ANSWER: For many, many reasons, no! Since it is a fact that marriage neither begins nor ends with the initiation or cessation of sexual activity, the relationship suggested by the querist remains an unscriptural marriage; that a man and woman are living in a marriage relationship, whether sex is involved or not! Paul tells us that in a marriage relationship (I Corinthians 7:1-5) there is to be sexual obligation one to the other. The querist’s suggestion to the contrary is, ‘continue the marriage relationship exactly as before, but ignore the sexual obligation and be pleasing to God!’ Clearly, there has been an unapproved, unscriptural joining together of two people in which God had no part! It does not follow then, that man is not permitted to put asunder that which God hath joined together (Matthew 19:6), while, at the same time, he, as suggested, is permitted to join together (or perpetuate) that in which God has no part, simply by saying, “just stop having sex!” The inspired apostle said in I Corinthians 7:10-12, “Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband!” He did not say, ‘Let her enter into and/or remain in a sex-free marriage!” This ungodly marriage remains a marriage irrespective of sexual activity and, additionally, both participants remain in sin until the relationship is dissolved!! Cessation of sex is not equal to “remaining unmarried,” nor to dissolution necessary to comply with the term!

Of those who hold that it is scriptural to remain in such a relationship, how many would agree that upon studying with an alien sinner in the same situation, that in addition to recommending dissolution accompanied with the scriptural options of returning to the first mate or remaining single, that a another option now be suggested, i.e., “we can baptize you into Christ and you can remain married, just stop having sex.” Sounds ridiculous, but what is the difference? I personally know of an elderly Christian man and woman who wanted to marry, but were told that such was improper, because the woman involved divorced for reasons other than fornication. They accepted the truth and are now faithfully serving God. It is doubtful that, because of age, that sex would have played a part in their proposed marriage under normal circumstances. Were we wrong in not providing the proposed option, i.e., “sure, you can get married, since you’re too old to have sex?” “In fact, we’ll have our preacher perform the ceremony right here in the building!” Why not tell our elderly folks who are hurting for companionship to go out and marry any “moral” man you want (regardless of prior divorces and relationships), “as long as it’s solely for companionship and no sex is involved!”

We all know of very notable, capable, faithful Gospel preachers whose wives have long-since forsaken them. Would the same rules apply to them? Would it be acceptable if one of these great men suddenly announced he was going to get married, but he wasn’t going to engage in sex with his new bride. Would we be consistent in our suggestions? Who would believe it? How many not in the church would believe it? How many would be wondering, “Will he and his new bride really abstain?” How many elders would be inviting him to speak? How many lectureships would he be invited to speak on? Would it be different for these! If so, why?

In relationships as suggested by the querist, it is very often true that neighbors, friends, and relatives know the “facts” involved with prior marriages, but do not know that the affected couple is abstaining from sex. First of all, there is in these situations an element of sinful hypocrisy and intent to deceive (which is a lie)! Any activity or relationship that must be kept “undercover” by Christians is faulty! When neighbors and relatives are deceived (whether intentional or not) into thinking that such relationships are approved of God, what by implication and example is being taught? Does such glorify God? Surely, there are those who have been led to believe error (perhaps even fatally) by such unscriptural examples.

Some would say, however, “we feels it’s best for the children.” What about couples who have no children? Do the same rules apply? What rule says that the children cannot be loved and properly taken care of if the unscriptural marriage is legally and scripturally dissolved! What rule says that this unscripturally married couple may live together, pretending that their marriage is approved of God?

What rationale concludes that it is “best” to permit two people who have no right to each other to live in a private, secluded, and often intimate setting? Can they really pray, “lead us not into temptation?” How does this square up with I Corinthians 7:1-5? Would not such ones, in light of this passage, be better off living alone minus the evident and apparent intimacy? It may or may not be more difficult to separate, but that is not the issue! Could it be that more emphasis is in reality directed to “saving face” with less embarrassment and the assurance of financial security? There is no doubt that there is a vital and scriptural obligation that provisions (spiritually and physically) be made for involved children.

However, I fail to see how it would be “best” for children to see their parents violating scripture; playing the role of “pretenders;” and being taught that it is okay and proper for a married couple (Mom and Dad) to abstain from “sleeping” together, while every one thinks they are! The scriptures, notwithstanding, there can be little doubt that such will, to some degree (perhaps significantly) result in negative psychological impact on the children. We need to quit worrying about “upsetting the apple cart” and just do that which is honest, open, and scriptural. Nothing could be better for the children (and Mom and Dad) than that!