet shows that for some persons,

106 J Relig

123

concern, and pastoral theology has traditionally brought the psychological methods into

conversation with theological anthropology (Hiltner

problem of dissatisfaction, the disjuncture between presumably pleasurable activities, and

the actual experience of enjoyment, is still a pressing issue for the modern person in a

helping role who encounters a widespread malaise in those who seek spiritual guidance.

One way to address this gap in the treatment of dissatisfaction is to look within Qohelet’s

work itself, to Ecclesiastes 7:16–18, an understudied and, I will argue, frequently

misinterpreted passage. Although her emphasis on enjoyment as the theological center of

Ecclesiastes is incredibly helpful, Lee’s analysis of this passage falters on the basis of her

lack of ability to understand the human experiences of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with

adequate psychological acuity. In order to address this shortcoming, I will bring this

passage into conversation with psychoanalytic psychology, namely Freud’s ‘‘topographical’’

model of the human person, as constituted by the psychic ‘parts’ of id, ego, and

superego. Although it is not the only psychic model that Freud elaborated to describe

human satisfaction, it is the one that he most consistently elaborated and the one that has

had the most lasting impact upon the psychotherapeutic communities and Western thought

in general, given the entrance of these Latin terms into the popular idiom. I will show how

Ecclesiastes addresses the problematics of desire in a way that speaks to each of Freud’s

hypothetical parts of the person, and how Freud’s descriptions of the characteristics of

these parts help us to further understand the significance of Qohelet’s own project, which is

both therapeutic and theological in the best sense of the terms. This is not to suggest that

Ecclesiastes was a direct influence on Freud, or to speculate that Ecclesiastes foreshadowed

Freud’s thought in any exact way, but simply to explain how an interpretation of Qohelet’s

theological anthropology is assisted by a turn to psychoanalytic psychology, a move that is

effective because of the consonance between psychology and the wisdom tradition (Capps

1972). This treatment suggests that the

1983

pressing theological and psychological issue, and that both disciplines may function more

effectively if they work together in addressing the problem of dissatisfaction.

). In making this argument, this article will suggest that human satisfaction is a

The Stewardship of Joy

Ecclesiastes has often been critiqued as a pessimistic book, one that delivers a skewed

perspective on the world. A central piece in this argument has been the complex word

which functions in several different ways throughout the text, but which has frequently been

translated as ‘‘vanity’’ or ‘‘meaningless’’ (Ecclesiastes 1:2). Such translations are understandable,

especially when the persistent agnosticism of the book is plumbed. Ecclesiastes

removes assurances and certainty far from the grasp of the human person, and prefers the

interrogative mood, leaving disturbing questions hanging in the air: ‘‘Who knows whether

the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals go downward to the earth?’’

(Ecclesiastes 3:21) However, it is possible that the translation of ‘‘vanity’’ and ‘‘meaningless’’

predispose the modern person to think of Ecclesiastes as a pessimistic book. One of the

prominent scholars of the Hebrew wisdom traditions, Choon Leong Seow suggests that the

word

translated as that which is ‘‘‘beyond mortal grasp’’’ (Lee

Ecclesiastes should be viewed as a testament to the spiritual significance of impermanence,

probing toward a response to this impermanence within the immanent sphere.

Seow’s translation suggests that

for that which is meaningful in the face of all impermanence and suffering. If there is little

hebel,hebel that has traditionally been translated as ‘‘meaningless’’ should instead be2005). In this sense, the book ofhebel is an ineluctable part of a self-reflective search

J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116 107

123

in life that can be firmly fixed, a spiritual quest begins but does not base its value on

certainty. In this absence of positivistic categories through which human beings can create

a fixed and ordered existence, Qohelet advocates a radically empirical and practical

solution to these philosophical and theological questions. In the face of suffering, Ecclesiastes

shows how enjoyment of one’s

which human life can flourish and find significance (Lee

humanity is discerning what one’s proper portion might be, given the limits of temporality

and the uncertainty of the universe.

