Ecclesiastes is often viewed as one of the more difficult or problematic books in the Bible. Nonetheless, there is no shortage of people willing to provide their interpretation of the book. These interpretations can generally be classified based on the interpreter’s approach (historical or philosophical), the book’s theology (orthodox or unorthodox), and its tone (optimistic or pessimistic). T. F. Leong’s book fits in the categories of philosophical, orthodox, and optimistic. It is philosophical, evinced in part by its title, “Our Reason for Being,” as well as the sources drawn upon. It is orthodox, in that the gospel of Jesus is presumed and Ecclesiastes is read as orthodox Christian Scripture from the outset. It is optimistic because it views the teaching of Ecclesiastes as pointing to trust and faithfulness in YHWH. As such, this is an exposition of Ecclesiastes which understands Qoheleth as not just grasping for, but indeed finding meaning.

There are two key differences between this and other Ecclesiastes commentaries. First, out of the book’s four parts, only part 2 is a commentary proper. There is a brief introduction, and then, after the lengthy exposition, two essays—one on the teaching and the other on the interpretation of Ecclesiastes. This means the book has multiple paces across the different parts, but it also slows down at several points within the commentary proper due to the multiple excurses on key or “problem” verses, as well as the footnotes delving into the quirks of the Hebrew.

The second, and more striking, difference between this and other recent commentaries is not so much what it focuses on, but what is not discussed at all. This book has a particular interest in reading philosophically, but this focus clearly betrays a disinterest in issues that might otherwise unlock the book for others. The book is read as “a persuasive speech” (p. 7), each paragraph flowing into the next from the beginning until the end. As a reader interested in structure (see my Seeing What Qohelet Saw: The Structure of Ecclesiastes as Alternating Panels of Observation and Wisdom [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2019]), Leong’s commentary on a largely undifferentiated block of speech occasionally felt like an even longer block of undifferentiated speech. Attention to recent essays and books on the structure of Ecclesiastes would have helped give this reading of Ecclesiastes, and hence this book, more shape. Furthermore, the predominantly philosophical approach reveals a disinterest in situating Ecclesiastes in history and seeking to understand Qoheleth’s illustrative examples according to their potential historical referents. Many recent interpretations of Ecclesiastes have found value in this historical contextualization; for example, George Athas, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, SGBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020).

Perhaps the apparent disinterest in structure and history can be explained by the book’s more philosophical bent, but it may also be a result of this being in part a reworking of a twenty-year-old master’s thesis and an expansion of a chapter from a partner volume, Our Reason for Hope (Createspace, 2018). The majority of conversation partners are hence older volumes, and much recent scholarship on Ecclesiastes does not seem to have made much of an impact. This strikes me as a perennial challenge when reviving and expanding upon older work rather than starting completely from scratch.

I appreciate many of the little asides, such as the contextual reading of הכל not as broadly “everything” but specifically “both of these” (pp. 149–50). The reading of יתרון as a financial metaphor, one’s “fiscal gain” (p. 18, cf. p. 58), is also an insightful way of describing Qoheleth’s way of adjudicating meaning in this world. These are just two of myriad examples that demonstrate a clear desire to dig into the text to understand as well as apply the teaching of Ecclesiastes.

There is a clear desire to make this book approachable for non-Hebraists, so there is no Hebrew text and only rarely is transliteration provided. This makes it occasionally a little unhelpful where there is a discussion on “the word translated as x” without identifying the word. I am not sure of the thinking behind this choice; non-Hebraists will likely skip these footnotes dealing with more intricate questions of the Hebrew text, while those with Hebrew proficiency will have to refer back to the Hebrew text to confirm that the word is indeed what they guess it is.

Such minor quibbles aside, this book is a joyful reading of Ecclesiastes from a philosophical, evangelical, optimistic perspective. The focus on the justice of God, the goodness of work, enjoying the fruit of one’s labor, and the coherence of this creation despite the presence of evil, will be an encouragement to readers who share Leong’s presuppositions. There will, of course, remain many who read this book otherwise, but they too will surely appreciate the challenges and thoughtful readings presented in this book.