A racist God?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jan 14, 2021
747
203
43
Pacific NW USA
#41
Ezra chapter 3 talks about Israel being returned from Babylon as "one man to Jerusalem" and the number of Israel was quite small. No doubt, they had been Purified. Thus, the question is: Who, exactly, is Israel throughout the Bible . . . and this question should be applied to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and teachers of the law as described in the New Testament. Who, exactly were these people?
It's very popular to say just the small number of "chosen few" are God's People, were Israel, and are now the Church. In reality, God includes all who nominally belong to a group, before culling out the bad ones and disqualifying the illegitimate.

So from the start, the entire nation was "Israel." When Paul talks about "true Israel" he is talking about the ideal, ie what the nation was called to live up to. And he then shows that it has little to do with racial qualities. If that was the criteria, then Ishmael, and Esau, being related to a patriarch would've been, by default, part of the chosen nation.

But God deliberately chosen a nation, descended from a line of *believers,* so as to later use faith as the criteria as to who in the end would make it. It starts with a nationality and a race, but ends with only those of faith being chosen.

It's the same thing with the Church today. Various groups always try to say that only their group is the true Church because only their group requires, doctrinally, that they all have faith. But the reality is, every group that starts with the highest qualifications always ends with some not meeting those standards.

So we just call Christians in various sects "the Church," and leave the judgment to God or to later on, when people really reveal who they're going to be in the long run.
 
Jan 14, 2021
747
203
43
Pacific NW USA
#42
Most of these posts are speaking of the extremes of racism. God is a God of balance, the only extreme of God is about sin and rebellion.

God created a family from the beginning. The family is the base of all governments. The family becomes a city, and cities group into nations. The way of the Lord for the family is to support and help each other. These divisions of people result in certain characteristics that are common to that division.

It is extreme to say that all people of a certain nation or family has identical characteristics and that is the bases of racism. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure".—Php 2:12-13.

We are to listen to ALL of God's words, we are to see and understand the balance.
I agree. I want you to know that I've been praying for Blacks in America for a very long time. And in some ways, Obama and BLM have helped Blacks restore some of their dignity. That's on the positive side. And I agree, we need to keep things in balance.

Now I'm praying that many American Blacks return to their Christian roots, instead of lumping Whites and Christianity together. That will only end up turning Blacks to Islam or to something else.
 
Feb 20, 2021
2,110
845
113
#43
It's very popular to say just the small number of "chosen few" are God's People, were Israel, and are now the Church.
Matthew 7:14 ESV - "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

It seems that it is more of a matter of Scripture than opinion.
 

Runningman

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2020
3,205
2,092
113
#44
A racist God?
I've heard non-Christians accuse Christianity of being bigoted because our beliefs view gays as sinners, or non-Christians as lost. Things like that.

And then there are legitimate Christians who read about God killing everybody in the Flood, and killing all of Israel's enemies in Canaan. They don't blink an eye reading it, but they scarcely raise a question about it being "genocide" at a Bible Study!

So let me suggest that the OT quarantine of Israel against pagan influence was not bigotry, nor racism. It was not ethnic pride. Rather, God wanted to begin His testimony of Eternal Salvation among the nations by producing in Israel the initial example of it.

To do that, He had to separate His religion from all other religions, and provide a consistent set of beliefs, which were clearly incompatible with pagan religions. And so, He did not let the people of Israel fraternize and intermarry with these pagans, so as to maintain a true testimony to who God is and what His religion comprises among the nations.

Since God planned to expand the message of His Salvation to all nations out of the testimony of Israel's national history there would come a time when Israel could fraternize and intermarry among the nations. But that was only after God's true religion had been properly sent to, so as to be received by, the nations. Then, the Jews could intermarry and fraternize with those among the nations who shared the belief in the one true God and in the one true religion.

In this, there is consistency from OT to NT. Once it came time for Israel to send the testimony of their national history under God to the nations, and the nations started receiving it, then the door was opened to international partnership between godly people of all nations and races.

This is just being true to a religion, and has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. This is the consistent standard of the God of Israel, and also of the God of Jesus.
Jesus was the important point where Israel's historical testimony came to a head, and was ready to be delivered to the nations. And that's because that was the point where Israel had so failed that pagan nations became equally qualified to receive the mercy that Israel so sorely needed.

And Jesus became the focal point giving mercy both to Israel and to the nations. They came to be viewed as standing on the same ground, equally in need of mercy.
I would add that nothing in the Bible fits the definition of racism:

Racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

There's nothing about prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed at anyone due exclusively to their race and/or ethnic group. Really what happened is that the groups who were practicing the wickedness that God wanted the Jews to avoid were a homogenous racial group so they were referred to summarily by their ethnicity.