In what seems like a contradiction, this book that repeatedly references the reality of

death and the impermanence and upside-down nature of the world also encourages a deep

engagement in the satisfying aspects of human existence. Lee (

experience joy in the ordinary things of life, in the sacred moments of everyday existence,

is the theological center of Qohelet’s work. To enjoy life is the portion that God gives

humanity. She shows that Ecclesiastes recommends ritualized practices of joy, eating,

drinking, anointing with oil that are part of the life shared in community (Lee

Qohelet follows the question about the ultimate destiny of human beings posed in 3:21

with the admission: ‘‘so I saw that there is nothing better than all should enjoy their work,

for that is their lot’’ (Ecclesiastes 3:22a). Lee (

Ecclesiastes advocates is quite different from many modern constructions of pleasure. Far

from being a ‘‘narcotic of sorts that dulls the pain of existence,’’ the activities of enjoyment

that Qohelet describes are ‘‘specialized and ritualized [behaviors]’’ which have ‘‘the

potential to safeguard and improve the vitality of social relationships’’ (Lee

‘‘According to his theology, gladness in the human heart redeems that inner space (cf.

5:19), making it and its desires an appropriate vehicle of moral agency’’ (Lee

Lee’s (

which the passages that preach enjoyment (Ecclesiastes 2:24–26; 3:12–13, 22; 5:17–19;

7:14; 8:15; 9:7–10; 11:7–10) are seen as ‘‘momentary relief from the painful consciousness

of human finitude.’’ While reminders of human finitude certainly pervade Ecclesiastes, Lee

(

each new instance of the refrain ‘‘interact[s] with and build[s] upon [the others]

increasing emphasis and urgency.’’ Ultimately, for Ecclesiastes, enjoyment should be the

litmus test of whether life is meaningful (Ecclesiastes 6:3). In Ecclesiastes, this enjoyment

is seen to be part of the portion which humanity is given, an allotment which is present in

both the pleasurable activities of eating, drinking, and sexuality, but also in the rhythms of

work when they are appropriately integrated into life (Ecclesiastes 3:13; 22). Qohelet’s

calls to enjoyment are not simply calls to frenetic activity. Ecclesiastes famously praises

silence, rest, even mourning, as aspects of fullness of human life in its rhythms, and

without a sense that these sentiments controvert injunctions to enjoyment (Ecclesiastes

5:1–2; 7:1–14). When the ‘‘tragic and joyous dimensions’’ of life coexist, one is more

capable of ‘‘

(Lee

Without an awareness of the limits of human existence, Qohelet’s calls to enjoyment

would sound tinny, separated off from the ground of feeling in which the human person

encounters both her own suffering and the suffering of the world. Indeed, the injustice of

the world disturbs the sage deeply, who sees ‘‘all the oppressions that are practiced under

the sun

‘‘on the side of their oppressors there was power—with no one to comfort them’’

(Ecclesiastes 4:1). With keen insight, Qohelet appreciates before his time that the tasks of

transformation inevitably always involve ‘‘liberating the oppressor’’ from the negative

heleq, or proper ‘‘portion’’ is the means through2005). A central activity of2005) argues that this call to2005).2005) suggests that the enjoyment that2005).2005).2005) approach stands apart from most Biblical scholarship on Ecclesiastes, in2005) argues that enjoyment is a consistent imperative refrain within the book, and that…withliving life to the full,’’ coming to a richer ‘‘acceptance of [life’s] possibilities’’2005).…the tears of the oppressed—with no one to comfort them!’’ and in the same verse,

108 J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116

123

consequences of power (Dussell

world, of the fundamental imbalance in which Qohelet sees the unpredictability of life—

the connection between deed and reward have been severed—that he returns repeatedly to

refrains which call for enjoyment (Lee

While some might suggest that joy is not a proper foundation for ethical thinking, since it

may ‘‘appear to be largely self-oriented and self-serving’’ (Lee

Ecclesiastes enjoyment is exemplified in practices of generosity and care for the world.

Understanding of one’s portion is intimately connected with injunctions to liberal charity

‘‘with abandon, without calculating the potential returns (11:1b)’’ (Lee

not primarily conceived of as an individual reality, but it is experienced interpersonally,

situated in a cultural context in which festival celebrations include rituals of enjoyment,

‘‘

emphasis in the text). It is in this context that the ‘‘stewardship’’ of joy can be seen as a

religious responsibility, something that requires a capacity for care and an understanding of

the limits of life (Lee

tied with the portion that each person is given in life, a concept which one interpreter has

translated as ‘‘the space allotted for human existence’’ (Lee

of limits, a realistic appreciation of these limits is part of what enables persons to experience

and share joy, which may be ‘‘an opportunity available only for the moment’’ (Lee

Enjoyment itself is

‘‘can hold onto,’’ but is rather experienced as a gift of God in the present tense (Lee

Since it is experienced as a gift of God, enjoyment is also a ‘‘requisite God-given

responsibility,’’ since one requires a mindful awareness in the present in order to be able to

‘‘see’’ the good (Ecclesiastes 2:24; 3:22; 6:9). The visual metaphor dominates the paradoxes

of the book, where in one verse Qohelet claims that ‘‘there is no good for/in

humanity,’’ and in the next that ‘‘humans ought to make themselves see ‘good,’’’ a central

aspect of which is the awareness of the opportunities for pleasure in the common routine of

life (Lee

present-tense attentiveness to the possibilities of life’s basic pleasures is understood, in the

terminology of Ecclesiastes, as a gift from God that calls for a human response. Enjoyment

is then tactile, apprehended in a full present, and engaged in a manner that is as direct as

the apprehension of sight.

