What do you think?
Rate this book
The New International Commentary on the Old Testament
The Book of Ecclesiastes (New International Commentary on the Old Testament
Ecclesiastes is one of the most fascinating -- and hauntingly familiar -- books of the Old Testament. The sentiments of the main speaker of the book, a person given the name Qohelet, sound incredibly modern. Expressing the uncertainty and anxieties of our own age, he is driven by the question, "Where can we find meaning in the world?"
But while Qohelet's question resonates with readers today, his answer is shocking. "Meaningless," says Qohelet, "everything is meaningless." How does this pessimistic perspective fit into the rest of biblical revelation? In this commentary Tremper Longman III addresses this question by taking a canonical-Christocentric approach to the meaning of Ecclesiastes.
Longman first provides an extensive introduction to Ecclesiastes, exploring such background matters as authorship, language, genre, structure, literary style, and the book's theological message. He argues that the author of Ecclesiastes is not Solomon, as has been traditionally thought, but a writer who adopts a Solomonic persona. In the verse-by-verse commentary that follows, Longman helps clarify the confusing, sometimes contradictory message of Ecclesiastes by showing that the book should be divided into three sections -- a prologue (1:1-11), Qohelet's autobiographical speech (1:12-12:7), and an epilogue (12:8-14) -- and that the frame narrative provided by prologue and epilogue is the key to understanding the message of the book as a whole.
But while Qohelet's question resonates with readers today, his answer is shocking. "Meaningless," says Qohelet, "everything is meaningless." How does this pessimistic perspective fit into the rest of biblical revelation? In this commentary Tremper Longman III addresses this question by taking a canonical-Christocentric approach to the meaning of Ecclesiastes.
Longman first provides an extensive introduction to Ecclesiastes, exploring such background matters as authorship, language, genre, structure, literary style, and the book's theological message. He argues that the author of Ecclesiastes is not Solomon, as has been traditionally thought, but a writer who adopts a Solomonic persona. In the verse-by-verse commentary that follows, Longman helps clarify the confusing, sometimes contradictory message of Ecclesiastes by showing that the book should be divided into three sections -- a prologue (1:1-11), Qohelet's autobiographical speech (1:12-12:7), and an epilogue (12:8-14) -- and that the frame narrative provided by prologue and epilogue is the key to understanding the message of the book as a whole.
322 pages, Hardcover
First published November 7, 1997
32 people are currently reading
369 people want to read
About the author
Tremper Longman III
198 books128 followersTremper Longman III (PhD, Yale University) is the Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. Before coming to Westmont, he taught at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia for eighteen years. He has authored or coauthored numerous books, including An Introduction to the Old Testament, How to Read Proverbs, and commentaries on Daniel, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Jeremiah and Lamentations, and Song of Songs.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
April 25, 2014
I have owned a few volumes in the New International Commentary series over the years, and Longman’s The Book Of Ecclesiastes lived up to the expectations set by my prior exposure. Like other contributions to the NIC, this commentary offers top-notch, honest, in-depth, modern, historical-critical examination of the biblical text from an evangelical perspective.
I have never actually read through an entire commentary and normally would have no desire to do so, but since Longman’s Ecclesiastes clocks in at under 300 pages (with extensive technical footnotes, most of which I skipped), I read it cover to cover. Ecclesiastes is a difficult book I have been wanting to seriously study of late, and I knew that any contributor to the NIC series would offer robust commentary referencing a number of key perspectives and not simply their own.
***
The difficulty of Ecclesiastes for the orthodox commentator has always lain in the apparent claims and specific teachings of its author (I will refer to him as The Preacher, though Longman does not prefer this descriptor). Is this actually the voice of Solomon we are hearing here in this book? And what are we to do with the many — at least seemingly — unorthodox teachings presented? I will briefly go over Longman’s main ideas concerning the text.
While evangelical commentators seeking to hold to an orthodox interpretation often forcibly maintain Solomonic authorship and go to great lengths to turn The Preacher’s statements into something resembling orthodoxy, Longman has an interesting way of dealing with this. Like many modern scholars, Longman rejects Solomonic authorship rather quickly, as well as the need to demand orthodoxy from the often uncomfortable teachings of the text, but then argues that this is the entire point of the book. The book should be considered a “framed narrative,” a set of odd teachings compiled by a secondary source who offers us an introduction and conclusion calling us to take these sorts of ideas with a grain of salt.