God never told anyone to avoid them because of their genetics, but because of their behavior.
 
Jan 14, 2021
661
225
43
#45
Christianity is often confused with Talmudic Judaism by those unfamiliar. While Talmudic Judaism is racist, Chriistianity is not.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
3,235
297
83
#46
Paul did not fear being called a racist or bigot when he agreed with assigning certain sins to a particular people.

"For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are alway liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth." (Titus 1:10-14, ERV)

Paul did not hesitate to call a certain people, the Cretans, names in v12 when he says the Cretan prophet was true in his descriptions of the people of Crete. But, there is no question the three sins listed are clearly seen as sin in Scripture. But you list "gays" without any description whatever of the sin you see that fits the biblical definition of sin. All men are sinners, even gays; but gays are not specifically sinners because they love other males. So, Christians run the risk of being called "bigots" for that reason.

The word "bigot" in the oline Oxford -
"A person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

The word "reason" in the online Oxford -
"The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic."

I do not see a noun "gay" anywhere in the Bible, nor condemnation of a male loving a male including physical intimacy. Paul went on to say in the above: "not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth."

That sounds like the Pharisee of old, "Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth". The wicked Cretans were listening to the Judaizers.

On the word "alway", the ISBE states: "ol'-way, ol'-waz (archaic and poetic): Properly applied to acts or states perpetually occurring, but not necessarily continuous."
The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality as a practice.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
6,247
1,949
113
#47
I agree. I want you to know that I've been praying for Blacks in America for a very long time. And in some ways, Obama and BLM have helped Blacks restore some of their dignity. That's on the positive side. And I agree, we need to keep things in balance.

Now I'm praying that many American Blacks return to their Christian roots, instead of lumping Whites and Christianity together. That will only end up turning Blacks to Islam or to something else.
I hadn't though of the need we have to pray for the blacks, but I realize I have been praying for them. My prayers are for Christ to come into all our hearts, Christ loves us all.

Most of the blacks I have met have been racists, even the boy who went with me on a walk on the beach. When we found a mess of food wrappings, he refused to help me pick them up because the beach belonged, he said, to whites. I have even been forced off the sidewalk into the street by blacks. We all need to live through Christ in our hearts, that should be our prayer.
 
Jan 14, 2021
747
203
43
Pacific NW USA
#48
Matthew 7:14 ESV - "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

It seems that it is more of a matter of Scripture than opinion.
I wasn't giving my opinion. I was giving Scripture. The Scriptures, in a multitude of places, refer to the nation Israel, which logically includes the full number of its citizens. This is not conjecture. It isn't speculation. It's fact.

But the notion that only some of the nation will actually receive eternal life is an important element, and I'm glad you refer to it. If half the nation gets saved, and half don't, you would only have half a nation. So until the New Jerusalem comes, completely saved, there will always be those in Israel who pay with lip service their devotion to God, in order to have a complete nation, but don't really give their all.

The same is true of the Church. There will always be a mixture in the Church between the truly saved and nominal Christians, or those who start on fire and end up a dud. Their place in heaven will be taken from them, or something of that nature. I'm really an Eternal Security guy, but the Scriptures describe people under covenant with God as having the *promise* of eternal life, and then losing it.

One final thing, and this is pure speculation on my part. I do think when Jesus said only a few make it down the narrow road, he wasn't speaking of salvation as much as success in Christian life. Most fail in their lives and ministries, although I do believe they will be saved. Faith will save even the worst back-slider because God understands our weakness and the heart's intent.

Relatively few succeed in living virtuous lives, and in completing their callings. This is what Jesus would have us do. Instead of looking around us at what everybody else is doing or not doing, it is our job to plug away and do what God is telling *us* to do. If we've heard right, and succeed in obeying, we will receive our reward.

I think many will get into heaven without much of a reward. But then again, just getting into heaven with God is great reward in itself. God wants us to have it all. And so He wants us to take the narrow road. This will bring God into people's lives that much sooner. Just my thoughts...
 
Feb 20, 2021
2,110
845
113
#49
The Scriptures, in a multitude of places, refer to the nation Israel, which logically includes the full number of its citizens. This is not conjecture. It isn't speculation. It's fact.
Ahhh . . . I don't recall Israel ever being identified by their citizenship.
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
2,811
397
83
Oregon
#50
.
Black lives matter, but black lives do not own race. There's also Inuit,
Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, Semitic, Polynesian, Pigmy, Native American,
etc.