In one prominent example, it can be seen how this enjoyment is dialogic, described as

both a gift from God and the result of human response. Qohelet describes how the one who

is able to enjoy life will ‘‘scarcely brood over the days of their lives, because God keeps

them occupied with the joy of their hearts’’ (Ecclesiastes 5:20). This common translation of

‘‘occupied’’ or ‘‘preoccupied’’ for the Hebrew word

hear the double entendre in which the word may ‘‘also be taken to mean ‘an answer’ or

‘one who gives’ an answer’’ (Lee

understood, not as an idle pastime that might distract a person from life around them, but as

a call from God, ‘‘God [being] the one who ‘gives a response’ through enjoyment in the

human heart’’ (Lee

suggests that this very call demands a human response, so that enjoyment becomes a

‘‘human

embedded in community (Lee

Therefore, enjoyment of life’s basic pleasures can be seen as a fundamental response to

the uncertainties of living. For the author of Ecclesiastes, such enjoyments as sharing in

festal meals, conjugal delights, and even the daily activities of the kind of work that

contribute to a person’s humanity, are not peripheral to the spiritual life, but a central

1981). It is precisely in the midst of the injustice of the2005).2005). However, in2005). Enjoyment iseating, drinking, and sending . . . portions to those who have none . . .’’ (Lee 2005, p. 70,2005). Within Ecclesiastes, enjoyment is a gift of God that is closely2005). If life occurs in the midst2005).hebel, or ‘‘beyond mortal grasp,’’ since it is not something that a person2005).2005; Ecclesiastes 2:23–24). While desire may wander (Ecclesiastes 6:9), ama’aneh does not allow the reader to2005). In this sense, the gift of enjoyment can be2005). Because of the tense of the verb, it seems that the passage alsoduty,’’ understood as a fully embodied response of the self through practices of joy2005).

J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116 109

123

living-out of God’s call for the human life. In Ecclesiastes, we encounter a ‘‘theology of

enjoyment [that] is resolutely life-centered,’’ and instead of focusing on ‘‘the mighty works

of God in history,’’ the book focuses on ‘‘how a person may cope with the challenges

provoked by one’s immediate experience of the world’’ (Lee

Qohelet engages in a thoroughly pragmatic theological approach, one in which

‘‘theological principles must be evaluated rigorously in light of their truthfulness to and

relevance for the human condition

claim may be qualified, even overturned, by its encounter with real life.’’ In this sense, the

book of Ecclesiastes, as a self-involving, pragmatic exploration of the ethical dimensions

of joy in human experience, is an ideal conversation partner for pastoral theology, both in

its subject matter and in its methodology, since it echoes a pragmatic approach that suits

pastoral theology well. As will become clear in the following section, the inability of

certain people to experience enjoyment in life has been a fruitful starting place for pastoral

theological reflection, and it is precisely at this point that pastoral theology provides

resources for interpreting the book of Ecclesiastes.

2005). As Lee (2005) suggests,…One must recognize that even the most cherished truth

Enjoyment and Its Discontents—Those Who Cannot See Enjoyment

While the human person finds fulfillment within the practices of simple, everyday

enjoyment, for some, such enjoyment seems out of reach. As suggested earlier, this is

where pastoral theology, with its use of psychological methods, is able to supplement

Biblical scholarship. Qohelet separates the persons for whom enjoyment seems impossible

from those who are able to ‘‘see’’ and experience the ‘‘good’’ (Ecclesiastes 2:25), who are

supposedly those who have been given this gift by God. While the capacity for enjoyment

is described within the text as a human duty and a God-given gift, paradoxically Qohelet

describes the human propensity for dissatisfaction elsewhere in the text as a universal

phenomenon. ‘‘All human toil is for the mouth, yet the appetite is not satisfied’’ (Ecclesiastes