From the start, it is obvious to all who read Ecclesiastes that we are dealing with a man who is deeply dissatisfied with life. Why specifically is The Preacher dissatisfied? According to Longman, it is because he finds the whole of life itself to be meaningless — human existence has no purpose, no metanarrative, no teleology. The Preacher claims to have searched into “the sum of life” extensively, finding nothing save frustration in all areas (work, wealth, physical pleasure, etc.). If there is actually meaning to our existence, The Preacher has decided it is hidden from us by God, who is little more than a mythological Fate, a being who doles out happiness, success, and justice whimsically and infrequently.
The Preacher is also obsessively frustrated with his lack of knowledge of the future. For him life is random, unpredictable, and unfair. For him, all that awaits mankind with any certainty is death, which most likely is the terminal point of the individual — there is probably no life hereafter that awaits any of us. And death is truly the “great equalizer,” to the extent that the pursuit of wisdom and righteousness — not just wealth and achievements — is generally a worthless exercise in the end. All that we can hope for is to momentarily enjoy things like work, food, drink, and family as a kind of "carpe diem" — if we are one of the lucky few for whom a distant and capricious God allows such.
On Longman’s view, the author of Ecclesiastes is not a world-weary old Solomon doling out wisdom in the form of regret, he is a nihilistic philosophical skeptic. The Preacher is not simply saying “the world does not satisfy” (and he is certainly not further saying “God alone satisfies”); he is little more than a bitter, self-centered, self-absorbed old man railing against the heavens, and no one we should emulate — much of his advice being on par with that of the friends of Job. Even the seemingly encouraging and oft-quoted passages such as there being a “time for everything” and “eternity having been placed in men’s hearts” are little more than a foil for the man’s frustration — we cannot actually know the proper time for anything, and neither will our perhaps God-given desire to know eternal truths ever be satisfied. In the end, “meaningless, meaningless, everything is meaningless.”
***
Longman’s is an interesting approach, and it does deal more honestly with the unorthodox teachings of The Preacher than many are willing to do while still maintaining an evangelical view of scripture and a place for Ecclesiastes in the canon. I am inclined toward non-Solomonic authorship myself, and this does deal with the issue quite well, but I will need to think a bit more about the frame-narrative approach before I can come to a personal conclusion.
I did find myself agreeing with Longman quite a bit overall, and he confirmed and elucidated a number of things for me, including my suspicion that Ecclesiastes is often read with a bit too kind an eye and applied in ways the author did not intend. “Existential dysphoria” is typically the main point pulled from Ecclesiastes by teachers, often used as an evangelistic springboard: “Look, a man like Solomon — wiser and wealthier and more successful than any of us will ever be — was deeply dissatisfied by the things of the world, to the point of calling them ‘meaningless.’ Who among us dares think we can do better?” It’s a fair point and a good one, and this is indeed part of The Preacher’s teaching, but emotional dissatisfaction barely scratches the surface of what The Preacher actually says. He is much, much more skeptical and nihilistic than this. Further, most of his dissatisfaction is death-related and hinges on his unorthodox view of the afterlife (or lack thereof).
I do feel that Longman — as most of us who are addicted to mulling things over have a tendency to do — reads his understanding of the main ideas a bit too deeply into certain areas of the text. I personally would leave more breathing room for The Preacher to be more orthodox in certain areas — though perhaps not much. Overall I feel that Longman is correct: this is likely not the voice of Solomon, and much of what this man says is simple unorthodoxy and ought to be treated as such.
While aspects of this interpretation may trouble some, I believe this to be a more faithful exegesis of the text than other options. But even those who disagree with Longman’s conclusions will no doubt find much of this commentary helpful and enlightening, and it belongs on the shelf of anyone looking to seriously study the book of Ecclesiastes.