Acts 17:26 . . From one man he made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them
and the exact places where they should live.

FAQ: What color was Adam?
_
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
2,811
397
83
Oregon
#51
.
If Christians of all races, ages, colors, genders, and denominations would
comply with just the two simple instructions below, it would end quite a bit
of the racial tension infecting the USA.

Social Contacts:

Matt 5:39 . . If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the
other also.

Employment Conditions:

1Pet 2:18-24 . . Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect,
not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are
unreasonable. For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a
man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is
there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience?
But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this
finds favor with God.

. . . For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for
you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed
no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being reviled, He
did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept
entrusting himself to Him who judges righteously.
_
 
Nov 5, 2021
90
7
8
#52
The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality as a practice.
It depends on how you define 'homosexuality' since that word is not in the OT Hebrew or NT Greek. If you are saying two male friends who are companions, emotionally compatible and express themselves in physical intimacy, you'll not find that as a sin for the Christian believer. If you are talking sodomites, I'll agree it is sin.
 
Feb 20, 2021
2,110
845
113
#53
It depends on how you define 'homosexuality' since that word is not in the OT Hebrew or NT Greek. If you are saying two male friends who are companions, emotionally compatible and express themselves in physical intimacy, you'll not find that as a sin for the Christian believer. If you are talking sodomites, I'll agree it is sin.
David and Jonathan were so close, it is said they were closer than a man and woman could be . . . they even shared the same spirit. That is just amazing!
 
Jan 14, 2021
747
203
43
Pacific NW USA
#54
Ahhh . . . I don't recall Israel ever being identified by their citizenship.
The use of the word, "Israel," implies a nation, which naturally consists of those who inhabit it. It does not need to be explained. It is part of the word's definition. When that word is used, it is understood by any reader who knows the language, and how the word "nation" is used.

When we speak of nations, we do not think in terms of some being religiously delegitimized. We think some do not belong to a nation because they are illegal immigrants, or trespassers. Religion does not make one a non-citizen of a nation.

When Paul speaks of "true Israel" he is speaking of a standard that guides the nation by the covenant of God. When people do not live according to that covenant, they do not stop being a member of the nation, but God may throw that nation into exile and even kill some of them.

And so, God defines His ideal nation as one in covenant with Himself and being faithful to it. In the spirit of Abraham, they are "true Israelites." That is, they are faithful to the covenant. They do not become non-Israelis.
 
Feb 20, 2021
2,110
845
113
#55
The use of the word, "Israel," implies a nation, which naturally consists of those who inhabit it. It does not need to be explained. It is part of the word's definition. When that word is used, it is understood by any reader who knows the language, and how the word "nation" is used.

When we speak of nations, we do not think in terms of some being religiously delegitimized. We think some do not belong to a nation because they are illegal immigrants, or trespassers. Religion does not make one a non-citizen of a nation.
I hear you. What I mean is that the Bible doesn't recognize a person as an Israelite simply because they claimed to be a citizen. Sorry for the non-clarity of my reply.
 
Jan 14, 2021
747
203
43
Pacific NW USA
#56
I hear you. What I mean is that the Bible doesn't recognize a person as an Israelite simply because they claimed to be a citizen. Sorry for the non-clarity of my reply.
Whoa, you're too fast for me. I was still adding to the post! ;) Please go back and see what I added. It's an attempt at clarification, albeit not my best work.
 
Nov 5, 2021
90
7
8
#57
David and Jonathan were so close, it is said they were closer than a man and woman could be . . . they even shared the same spirit. That is just amazing!
Jonathan and David in the OT were normal men, valiant warriors. David had several wives and many concubines and Jonathan was married and had sons. There is something about their love that is obvious, but denied and ignored by most.

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved(H157 ahab) him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved(H160 ahabah) him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1-3, KJV)

The first "loved" is the Hebrew ahab and it is very broad in meaning, human to human or even human love to an object. The second "loved" is ahabah and tracing that word, it is more pointed in meaning when used of human love to another human. The first ocurrence of the word is the following:

"And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had(H160 ahabah) to her. And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her." (Gen 29:20-21, KJV)

The next 3 occurences of this (H160 ahabah) are about the love of Jonathan for David, 1 Sam. 18:3; 20:17; 2 Sam. 1:26. Then this word is used in 2 Sam. 13:15 of the sort of love Amnon had for Tamar which was rape, certainly sexual. The first use for the 5 ocurrences of ahabah in human to human love was Jacob's love for Rachel; and the last was the rape of Tamar by Amnon. The 3 other ocurrences of are of Jonathan and David. Then there is the phrase "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David", and the Hebrew for "knit" is (H7194 qashar). It is often pointed out that this same word used in the following of the love of father for a son:

"Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up(H7194 qashar) in the lad's life;" (Gen 44:30, KJV)

Therefore it is reasoned that the knitting of souls is platonic, not in any way sexual. Yet, the REB translates v1 as:

"1–2 That same day, when Saul had finished talking with David, he kept him and would not let him return any more to his father’s house, for he saw that Jonathan had given his heart to David and had grown to love him as himself." (1Sam 18:1, REB)

On what basis did the REB have for translating with such a romantic worded phrase? The reason can be found in a Hebrew-English Interlinear. The literal translation of this phrase is:

"and soul-of Jonathan she-was-tied in-soul-of David" I put the words in proper English order.
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1sa18.pdf

The female pronoun "she" is included to describe the tie of Jonathan's soul to David. The pronoun "she" is missing in Gen. 44:30. It is interesting where the pronouns "she" and "he" are found in various verses in connection with the Hebrew qashar. The pronoun "she" is used in the Zondervan OT Hebrew-English Interlinear also, a 1987 Edition, placed exactly as given in the following:

H7194 qashar is found in 44 verses in the OT. It has "she" in only 3 verses, 2 speaking of females, and the one speaking of Jonathan.
Gn38:28 "midwife"; Josh2:21 "Rahab"; but then we have this one, 1Sa18:1 "Jonathan".

The gender "he" in 1Kgs15:27 (male); 16:9,16,20 (him); 2Kgs9:14;10:9;15:10,15,25,30(him); Job41:4(him); Amos7:19(he)

Context again shows in the preceding that these are referring to men, males; the pronouns being of the male gender. Moving up to the next verse in consideration:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26, KJV)

Every standard translation renders this "love of women", nowhere is it translated "love of father", "love of mother", "love of brother", "love of wife" or "love of wives"! If the verse meant love of a wife or wives the words were readily available from Genesis forward. The early Latin translations solved the perceived problem by adding a spurious sentence to the verse and was followed in the Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims translation translated thus:

"I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee." (2Sam 1:26, DRC)

That underlined sentence is not in the original and no translations since have added that fraudulent sentence. The purpose of adding "mother love" to this verse is glaringly obvious and the idea the verse means wife or wives is as ridiculous as those who insist the "wine" in the Bible is truly "grape juice" not wine. Jesus certainly would not turn 120-180 gallons of water into a wine, a beverage containing alcohol. The same evasion as that is used trying to transform "love of women" into love of a wife or wives.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
3,235
297
83
#58
It depends on how you define 'homosexuality' since that word is not in the OT Hebrew or NT Greek. If you are saying two male friends who are companions, emotionally compatible and express themselves in physical intimacy, you'll not find that as a sin for the Christian believer. If you are talking sodomites, I'll agree it is sin.
Rom 1:18, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19, Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24, Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26, For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27, And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28, And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


If you are a practicing homosexual, I don't expect you to understand any of what this scripture says. I once showed this passage to a practicing bisexual and it went right over his head: he didn't understand the meaning of it.

It just goes to show that the following scripture is faithful and true,

2Co 4:3, But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
 
Nov 5, 2021
90
7
8
#59
Rom 1:18, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19, Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20, For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21, Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24, Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26, For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27, And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28, And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


If you are a practicing homosexual, I don't expect you to understand any of what this scripture says. I once showed this passage to a practicing bisexual and it went right over his head: he didn't understand the meaning of it.

It just goes to show that the following scripture is faithful and true,

2Co 4:3, But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Bible study involves more than just quoting a passage in the English without exegesis.

Rom.1:18-32 is a narrative of man's rejection of the one true God and thinking himself wise, creates idols in exchange for the One True God. These are God rejecting people, idolaters, who are proud of their own perceived intellect and wisdom. Their continued descent into deeper and deeper depravity is 3 times attributed to "God gave them up" in vs 24,26,28 and all three times the cause or reason reflects back to their ultimate sin of rejecting God and turning to idols. The continuous flow of thought goes back to their rejection of the One True God and exchanging Him with idols.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." (Rom 1:26-27, ERV)

1. Women changed "natural use", NRSV "natural intercourse", but did not, could not, change their nature.
2. a. changed "the natural use" KJV, YLT.. Referring to the created order, God's design
b. "exchanged their natural function", Amplified, "exchanged their natural sexual function" ISV, "changed their natural way" AAT by William F. Beck (LCMS)

If under a. above "the natural use" the definite article 'the' points back to the created design and order. But under b. "their natural sexual function" would indicate that by their nature, their own sexual nature, these women would have the created order, the created sexual function within themselves, but could only change their conduct.

