**Premise #1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sex is for procreation** Peter Turner has an excellent [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5316/was-onan-really-struck-dead-by-god-for-masturbating) to the question on Onan. In it, he suggests that Onan really was misusing sex, and that angers God. When I also consider priestly celibacy and the general nature of Roman teaching on contraception, masturbation, and other regulations around sex, it seems like the Roman church really wants to suggest that the beauty of sex is when it furthers the end of "being fruitful and multiply"ing. I'm probably not doing it justice, but it seems like procreation is the point of sex. Now, my question then, could be *mis*-read as antagonstic, but its not. I really do want to understand how these go together. Here's my conundrum - **Premise #2: The canonical *Song of Solomon* celebrates the passion of sex** The Song of Solomon clearly celebrates a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who dearly love each other. I know that some have historically tried to say that the Song of Solomon is Christ's love for his church, but I can't buy that with verses like these: >SOS 5:3 I have taken off my robe— must I put it on again? I have washed my feet— must I soil them again? 4 My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him. 5 I arose to open for my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles of the bolt. I find it very hard to read that and not think that is physical. (We're all grownups here, right?) The book goes on to warn us not to "arouse or awaken love, until it so desires, because love is as strong as death." (Its a common refrain). Clearly here the focus is on that passion. But, that passion is seemingly celebrated, and not necessarily because of the kids that result. It may be dangerous, like fire, but the two lovers aren't saying its a bad thing at all. **Question: How do these fit together?** So, the question in all sincerity is this - How do Romans read the Song of Solomon? How is it reconciled with the seeming Papal preference for purely procreative reproduction? Or, am I misreading Catholics here - maybe they're not nearly as stuffy as people make them out to be? The [Puritans were no prudes either](http://www.challies.com/quotes/the-puritans-and-sex) , and it would be nice to understand if a Roman could endorse "the joy of (marital) sex."

Has any Catholic exegete ever noted the parallel between St. Mary Magdalene's meeting Jesus in a garden (cf. her mistaking Him as a gardener in Jn. 20:15 ) with the garden of Solomon's Song of Songs? Or where Jesus is like the Bridegroom of Song of Songs and St. Mary Magdalene like the Bride?

There are lots of ancient commentaries on the book, most notably Origen's . However these seem to be chiefly interested in spiritual content (questions like what horses bridles/lilies may represent), I am unaware of any that concern themselves with the story of the book before the 12th century. By story of the book I mean, things like: who is saying each line, what the scene they are in is, how the narrative has developed from previous scenes. It seems unlikely to me that Christians (and Jews) would read the book for well over a millennia before anyone thought to ask questions about the narrative of the book.

I have met Muslims and interacted with them directly and indirectly about their brief that the Islamic prophet Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. One such claim is centred on the Song of Solomon 5:16. The following is how Muslims usually reason in support of their view: In Song of Solomon 5:16 the original text reads: חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם. The original Hebrew word in the verse mentioning the name Muhammad is “מחמד”. [These letters in English are MHMD and in Arabic are محمد (Muhammad)]. But, does the above understanding base on exegesis or eisegesis?

"May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine. Your oils have a pleasing fragrance, Your name is like purified oil; Therefore the maidens love you. Draw me after you and let us run together! The king has brought me into his chambers" (Song 1:1-4). "Your two breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle Which feed among the lilies. Until the cool of the day" (Song 4:5). Pornography: sexually explicit videos, photographs, writings, or the like, whose purpose is to elicit sexual arousal. Why is Song of Songs not considered pornography?

For today's average Christian, it is commonplace to read Song of Solomon as a prophetic picture of Christ, as the Bridegroom, and the Church, as the Bride. But where did this view have its beginning? Who was the first early writer to interpret the book Song of Solomon as a prophetic picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church, and not only between God the Father and Israel? I've heard that Origen wrote something on that matter, but I couldn't find any reliable source. # Edit I've checked out Ann Matter's *The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity* and R. A. Norris's The Song of Songs: Interpreted by Early Christian and Medieval Commentators and found that Gregory of Elvira and John Cassian were maybe the first ones to systematize this view to the whole book of Songs, while earlier writters had this insight into one verse or another. But I had a hard time finding a further reference to their writings. ---------- Related question: What is the basis for the idea that the Song of Solomon is about the relationship between God and the church?

Can someone explain what the song is all about? I read it and found out that the characters are not husband and wife. I want to understand the context in which the poem is written and a gist of the same.

Someone raised the following argument, claiming that the Bible, in the Song of Solomon, encourages pornography and premarital sex. He had me read some verses from the book, which I've listed below, and told me these verses are the main reason why the Song of Solomon is hardly ever preached in churches today, because of its explicit contents and descriptions. >"Dear brothers, I'm a walled-in virgin still, but my breasts are full— And when my lover sees me, he knows he'll soon be satisfied" (Song of Solomon 8:10). > > "If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me. I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomegranates. His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me" (Song of Songs 8:1-3). He claims these two verses show that the woman being spoken of was not married. Another example: >"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth-- for your love is more delightful than wine. Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the maidens love you! Take me away with you let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. We rejoice and delight in you; we will praise your love more than wine. How right they are to adore you!" (Song of Songs 1:2-4). How should a Christian defend himself against this type of argument? Is there another interpretation of the Song of Solomon which refutes the claim that the Bible is in favor of premarital sex and pornography? If so, what is it? or better still what do these verses really mean?

I am familiar with the interpretation of Song of Solomon which suggests that it is love poetry written by (or at the behest of, or in honour of, or later attributed to) King Solomon and that it is about human romantic love. I recently found out that as early as Origen it has also been interpreted as being about the relationship of God and his people. I am struggling to find out what case was made for this interpretation of Song of Songs. What is the case that song of Solomon is about the relationship between God and the church and who came up with this interpretation?