I have never actually read through an entire commentary and normally would have no desire to do so, but since Longman’s Ecclesiastes clocks in at under 300 pages (with extensive technical footnotes, most of which I skipped), I read it cover to cover. Ecclesiastes is a difficult book I have been wanting to seriously study of late, and I knew that any contributor to the NIC series would offer robust commentary referencing a number of key perspectives and not simply their own.
***
The difficulty of Ecclesiastes for the orthodox commentator has always lain in the apparent claims and specific teachings of its author (I will refer to him as The Preacher, though Longman does not prefer this descriptor). Is this actually the voice of Solomon we are hearing here in this book? And what are we to do with the many — at least seemingly — unorthodox teachings presented? I will briefly go over Longman’s main ideas concerning the text.
While evangelical commentators seeking to hold to an orthodox interpretation often forcibly maintain Solomonic authorship and go to great lengths to turn The Preacher’s statements into something resembling orthodoxy, Longman has an interesting way of dealing with this. Like many modern scholars, Longman rejects Solomonic authorship rather quickly, as well as the need to demand orthodoxy from the often uncomfortable teachings of the text, but then argues that this is the entire point of the book. The book should be considered a “framed narrative,” a set of odd teachings compiled by a secondary source who offers us an introduction and conclusion calling us to take these sorts of ideas with a grain of salt.
From the start, it is obvious to all who read Ecclesiastes that we are dealing with a man who is deeply dissatisfied with life. Why specifically is The Preacher dissatisfied? According to Longman, it is because he finds the whole of life itself to be meaningless — human existence has no purpose, no metanarrative, no teleology. The Preacher claims to have searched into “the sum of life” extensively, finding nothing save frustration in all areas (work, wealth, physical pleasure, etc.). If there is actually meaning to our existence, The Preacher has decided it is hidden from us by God, who is little more than a mythological Fate, a being who doles out happiness, success, and justice whimsically and infrequently.
The Preacher is also obsessively frustrated with his lack of knowledge of the future. For him life is random, unpredictable, and unfair. For him, all that awaits mankind with any certainty is death, which most likely is the terminal point of the individual — there is probably no life hereafter that awaits any of us. And death is truly the “great equalizer,” to the extent that the pursuit of wisdom and righteousness — not just wealth and achievements — is generally a worthless exercise in the end. All that we can hope for is to momentarily enjoy things like work, food, drink, and family as a kind of "carpe diem" — if we are one of the lucky few for whom a distant and capricious God allows such.
On Longman’s view, the author of Ecclesiastes is not a world-weary old Solomon doling out wisdom in the form of regret, he is a nihilistic philosophical skeptic. The Preacher is not simply saying “the world does not satisfy” (and he is certainly not further saying “God alone satisfies”); he is little more than a bitter, self-centered, self-absorbed old man railing against the heavens, and no one we should emulate — much of his advice being on par with that of the friends of Job. Even the seemingly encouraging and oft-quoted passages such as there being a “time for everything” and “eternity having been placed in men’s hearts” are little more than a foil for the man’s frustration — we cannot actually know the proper time for anything, and neither will our perhaps God-given desire to know eternal truths ever be satisfied. In the end, “meaningless, meaningless, everything is meaningless.”
***
Longman’s is an interesting approach, and it does deal more honestly with the unorthodox teachings of The Preacher than many are willing to do while still maintaining an evangelical view of scripture and a place for Ecclesiastes in the canon. I am inclined toward non-Solomonic authorship myself, and this does deal with the issue quite well, but I will need to think a bit more about the frame-narrative approach before I can come to a personal conclusion.
I did find myself agreeing with Longman quite a bit overall, and he confirmed and elucidated a number of things for me, including my suspicion that Ecclesiastes is often read with a bit too kind an eye and applied in ways the author did not intend. “Existential dysphoria” is typically the main point pulled from Ecclesiastes by teachers, often used as an evangelistic springboard: “Look, a man like Solomon — wiser and wealthier and more successful than any of us will ever be — was deeply dissatisfied by the things of the world, to the point of calling them ‘meaningless.’ Who among us dares think we can do better?” It’s a fair point and a good one, and this is indeed part of The Preacher’s teaching, but emotional dissatisfaction barely scratches the surface of what The Preacher actually says. He is much, much more skeptical and nihilistic than this. Further, most of his dissatisfaction is death-related and hinges on his unorthodox view of the afterlife (or lack thereof).