6:7), suggesting that even those who are typically able to enjoy the gift of God’s

portion at times find themselves dissatisfied with existence. The dark side of human

incapacity for enjoyment is ‘‘greed and insatiability,’’ problems which are described in

stark terms by Qohelet, who connects the ‘‘hungry souls’’

with ‘‘Greedy Death’’ itself (Lee

it ‘‘poses [dangers] to the social order in the cosmos’’ (Lee

10:17). Therefore, for Ecclesiastes, enjoyment has an ethical horizon with social and even

ecological implications. Lee constructs the opposition between enjoyment and insatiability

as a ‘‘choice’’ which is offered to the reader within the text of Ecclesiastes, even though the

book itself more frequently speaks of the gift of enjoyment (and by extension the absence

of enjoyment) as coming from God (Lee

Qohelet suggests that enjoyment is not equally available to all: ‘‘Likewise all to whom

God gives wealth and possessions

lot and find enjoyment in their toil—this is the gift of God’’ (Ecclesiastes 5:19, emphasis

mine). The crucial distinction is made with the small word ‘‘and,’’ which suggests that

people experience a disjunction between the things that ought to bring pleasure and the

actual experience of enjoyment.

nepes, who can never be satisfied2005). Not only does dissatisfaction threaten the individual,2005; Ecclesiastes2005).and whom he enables to enjoy them and to accept their1 Those who are unable to enjoy life are the deeply tragic

1

time in which Ecclesiastes was written. ‘‘In other words, the deity, much like a Persian sovereign, authorizes

the human grantee to take up

110 J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116

The word ‘‘enable’’ might more literally be translated ‘‘authorize’’ in the context of Persian society at the…and enjoy the ‘portion’ that is given to them as a grant’’ (Lee, p. 46).

123

figures in Qohelet’s treatment, ‘‘solitary individuals, without sons or brothers; yet there is

no end to all their toil, and their eyes are never satisfied with riches. ‘For whom am I

toiling,’ they ask, ‘and depriving myself of pleasure?’’’ (Ecclesiastes 4:7–8a). Again, while

all the criteria of the ‘good life’ may be met—‘‘a hundred children,’’ long life, ‘‘if he does

not enjoy life’s good things

While it is true that these figures earn Qohelet’s pity for not leaving behind a rich legacy

for their family (Ecclesiastes 2:21), the deeper reason for his dismay is the absence of

enjoyment, since enjoyment has been described as underpinning of vitality that distinguishes

a significant life from one that is meaningless.

Qohelet lays blame for this for this predicament at the feet of God, and does not directly

enumerate the factors that might contribute to the discontentment and its twin experience,

that of insatiability. Accordingly, although she has argued effectively that Ecclesiastes is a

theological book about the stewardship of joy, Lee does not show us why some people

have such trouble experiencing it, nor describe adequately factors that may lead to this

situation, or suggesting anything that could be done about it. Lee acknowledges that while

‘‘God allows people in general to enjoy the good things in life

there are tragic exceptions—situations where people are,

unable to enjoy [sic]’’ (Lee

theological problem, and not a psychological one. Lee (

saying that ‘‘human contentment is not just an individual inadequacy. It is not

viewed psychologically as a personal insecurity.’’ For those who work with persons who

experience this disjunction from the basic pleasures of life, such a dismissal does not

provide enough guidance for those who might want to understand dissatisfaction, especially

for the purposes of relieving it.

For purposes of this examination, it is helpful to turn to a text that is not given enough

theological weight in Ecclesiastes, a passage that is often misunderstood. Bringing this

passage into conversation with psychological resources, the contours of this text will be

elaborated, especially ways in which this passage more fully addresses the problematics of

dissatisfaction. The seventh chapter of Ecclesiastes can be seen as a response to the

question posed in 6:12: ‘‘Who knows what is good for mortals

a description of the way in which the inevitability of death relativizes human ethics,

Qohelet gives a series of seemingly strange injunctions, which I quote:

Do not be too righteous, and do not act too wise; why should you destroy yourself?

Do not be too wicked, and do not be a fool; why should you die before your time? It

is good that you should take hold of the one, without letting go of the other; for the

one who fears God shall succeed with both (Ecclesiastes 7:16–18, NRSV).

