Dear Editor,
I read last week's article by Mr. James Strachan on the "King James Bible and gender stereotypes in Christianity" and found it lacking in proof. The first illustration that Mr. Strachan used in support of his position that homosexuality is not against Biblical teaching was that of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-40. It is his position that since many eunuchs were homosexual that there is a good likelihood that this eunuch was also a homosexual. First of all I would like to say that what Mr. Strachan wants us to accept is that speculative probability constitutes proof and this isn't true. The other thing that Mr. Strachan falsely believes is that the Ethiopian eunuch would not have known that God condemns homosexuality which is something that I don't believe to be true and for which I will provide proof.
My reason for saying this is that the passage that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading comes from the book of Isaiah. Now I believe that it is most reasonable to assume that since the Ethiopian eunuch was a God fearing gentile that he must have been reading or at some point would have read the whole book of Isaiah. Given that this would most certainly have been the case then it could not have gone completely unnoticed by the eunuch that God condemns homosexuality. I feel confident in saying this because the book of Isaiah has 4 references to God's judgement of Sodom for their wickedness. The four references are: Isa. 1:9 &10, 3:9 and 13:19. The incident to which these verses in Isaiah refers is recorded for us beginning in Genesis 18:16 and ends in Genesis 19:28. This makes it very unlikely that the Ethiopian eunuch would have been a homosexual since he clearly would have read the passages in Genesis and would therefore be aware of God's hatred of homosexuality. The eunuch then goes on to demonstrate his willingness to be obedient to the word of God when after coming upon a body of water, he points out in Acts 8:36 that there is nothing stopping him from being baptized in accordance to Christ's command.
Another passage that the Ethiopian eunuch would have had to have been ignorant of is to found in, Leviticus 18:22, 24-30. If we read this passage we see that sexual relationships between males are explicitly forbidden(22), and that this is one of the immoral acts that God is judging the current occupants of the promised land for committing (24-30).
Lastly I would refer the reader to, Deuteronomy 23:1, where we read that; "no one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord". And here I believe is where we find the point for the inclusion of this incident in Acts. This incident is recorded to make the point that in the New Testament age physical imperfections are no longer bars to anyone's entrance into the assembly of the covenant community. In other words Jesus Christ is the perfect sacrifice who has broken down the barriers of the Old Covenant.
I can see no logical link between the work of King James on the translation of the version of the Bible that bears his name and a Biblical argument for the legitimacy of homosexuality. If anything is true the fact is that this man endured a childhood that by today's standards would be considered abusive and neglectful. Not only that he seems to have been sexually victimized by a near relative which is not at all atypical of many people who are victims of sexual abuse. There is absolutely no connection between what this man experienced and what the Bible teaches with regards what constitutes legitimate sexual activity.
In the end what we have from Mr. Strachan is not only a case of bad logic and a crude attempt to use circumstantial evidence but the more fundamental and saddest problem is the bad theology upon which all of it is based.
Sincerely,
Julian Ross Hudson