I do feel that Longman — as most of us who are addicted to mulling things over have a tendency to do — reads his understanding of the main ideas a bit too deeply into certain areas of the text. I personally would leave more breathing room for The Preacher to be more orthodox in certain areas — though perhaps not much. Overall I feel that Longman is correct: this is likely not the voice of Solomon, and much of what this man says is simple unorthodoxy and ought to be treated as such.
While aspects of this interpretation may trouble some, I believe this to be a more faithful exegesis of the text than other options. But even those who disagree with Longman’s conclusions will no doubt find much of this commentary helpful and enlightening, and it belongs on the shelf of anyone looking to seriously study the book of Ecclesiastes.
December 30, 2023
Of the three Ecclesiastes commentaries I selected to read through for my directed study, this is the strongest. Longman takes the view that Qohelet is a "confused wise man" who is skeptical of everything and struggles to reconcile OT orthodoxy with real life. Although I'm still not sure if I completely agree with him, I think he makes his case very well. I do have a few criticisms:
I think Longman is far too restrictive in his interpretation of הבל as "meaningless." It wouldn't hurt his case to admit of the word's multiple uses throughout the book.
I'm not sure about his relation of Qohelet's monologue to the genre of fictional akkadian autobiography with a didactic ending. There does seem to be a shift around chapter 6, after which Qohelet offers much more didactic material, but the ongoing presence of observations and reflections interspersed makes me skeptical.
While Longman does well in his introduction and conclusion to show how the book as a whole points to Christ, it's hard to see how a preacher might point to Christ from any particular passage. I felt similarly about Longman's Song of Songs commentary: He uncovers the literal meaning of the text quite well, but offers very little direction for making application.
Finally, a non-critical point: Longman is not afraid of polemics here! There are multiple places where he brings up irrelevant alternate interpretations simply to remark on how untenable they are. Perhaps my favorite example is when he took Whybray to task for asserting the universal agreement among commentators that 12:8-14 are written by a different hand. Though Longman actually agrees about the second hand, he notes that Whybray's comment about universal agreement "exemplifies critical myopeia and scholarly chauvinism," since it shows he clearly didn't interact with any conservative works! This aspect certainly kept the book interesting!
All in all, this was a worthwhile read.
I think Longman is far too restrictive in his interpretation of הבל as "meaningless." It wouldn't hurt his case to admit of the word's multiple uses throughout the book.
I'm not sure about his relation of Qohelet's monologue to the genre of fictional akkadian autobiography with a didactic ending. There does seem to be a shift around chapter 6, after which Qohelet offers much more didactic material, but the ongoing presence of observations and reflections interspersed makes me skeptical.
While Longman does well in his introduction and conclusion to show how the book as a whole points to Christ, it's hard to see how a preacher might point to Christ from any particular passage. I felt similarly about Longman's Song of Songs commentary: He uncovers the literal meaning of the text quite well, but offers very little direction for making application.
Finally, a non-critical point: Longman is not afraid of polemics here! There are multiple places where he brings up irrelevant alternate interpretations simply to remark on how untenable they are. Perhaps my favorite example is when he took Whybray to task for asserting the universal agreement among commentators that 12:8-14 are written by a different hand. Though Longman actually agrees about the second hand, he notes that Whybray's comment about universal agreement "exemplifies critical myopeia and scholarly chauvinism," since it shows he clearly didn't interact with any conservative works! This aspect certainly kept the book interesting!
All in all, this was a worthwhile read.
February 3, 2021
I think anyone predisposed to a fairly positive/enthusiastic view of Qohelet's orthodoxy must reckon with Longman's commentary. It's very nicely produced and his arguments are forceful, even if they aren't ultimately convincing.
September 27, 2018
Metaphysical strangeness, caveat poetry.
November 13, 2021
I like Longman for how different he is in general, even if he's fuzzy on the edges.
This commentary was not too helpful sadly. At times even simplistic answers and boring!
Was really hoping to get more out of it, but put it back on the shelf fairly quickly, and when took it off it, it rarely helped. His book on Wisdom is so much more helpful on the whole.