Lee (

her earlier claim that human contentment should not be viewed ‘‘psychologically.’’ She

suggests that this passage might be therapeutic for persons who might ‘‘[strain] to achieve

the unattainable,’’ in this case, the implication that an ‘‘over-scrupulous and over-ambitious

…a stillborn child is better off than he’’ (Ecclesiastes 6:3–4).…he also recognizes thatfor whatever reasons, simply2005, emphasis mine). Lee prefers to think of enjoyment as a2005) excludes personal considerations,…?’’ (Lee 2005). Following2005) claims that this is a ‘‘therapeutic,’’ not ‘‘condemnatory word,’’ contradicting…

pursuit of righteousness

emotional health’’ (Lee

reticent to completely acknowledge the theological and practical consequences of the

passage. Part of her difficultly with this passage seems to relate to her own theological

presuppositions, which she revealed when she claimed ‘‘that enjoyment has nothing to do

with the pursuit of joy or pleasure. Rather, it is one’s active response as a human agent to

God’s giving of all that is ‘good’ to those who are ‘good before God’’’ (Lee

kinds of pleasures that Lee permit us seem unrecognizable if they are unrelated to the

…can have debilitating effects on a person’s physical and2005). Even as she claims this is a therapeutic passage, she is2005). The

J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116 111

123

actual joys and pleasures of being human. By overlaying her interpretation of Ecclesiastes

with an other-worldly frame of reference, Lee (

about practices of joy and makes it difficult to interpret a rich and complex passage

such as 7:16–18. While she admits that ‘‘verse seventeen seems to condone a certain

measure of vice,’’ she is particularly concerned that this passage may imply ‘‘a mockery of

the traditional belief in divine retribution,’’ and concludes by hoping that ‘‘surely, the

diligent pursuit of virtue should be commended rather than denigrated, as Qohelet seems to

do’’ (Lee

So Lee attempts, at this late juncture in her book, to establish that enjoyment has

nothing to do with pleasure, and that the problems that people have experiencing enjoyment

are by no means psychological. Her interpretive position makes it difficult for her to

explain the problem of human discontentment very carefully, because she refuses to

incorporate modern sources that may help us to examine this problem, and because by

denying all practical aspects of enjoyment, she makes it difficult for her readers to see what

is joyful about this later, ‘theological’ version of enjoyment. Her transcendent method

makes it hard for her to explore exactly how a passage like Ecclesiastes 7:16–18 could be

therapeutically helpful for people. However, interpreting this passage as a pastoral theologian,

a cognate discipline such as psychology provides resources that help to make

exactly this kind of elaboration. In the process, this analysis could show more clearly the

factors that may prohibit people from actually enjoying their lives.

Particularly, Sigmund Freud’s oeuvre consistently attempts to untangle the trouble that

besets human satisfaction, the complexity of our pleasures, and the significance of human

satisfaction. One of the most persuasive models, and one which people still associate with

Freud’s legacy, even though he moved away from it in his later years, was what was called

the ‘‘topographical’’ model of the person, in which a person is constituted by a ‘‘seething

cauldron’’ of unconscious desires, called the id, a restrictive voice that acts as a conscience,

called the superego, and the ‘‘gatekeeper’’ which attempted to preserve balance between

these competing forces, the ego, a term that does not have the connotation of selfishness,

but simply refers to the largely conscious experience of navigating one’s desires (Freud

1935/

showing how it cannot or should not be made to correspond with some biological or

neurological basis. Instead, it is a way of speaking about the human person, not incommensurable

with other ways of considering the person, such as Jungian integration, that

leads to an acknowledgement of the complexity of the inner world of the person, who is

irreducibly individual at the very same moment she is unequivocally always situated in

interpersonal and social realities (Ulanov

productive of desire, the superego is the carrier of our ethical ideals, and the ego tries to

make these often conflicting demands compatible with keeping going.’’

Freud ‘‘uniquely problematized’’ the common ‘‘belief in the accuracy, the possibility, of

one’s desire’’ (Phillips

toil is for the mouth, yet the appetite is not satisfied,’’ (Ecclesiastes 6:7), Freud grappled

honestly with the problem that, in each action, some part of the self was achieving a

pleasurable outcome, while another might be suffering. In each action, ‘‘three projects’’ are

occurring simultaneously: ‘‘we are satisfying a desire, we are sustaining a sense of moral

well-being and we are ensuring our survival’’ (Phillips

Ecclesiastes 7:16–18 seems to match the structure of the conflicted self that Freud posited,

and in the form of negative commands and addresses the contradictory ways that the self

might be searching for satisfaction. In this sense, it could be seen as an answer to the larger

2005) contradicts some of her own statements2005).1966; Freud 1902/1952). Phillips (1994) has called Freud’s model a ‘‘useful fiction,’’2004). According to Phillips (1994), ‘‘the id is1994). In a similar way to Ecclesiastes, who told us that ‘‘all human1994). The three-fold structure of

112 J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116

123

question of human satisfaction and dissatisfaction in Ecclesiastes, one that is not addressed

if this passage is stripped of everything that might seem theologically objectionable.

