The church has long struggled with the sexual language in the Song of Songs. Both the rabbis and church fathers primarily interpreted it allegorically rather than wrestling with the sexual exegesis and ethics of the Song. Many within the modern church have rejected an overt allegorical interpretation, but they still apply the Song of Songs to one’s relationship with God or Jesus. Christian exegetes appeal to Eph 5:31–32, where Paul connects the one-flesh union of husband and wife in Gen 2:24 to Christ’s relationship with the church. Jesus is the faithful husband, just like the man in the Song. This view, however, misunderstands Gen 2:24 and Eph 5:31. It incorrectly reads sexuality into the Jesus/husband metaphor. Furthermore, the marriage metaphor between God/Israel and Jesus/church is asexual. Sexualizing the marriage metaphor cannot be supported biblically. Instead, the exegete should take divine absence seriously in the Song of Songs. While God’s name would be expected in Song 2:7 and 3:5, it is intentionally veiled. The narrator (God) speaks in Song 5:1b, yet he is not named. Song 8:6 contains only an homage to the Lord. As John Oswalt argues, God is supra-sexual, and sexuality has nothing to do with “ultimate reality” (Bible among the Myths, 71). Divine absence in the Song of Songs guides the expositor how not to apply the Song of Songs. Furthermore, it informs exegetes how to interpret the God/Israel and Jesus/church metaphors throughout the Bible. The ancient world believed that sex was a way to connect to the divine. The author of the Song, seeking to distance the God of the Bible from such practices, intentionally excluded the Lord’s name from the Song. By associating God/Jesus with marital sex, the interpreter exposes the church to theological error by creating an analogy that God himself does not desire.