This commentary was not too helpful sadly. At times even simplistic answers and boring!
Was really hoping to get more out of it, but put it back on the shelf fairly quickly, and when took it off it, it rarely helped. His book on Wisdom is so much more helpful on the whole.
July 17, 2024
A very useful commentary on Ecclesiastes. Includes a translation with detailed lexical and grammatical notes. The main content of the commentary is exposition based on the lexical and grammatical findings.
The commentary takes the position that Ecclesiastes or Qohelet (the Preacher) is structured with a framing story. Based on the text itself, this seems a solid interpretive choice. The framing story refers to The Preacher in the third person as opposed to the bulk of the text that is first person.
Longman takes the bulk of the Ecclesiastes as unorthodox. This dismisses most of it as wrong and false. Although it is clear from the text itself that the Preacher is considering only what is ‘under the sun.’ I wouldn’t go quite so far in dismissing the bulk of the ideas in ‘The Preacher’ and false and unorthodox. Although it is true that some interpretive gymnastics have been attempted in the past to wedge Ecclesiastes into orthodoxy.
Taking the assuming there is a God, but considering only what we experience, Ecclesiastes is wisdom literature of the highest order. It concedes nothing to works like the Dao de Jing, a work that is roughly contemporary. Life is filled with paradox. Life is filled with things we can’t make sense of. Justice does not always rule. In this context, it makes a lot of sense to enjoy the rhythms of daily life. Enjoy meals with your friends and family, enjoy life with your wife. Enjoy youth while you have it. Always keeping in mind that God is there and our actions have consequences. Of course Ecclesiastes is not the whole story, we don’t get that until we reach the gospels.
In short, an excellent and helpful commentary on Ecclesiastes but I think he pushes the contrast between the framing story and the bulk of the text too far. He tries too hard to resolve the paradoxes contained therein and doesn’t give due weight to the findings of the Preacher. Ecclesiastes, were is a freestanding text and not part of the Biblical corpus, would be widely seen, as it should, as one of the greatest wisdom text ever produced.
The commentary takes the position that Ecclesiastes or Qohelet (the Preacher) is structured with a framing story. Based on the text itself, this seems a solid interpretive choice. The framing story refers to The Preacher in the third person as opposed to the bulk of the text that is first person.
Longman takes the bulk of the Ecclesiastes as unorthodox. This dismisses most of it as wrong and false. Although it is clear from the text itself that the Preacher is considering only what is ‘under the sun.’ I wouldn’t go quite so far in dismissing the bulk of the ideas in ‘The Preacher’ and false and unorthodox. Although it is true that some interpretive gymnastics have been attempted in the past to wedge Ecclesiastes into orthodoxy.
Taking the assuming there is a God, but considering only what we experience, Ecclesiastes is wisdom literature of the highest order. It concedes nothing to works like the Dao de Jing, a work that is roughly contemporary. Life is filled with paradox. Life is filled with things we can’t make sense of. Justice does not always rule. In this context, it makes a lot of sense to enjoy the rhythms of daily life. Enjoy meals with your friends and family, enjoy life with your wife. Enjoy youth while you have it. Always keeping in mind that God is there and our actions have consequences. Of course Ecclesiastes is not the whole story, we don’t get that until we reach the gospels.
In short, an excellent and helpful commentary on Ecclesiastes but I think he pushes the contrast between the framing story and the bulk of the text too far. He tries too hard to resolve the paradoxes contained therein and doesn’t give due weight to the findings of the Preacher. Ecclesiastes, were is a freestanding text and not part of the Biblical corpus, would be widely seen, as it should, as one of the greatest wisdom text ever produced.
May 19, 2018
I was very disappointed by this commentary. Longman’s approach to authorship does not square with inerrancy. He is forced to explain away the positive portions of Ecclesiastes in order to read it in a totally cynical light.
On a positive note, this book forced me to grapple with the real difficulties one faces when expositing Ecclesiastes, including the very negative-sounding passages that don’t seem at first glance to agree with the rest of Scripture. His logic is clear, his Hebrew excellent, and his writing strong—all of which makes this a valuable resource to own.
