The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's.
What does this mean?
I. AS TO THE TITLE? "The Song of Songs." It affirms that this song is the most excellent of all songs, the incomparably beautiful song, a song beside which, as one writer says, "all others hide their heads."
II. AS TO THE NAME AFFIXED TO IT? Not that Solomon was the author. For the very title would convict him of egregious vanity. A writer would hardly thus speak of his own productions. But it would be quite lawful that another should so speak; hence the poem might be Solomon's and the title be added on by another writer. But even then we question his authorship of this song. For:
1. If we take the literal interpretation of it, as well nigh all modern competent Bible scholars do, in greater or less degree (cf. Ginsburg, Ewald, Maurer, Stanley, 'Speaker's Commentary,' Hartwell Horne's 'Introduction,' etc.),—then, since it represents Solomon as foiled and frustrated in his endeavours to persuade the maiden Shulamith, whose constancy and fidelity the poem celebrates, to become his bride, it is hardly likely that he would depict himself in such an unlovely light, or in such undignified guise as that in which, in this song, he certainly appears. Or, if we take the most ancient and most common interpretation of the song, the spiritual and allegorical, which affirms that the bride—though there is no bride in the song at all, but only one who is betrothed—represents the Church; and that Solomon, whom this interpretation identifies with "the beloved," is a type of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that the poem is intended to set forth the mutual love of Christ and his Church;—then we say that Solomon is in no sense a fit type of the Lord Jesus Christ, for he was not a man after God's own heart, but very far from it. Moreover, he was not the man to write a spiritual poem of such exalted character. They were "holy men of old" whom the Spirit inspired. But, certainly, Solomon can lay no claim to that character. Then:
3. David and Solomon are both spoken of in such manner as would hardly be likely if Solomon were the writer. (Cf. So Song of Solomon 3:9, Song of Solomon 3:11; Song of Solomon 8:11, Song of Solomon 8:12.) It is the manner of one speaking of them, telling facts concerning them; but it is not as they would. speak themselves.
4. And even if the words, "which is Solomon's," be held to mean that he was the author, such ascription need have no more value than the titles of many of the psalms, which are allowed to be of no authority.
5. But we read the words as "concerning Solomon." True, the poem literally understood has nothing to say in his favour; for what was there to say? But if he be a type at all, and we think he is, it is of that greedy, selfish, soul-corrupting world, which would draw away the faithful from the pure love of God, and seek to replace that pure love by its own. Shulamith loved and was beloved. Solomon tried by all manner of enticements to draw her from that love. But he utterly fails. So that the poem is a parable of the faithful soul and its constancy to its true Lord. By means of a beautiful earthly story, the yet more beautiful fidelity of the soul truly affianced to God is set forth—a fidelity tried so as by fire, and therefore more precious than all gold (cf. 1 Peter 1:6, 1 Peter 1:7), which might be taken as a text for the interpretation of very much in this book. It was written, probably, near the age of Solomon, but we think subsequently; and by some Israelite belonging to the northern tribes; and from the absence of all praise of Solomon, and the conduct it ascribes to him, the writer was probably hostile to him, perhaps one of those who in Rehoboam's day raised the cry of "To your tents, O Israel!" and broke away from the kingdom of Judah altogether. The poem is sensuous, but not sensual, unless it be where Solomon is to be understood as speaking, when such speech would be in character. It is Oriental, of course, and not to be interpreted by those far different canons of taste which prevail in our more Northern and Western lands. And it is not a mere story of a maiden's constancy. Were it so, however beautiful (and for remarks on its beauty cf. Isaac Taylor's 'Spirit of the Hebrew Poetry'), still it would not, we think, have found a place amongst the sacred writings. We hold it to be an allegory or parable of the soul's true love to God, and, so read, it is like the rest of Holy Scripture, "profitable for doctrine, for reproof," etc. He who has no love of God in his heart, or even little, will never understand it, and had better leave it alone. But to the pure, devout, and Christ-loving heart the vision of him who is for them the "altogether lovely" is seen everywhere in it, and delighted in wherever seen. That vision may we see!—S.C.