Perhaps especially purposeful in a religious text, Qohelet begins by addressing the

demands of the superego, a logical choice given the strong connection between conscience,

morality, and religion. Freud suggested that the superego was modeled after internalized

aspects of one’s parents, what he once called ‘‘imagos,’’ but particularly from the ‘‘parents’

superego’’ itself, so that in living up to its ideals, one is engaged in a ‘‘transgenerational

task [sic]’’ (Freud

provided to those working with those who are suffering was that even a severe illness has

its ‘secondary’ ‘‘(composite) gains,’’ that serve to allay what Freud calls the ‘‘unconscious

sense of guilt’’ or the ‘‘need for punishment’’ (Freud

who might be particularly likely to undergo ‘‘

repression resulted in ‘‘an intensification’’ of what Freud

‘‘a temptation to perform ‘sinful’ actions, which must be expiated by the

reproaches of the sadistic conscience

Destiny.’’ Such masochism can even lead to the strange result of ‘‘[doing] what is inexpedient,

[acting] against [one’s] own interests,

[a person] in the real world’’ (Freud

creates a specific problem for people who might otherwise enjoy contentment: ‘‘the forces

of conscience

change in reality’’ (Phillips

As a canonical book in the Judeo-Christian tradition, Ecclesiastes makes the surprising

moves of severing the relationship between God’s will and the moral masochist’s neverending

pursuit of righteousness. Such a move is so counter-intuitive that it strains credulity.

Here, Qohelet goes beyond the declaration of a universal human flaw—‘‘Surely there is no

one on earth so righteous as to do good without ever sinning’’ (Ecclesiastes 7:20)—to suggest

that even the pursuit of righteousness might be a part of the problem. Freud explains the

origins of ethics in a highly controversial manner: ‘‘It is a commonly held conviction that

‘ethical requirements were the primary thing and the renunciation of instinct followed from

them

enforced by external powers and it is only this which creates the ethical sense’’ (Freud

1961

first religious institution of her own parents, risks splitting off her own aggression from the

rest of her life and seeing it as a bad part of herself (Ulanov

suggests that God will bless those who find a balance of both righteousness and wickedness,

he severs the connection of religion with a punishing morality that was established early in

childhood, enabling a kind of middle way (Ecclesiastes 7:18). In doing so, Ecclesiastes

suggests that the aims of a particular person’s conscience may be quite different from the

purposes of God for the human life, and that these purposes may even include activities that

have typically been thought of as wicked, particularly because of the severity of the superego,

an inheritance of the generations and wider culture, may have provided a structure of

‘rightness’ that is debilitating to human happiness.

One of the most trenchant critiques of Freud is that he was an ethical hedonist who

thought that people should simply ‘‘indulge our sexual desires without any restraints, risks,

or price’’ (Bettleheim 1982). However, ‘‘in summing up the purpose of psychoanalysis

1924/1961; Phillips 1994). One of the most powerful insights that Freud1924/1961). For religious persons,cultural repression of the instincts’’ this(1924/1961) calls ‘‘moral masochism,’’…or by chastisement from the great paternal power of…[ruining] the prospects which open out to1924/1961). Phillips (1994) shows how the superego…forbid the subject to gain the long hoped for advantage from the fortunate1994).…Actually, it seems to be the other way about. The first instinctual renunciation is1924/). A child whose aggression is not tolerated, whether by religious institutions or by the2004). Therefore, when Qohelet…

Freud wrote ‘Where id was, there should ego be,’’’ by which he meant that ‘‘the task

of psychoanalysis is thus to allow the I to make additional inroads into the vast realm of the

it [or id], and to help the I [or ego] gain ascendancy particularly over those aspects of the it

which can disturb the person’s well-being’’ (Freud 1933a/

1965; Bettleheim 1982). He used

J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116 113

123

the metaphor of draining a large inlet of the sea, an activity that demanded a great amount

of human energy but ‘‘remained a precarious achievement, because the reclaimed land has

to be continually protected against renewed flooding’’ (Freud 1933a/

1982). Freud was aware that the satisfaction of instinctual pleasure could also lead to

‘‘danger’’ and ‘‘injuriousness’’ and could be ‘‘responsible, in certain circumstances, for the

useless waste of a large quota of energy which might have been employed for the

improvement of the human lot’’ (Freud

aspect of Freud’s thought, and it is the foundation of his aesthetics and a significant

part of what he considered to be the ethical and educational purposes of psychoanalysis