However, I disagree very strongly with many of his interpretations.
On a positive note, this book forced me to grapple with the real difficulties one faces when expositing Ecclesiastes, including the very negative-sounding passages that don’t seem at first glance to agree with the rest of Scripture. His logic is clear, his Hebrew excellent, and his writing strong—all of which makes this a valuable resource to own.
However, I disagree very strongly with many of his interpretations.
April 29, 2020
Always love the NICOT, and Longman, so this was expectedly excellent. A lot of people seem to have downvoted because they disagree with Longman on authorship, but I think that's a bit silly. Even if you disagree with Longman, his scholarship is brilliant here and he shines light on the text. Read in conjunction with Roland Murphey's top-notch work in the Word Biblical Commentary, you can come to understand both the old and modern interpretations of the text, and seek the illumination of the Holy Spirit in your reading. I think many will be blessed by this resource. Highly recommend.
April 21, 2023
A great thorough treatment of the text, that definitely proved helpful when going through the tensions of Ecclesiastes, in rich dialogue with other interpreters.
I’d highly recommend this, alongside Pete Enns’ Two Horizons’ commentary on Ecclesiastes, and Julie Ann Duncan’s contribution to the Abingdon Old Testament Commentary series.
All these together offer a stunning view of this wonderful ancient book of Wisdom that still goads the modern mind.
I’d highly recommend this, alongside Pete Enns’ Two Horizons’ commentary on Ecclesiastes, and Julie Ann Duncan’s contribution to the Abingdon Old Testament Commentary series.
All these together offer a stunning view of this wonderful ancient book of Wisdom that still goads the modern mind.
August 22, 2022
Longman does a fantastic job at presenting various different viewpoints of interpretation of the text, while asserting his own conclusions and findings. One needs to be aware when going to this book for exegetical help that knowledge of Biblical Hebrew (which I lack to any significant degree) would be immensely helpful in following Longman's conclusions and analyses.
October 2, 2018
Longman's contribution to NICOT series is solid. Very helpful on the exegetical side of things.
February 2, 2019
I enjoy reading this book that's why I rate it 5 star.
September 16, 2020
A good introduction as to how I am most convinced to read Ecclesiastes.
September 30, 2020
总体挺好的，特别学术的一本
Want to read
January 8, 2026A version of this here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
December 29, 2020
read the niv version
August 5, 2016
Longman's commentary is a great resource in studying the unusual book of Ecclesiastes. He includes the views of others along with his own to provide the reader with a rich understanding of the text. Detailed explanation is given for the English word he chooses when rendering the Hebrew. In studying Ecclesiastes I also used Michael Eaton's commentary from the Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. I found that when Longman and Eaton differed it was Longman's view and argument that were more persuasive. This would be the first resource I would use when studying Ecclesiastes.
This review is of the Logos electronic version of the book.
This review is of the Logos electronic version of the book.
January 2, 2013
Longman can be rightly regarded the standard commentary against which all others will be measured. He does view the message as negative, but he is convincing as he delineates it. The negativity is not a knock on the commentary, but does require skill in reading and understanding the message of Ecclesiastes. I think this commentary will prove to be a trusted friend as you do that.
June 18, 2017
Longman holds to the view that Qoheleth is a pessimist (and an unorthodox one at that). He rescues the book from being a canonical anomaly by focusing on the narrative frame as the corrective to Qoheleth's pessemism. A sort of scholarly take on the old Schofield interpretation.
June 30, 2013
A modern approach to the book. It is perhaps (apart from Bartholemew's commentary) the best of the recent crop on this difficult to understand book. Especially valuable are the summaries of the various linguistic, textual and exegetical difficulties. It's written in a clear, simple style.
March 7, 2013
Takes a late, non-Solomonic view on the authorship of Ecclesiastes. That's not my position. But this is a good scholarly, well-respected work.
December 23, 2014
Frequently I find myself unable to agree with Longman's conclusions. The main thesis of this book is no different. It is however, generally a good resource.
April 16, 2019
Frankly, this book seems to be more focused on making or maintaining Longman's academic reputation than on what God has to say to His church through Ecclesiastes.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews