There’s been a popular swirl online telling us that the word “homosexuality” wasn’t in the Bible until recently. And therefore homosexuality is okay. The basic argument is outlined by Ed Oxford in this article.

The fundamental mistake with this article is Ed Oxford putting so much weight on a few modern (by which I mean post-reformational) secondary sources. He isn’t dealing with primary sources, only translations. 

A German translation doesn’t carry as much weight as primary sources. Primary sources are the highest authority on translations, not translations of primary sources. Both the Greek and Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 means simply male. ἄρσενος (Lev 18:22 BGT) in the LXX and   זָכָ֔ר (Lev 18:22 WTT) in the Hebrew (Masoretic). Same with Leviticus 20:13. The words mean male. A male lying with a male like a woman – homosexuality. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the word ἀρσενοκοῖται (1Co 6:9 BGT) means homosexual, a man who lies with another man, or a man-bedder if we want to get super wooden about the compound nature of the word. Every Greek lexicon I checked affirms this word as being homosexual, with a couple of them making the addition that it can *also* mean pederast (Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon, Louw-Nouda, Greek-English Lexicon in the NT, Liddell-Scott, Greek Lexicon, Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, Moulton-Milligan, VGNT, Gingrich, GIN). So, the lexical range is extended to both homosexual in the conventional sense and homosexual in the pederast sense. The word doesn’t give exclusivity to pederast behavior, but rather encompasses homosexual behavior in all its forms ie adult male to adult male and adult male to teen male or boy male. This really is the end of the conversation. I don’t know how Oxford can be taken seriously when the Greek and Hebrew are so clear.

Oxford makes a big deal about the word homosexual not appearing until modern times. That’s fine. The words in the primary sources still mean homosexual activity, but older translations, like the KJV would translate it as “abusers of themselves with mankind” or “them that defile themselves with mankind,” which was understood to mean homosexual activity in all its forms. The word “homosexual” not appearing until modern times is immaterial, because the meaning of older translations and primary sources means homosexual activity.

He then makes reference to Swedish and Norwegian translations. Again, no reference to primary source material. The Greek and the Hebrew have authority over translations of the Greek and Hebrew, or in some cases, translations from the Latin Vulgate, which then makes it a translation of a translation. We don’t do exegetical work from translations. We do it from the Greek and Hebrew, the original languages. Furthermore, if Paul wanted to make the prohibition exclusive to pederasts, he likely would have used the word for that very thing, παιδεραστής (paiderastïs – a boy lover) but he doesn’t do that. 

Oxford rightly acknowledges that pederasty was a feature in many places of the ancient world, especially among the Greeks and the philosophic schools. But again, this does nothing to prove the exclusivity of pederasty addressed in these words. It simply encompasses them, too. And he makes a sweeping statement of the ancients thinking it was just pederasty involved in the 4 passages he mentions, when we have evidence of ancient Christians making clear reference to the illicit nature of homosexual activity that isn’t exclusively pederast in nature.  

Eusebius of Caesarea:
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

Tertullian:
“The Christian [man] confines himself to the female sex,” (Apology, Chapter 46, c. AD 200).

Pederasty was a major indulgence in the ancient world, and the fathers wrote against it as well. But it still doesn’t mean that adult homosexual relationships were therefore not included in these passages. 

“So for most of history, most translations thought these verses were obviously referring the pederasty, not homosexuality!” This is simply not true. So far, he’s demonstrated that it’s true for three post-reformational translations. Three modern translations are not most of history. Two from the 1800’s and one from the late 1600’s. He’s looking at translations that are around 200-300 years old. That’s ignoring 1600 years of Christian history and translations. And we also have modern, reformational era translations that don’t translate it this way. The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, translated ἀρσενοκοῖται as “those that lay with males.”

“Since most people haven’t studied Greek or Hebrew, they have no concept of challenging a translation, and any potential errors that may have occurred during translation.” I have, and many others have who are way more skilled in the languages than myself have, and they have come to the traditional interpretation in conclusion. And he didn’t even make his case from the Greek and Hebrew. He makes it from the German, Norwegian, and Swedish! But yes translations can be challenging and there are potential errors and so forth. 

For the sake of argument, let’s grant him his thesis. That “4 out of the 6 clobber passages” as he states them are about pederasty and not homosexual acts between adult males. That still leaves the 2 other clobber passages. So, on his own admission, we have two other clobber passages which he wasn’t able to argue for an exclusively pederast meaning. Which means, even if he’s right, the Bible would still affirm homosexual activity as unlawful. I’m not totally sure what two other clobber passages he’s referring to. But one, I imagine, is Romans 1. 

Paul gives us a survey of mankind’s descent into idolatry. Saying they were not thankful to God, the Creator, and instead worshiped the creature instead. He goes on to describe homosexual activity as an unlawful result of this. “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:26-27) ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν (Rom 1:27 BGT) Men on men. Nothing to indicate disparity in power relationship exclusively. Nothing to indicate an exclusive adult male to boy relationship. If he wanted to indicate that, he could have easily put in a word to indicate boy or young man. 
The second (and third) is probably Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees over marriage and divorce. Which appears as parallel accounts in Mark and Matthew.

“‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’” (Matthew 19:4-6)

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Mark 10:6-9)

The primary concern Jesus and the Pharisees have is with respect to divorce and remarriage. Jesus says divorce and remarriage is adultery. But he grounds His commands in the creational order from the beginning in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve. The lawful setup for sexual activity throughout all of Scripture, even in the OT, is within marriage. However, in the OT, after the Fall, people deviated from the creational standard by permitting divorce and also by committing polygamy. But what Jesus is doing here is doing away with all of that. Doing away with divorce and remarriage, polygamy, and by reasonable inference homosexuality. Though homosexuality was always understood by the Jews to be unlawful. It wasn’t even a debate, so it isn’t explicitly addressed here. The prescribed standard that Jesus refers to is rooted in the creational beginning – male and female. So, this precludes male and male marriage. It’s an inference drawn by good and necessary consequence. As with many things, we don’t need explicit command to deduce prescriptions, especially when Jesus is doing just that – he points to a standard, then deduces a prescription. But we do have explicit command, in numerous places, despite Ed Oxford’s attempt to argue otherwise. But in keeping with this exercise of granting his thesis, we still have these other passages, Romans 1, the two dominical sayings, and the Genesis account, precluding the lawfulness of homosexual activity/marriage. 
In summary:

1. Proper biblical exegesis is done by consulting the primary sources, the Greek and Hebrew. Oxford doesn’t do this. 

2. The Greek and Hebrew are unambiguous about the unlawfulness of homosexuality. 

3. Paul could have used a word which meant pederasty, but he didn’t.

4. Later translations, like the Spanish translation of the 16th century, translates this word as lying with males. 

5. Even if Oxford is right about his claims, by his own admission, two other verses still prohibit homosexual activity. 

6. Jesus shows us that the creational order is the standard of sexual arrangements – heterosexual marriage. 

7. Not mentioned until now, but an appeal to natural law would be fitting here, too. Thomistic arguments would also supplement how to understand these passages. That apart from divine revelation, natural revelation would also teach us that homosexual activity is unlawful, given what the telos is of reproductive organs, etc. But I understand that natural law has fallen out of favor in modern secular academia, so I don’t expect it to have much weight with the kinds of people putting forward these arguments. I only offer it as a supplement to divine revelation, and realize it’s outside the immediate purview of the Oxford article. 

I’m sure there are better arguments and more considerations out there by capable scholars who maintain the traditional readings. This isn’t an area of major interest for me, so I wouldn’t know who the best are, but I’m sure you could find them.