(Freud 1933a/

one that could easily be turned to serve the status quo, or simply lead to a person’s

unhappiness. For one thing, he was concerned that psychoanalysis be able to critique the

value of the ‘‘established order or society’’ (Freud

he understood that the instincts could only be said to be under the influence of the ego ‘‘on

the average or ‘ideally,’’’ and that the interference could only come at some cost to the

happiness of the person (Freud 1923/

Freud describes the role of the ‘‘ego,’’ in terms which echo Plato’s ancient metaphor, as

a ‘‘man on horseback,’’ and Freud describes how the ego can often be led by the id even

though it is unaware of this process happening (Freud 1923/

balancing act, and it is a balance that is struck, for the most part, on an unconscious level.

One of the problems for interpreting Freud has been that he placed such agentic activity

under the umbrella of an ego that was operating consciously only part of the time (Lear

1965; Bettleheim1933b/1961, p. 28). Sublimation is an understudied1965; Gay 1992). However, Freud was aware that this was a difficult process,1933b/1961, p. 186). At the same time,1960, p. 19).1960). Such a process is a

2005

negotiation it was brokering between parts of the self (Freud 1923/

blesses such a balancing act with a theological validation, he is allowing the self to take

credit for the incredibly complex activities of psychic self-management (Ecclesiastes 7:18).

The ability to ‘‘take hold’’ of both ‘‘righteousness’’ and ‘‘wickedness’’ at the same time

would be so paradoxical as to be logically inconceivable, were it not for the fact that the

self, if we take Freud’s model as indicative of any truth about human nature, is doing this

very thing continually. The psychoanalytic process, through which the various parts of the

self surface from unconsciousness, could thus be understood as a process of acceptance, in

which the conscious awareness of the fact that a person is ‘‘hold[ing]’’ onto both righteousness

and wickedness becomes an avenue for a fresh spiritual exploration and a

willingness to tolerate a more complex sense of one’s own self or selves. As a result, the

text of Ecclesiastes allows for a holding space in which the disallowed parts of the self are

brought together and blessed with theological acknowledgement.

By this point, the reader may object to this interpretation of Ecclesiastes with a Freudian

hermeneutic on several counts. Firstly, the argument may have seemed to leap too easily

across the historical distance that bridges the gap between the twenty-first century and the

third century. In response to the first charge, philosophers who have studied hermeneutics

have consistently pointed to the necessary engagement with application as a key aspect of

interpretation, drawing into conversation the contemporary claims through which a person

may engage with a historical text (Gadamer

psychology may have seemed to hold the ‘truth’ that elaborated the

unanswered questions of the Biblical texts. Freud has been rightly critiqued for his individualistic

view of the human person. As a part of the social movement that separated the

human psyche out as an object for scientific study, Freud’s method has been understood as

leading to the atomization of the human individual corresponding to the atomization of

psychic parts, pieces of the self that desire satisfaction (Kovel

). For the remainder, the ego was itself unaware of what it was doing, the complex1960). When Qohelet1988; Bultmann 1950/1987). Secondly, psychodynamic1981). However, as

114 J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116

123

subsequent psychodynamic theorists such as D. W. Winnicott have elaborated on Freud’s

description of the influence of the parents on the psychic self, these object-relations

thinkers have shown that the psychic development of any person is a fundamentally

interpersonal reality, the result of holding the infant’s possible fragmentation within the

realm of parental care (Ulanov

psychoanalytic thought is a fresh appreciation for the third-century emphasis on enjoyment

as a communal reality, and particularly as one that echoes the original infantile holding

environment, or re-contains the original environment if it was fragmented. As Lee’s

scholarship has consistently shown, enjoyment is embedded in practices of delight, in

interpersonal events of joy that have been ritualized. The atomized individual, well-represented

by Qohelet, is the one who has an imbalanced relationship to her own work, a

deep anxiety about the significance of his legacy, and is otherwise shown to be separated

from the human community. What the Freudian topographical model shows, in conversation

with Ecclesiastes 7:16–18, is how this self-alienation is reflected in a person who

remains primarily in the realm of the id or the superego. It follows that interpersonal

engagement in the human community, through ritualized practices of joy, can foster the

balancing work of the ego, providing for the sustenance of enjoyment that occurs with a

healthy appreciation of the complexity of ourselves as psychic beings.

2004). One possible consequence of this later revision of

Conclusion

Ecclesiastes provides a key entrance point for those who are concerned with the healing of

persons, especially their capacity to experience enjoyment. Lee (

elaborated the therapeutic and theological significance of joy, how ‘‘gladness in the human

heart redeems that inner space (cf. 5:19), making it and its desires an appropriate vehicle of

moral agency,’’ the self, with its contradictory and competing desires can be transformed

even in the act of its own desiring, even through the enjoyment of life’s simple pleasures.

Pastoral theological reflection thus can conclude that personal satisfaction is not understood

as antagonistic to the public good, but the redemption that occurs through enjoyment

takes place in the midst of both intra-psychic and interpersonal realities, and has consequences

that affect the entire cosmos (Lee

pastoral theological approach to the problematics of enjoyment and also simultaneously a

critique of psychological solutions that do not do justice to the inherently interpersonal

nature of human satisfactions.

In this sense, the self who is more aware of what Kristeva (

and abysses,’’ of what Qohelet might call his own tendencies toward both

‘righteousness’ and ‘wickedness,’ could be seen to reflect a more profound wisdom. As

Kristeva notes, ‘‘one must indeed first be securely grounded in oneself, be cognizant of one’s

wretchedness and one’s glory, to be able to talk about them in a straightforward manner—

without banality or pathos’’ (Kristeva

realizes, along with Qohelet, that all parts of oneself have been good all along, and that indeed,

God will bless the struggle to bring all the fragmented parts of ourselves into awareness and

acceptance, however much they may seem to conflict (Ecclesiastes 7:18).

2005) successfully2005). Ecclesiastes is thus a starting place for a1991) called her own ‘‘incoherences1991). Enjoyment seems more feasible when one

References

Bettleheim, B. (1982).

J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116 115

Freud and man’s soul. New York: Random House.

123

Bultmann, R. (1987). The problem of hermeneutics. In R. A. Johnson & R. Bultmann (Eds.),

faith for the modern era

Capps, D. (1983).

Capps, D. (1994). The soul as the ‘‘coreness’’ of the self. In B. H. Childs & D. W. Waanders (Eds.),

treasure of earthen vessels: Explorations in theological anthropology in honor of James N. Lapsley

Interpreting(pp. 137–157). San Francisco: Collins. (Original work published 1950).Life cycle theory and pastoral care. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.The

(pp. 82–104). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Dussell, E. (1981).

Eerdmans.

Freud, S. (1952).

1902).

Freud, S. (1960).

published 1923).

Freud, S. (1961). The economic problem of masochism. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.).

edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud

Hogarth Press (Original work published 1924).

Freud, S. (1961).

work published 1933b).

Freud, S. (1965).

Norton. (Original work published 1933a).

Freud, S. (1966).

(Original work published 1935).

Gadamer, H.-G. (1988).

Gay, V. P. (1992).

Hiltner, S. (1972).

Koosed, J. L. (2006). (Per)mutations of Qohelet: Reading the body in the book. In C. V. Camp & A. Mein

(Eds.),

Kovel, J. (1981).

Kristeva, J. (1991).

Lear, J. (2005).

Lee, E. P. (2005).

Phillips, A. (1994).

Ulanov, A. B. (2004).

A history of the church in Latin America: Colonialism to liberation. Grand Rapids, MI:On dreams (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work publishedThe ego and the id (J. Riviere, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original workThe standard(Vol. 29, pp. 158–170). London:Civilization and its discontents (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (OriginalNew introductory lectures on psychoanalysis (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York: W. W.Introductory lectures on psychoanalysis (J. Riviere, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.Truth and method. New York: Crossroad.Freud on sublimation: Reconsiderations. Albany: SUNY.Theological dynamics. Nashville: Abingdon Press.Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Studies. New York: T&T Clark.The age of desire: Reflections of a radical psychoanalyst. New York: Pantheon Books.Strangers to ourselves (L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.Freud. London: Routledge.The vitality of enjoyment in Qohelet’s theological rhetoric. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.On flirtation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.The spiritual aspects of clinical work. Einsiedeln: Daimon Verlag.

Author Biography

Philip Browning Helsel

Princeton, NJ. He has published numerous articles in the fields of pastoral theology and psychology of

religion, examining the psychology of ministers involved in death care, chronic pain as a theological

problem, male melancholia, life cycle theory, shame and social phobia, and apophatic theology. He is

currently researching how suffering is related to ministerial identity.

116 J Relig Health (2010) 49:105–116

is a Ph.D. candidate in pastoral theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, in

ORIGINAL PAPER

Enjoyment and Its Discontents: Ecclesiastes in Dialogue

with Freud on the Stewardship of Joy