3. It is common to teach that v26 refers to sexual union of women with women, but that violates the directive of 1 Cor. 4:6 ERV, "learn not to go beyond the things which are written". There is nothing here stating women had sex with women. As the English Baptist John Gill wrote in the 18th century, one understanding can be: "by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the 'sodomitical' embraces of men, in a way that is against nature". This would probably refer to oral and anal intercourse of women with men. From this viewpoint, the word "likewise" connecting v27 to v26 also refers to oral and anal intercourse of man with man, unnatural compared to the created order, but created order does not define sin for the Christian, God's commands in the New Covenant are our law(1 Cor. 9:21).
4. In v27 men are "leaving" (ERV), "giving up" (NRSV), "having left" (YLT), "forsaking" (Literal translation by Jay P. Green). You cannot leave, give up and forsake that which you did not possess in the first place, and a male of same-sex orientation has not had the relationship to/for a woman from which to leave. This has been observed in the church as early as St. John Chrysostom (349-407AD) when he wrote in his homily on Romans:

"...he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that 'they changed the natural use.' For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, 'They changed the truth of God for a lie.' And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, 'Leaving the natural use of the woman.' And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm

From the 19th century Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary:
"But observe how vice is here seen consuming and exhausting itself. When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural and monstrous vices."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised 1988, Vol. 4 page, 437 we read this comment on Rom. 1:27:
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."

5. The KJV word "burned" in v27 is the Greek, "G1572 ἐκκαίω ekkaio" and is found only here in the NT, just this one occurrence. A. T. Robertson says it means "to burn out, to set on fire". The NRSV renders it "consumed". From a 19th century Greek scholar, James Robinson Boise, "a much stronger word than the Eng. burned". This is important because the word used for sexual desire translated "burn" referring to a loving couple is totally different: "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9, KJV) The word "burn" here is the Greek: "G4448 πυρόω puroo" a totally unrelated word to that in Rom. 1:27.
6. The KJV word "lust" here is also an instance where this is the only occurrence in the entire NT Greek, "G3715 ὄρεξις orexis". The "burned in their lust" KJV, or "consumed with passion" NRSV; indicates something extreme, not to be compared with normal love, affection or even a close M-M friendship which may include some sexual desire considering that sexual orientation is a continuum, not neat categories. The word "lust" here is totally unrelated to the Greek lust in Matt. 5:27.
 
Nov 5, 2021
90
7
8
#60
A continuation of the prior reply on Romans 1:26, 27...

7. The KJV words "working that which is unseemly" in the literal Greek reads "working the unseemliness", from Rev. Alford Marshall in the NIV/Grk-Eng Interlinear. The Greek scholar, Boice, I referenced above writes: "the (well-known, notorious) indecency". The sexual perversions of Nero, who lived at the time Paul wrote, come to mind.
8. What is the "error" meant in "receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet"? From the flow of the entire passage from v18, it would seem to refer to the rejection of the One True God and worshipping idols. The moral degradation described is the horrible descent into the depths of depravity which was sin compounding upon sin, as punishment. Again, Boice in the 19th century writes: "of their error, of their departure (from the true God)". The respected 19th century theologian, Presbyterian Charles Hodge states in his commentary on Romans: "The apostle for the third time repeats the idea that the moral degradation of the heathen was a punishment of their apostasy from God. Receiving, he says, in themselves the meet recompense of their error. It is obvious from the whole context that πλάνη here refers to the sin of forsaking the true God; and it is no less obvious that the recompense or punishment of this apostasy was the moral degradation which he had just described." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hdg/romans-1.html

Then the BDAG reads: "Of an erroneous view of God, as exhibited in polytheism, resulting in moral degradation (Wsd 12:24; Ar. 2, 1 al.; Just., D. 47, 1; Tat. 29, 1; Iren., 1, 1, 3 [Harv. I 11, 10]; Did., Gen. 217, 30) Ro 1:27" Yet in this day it is common to dogmatically insist the "error" is male to male sex and the "recompense" is something like AIDS.

I see the foundational sin, the error, of this passage is exchanging the One True God for idols and self-worship which brings about degradation upon degradation to where their outrageous and extreme lust consumes them. The sexual sin is that of males for whom relations with females was their nature, but by being eaten up with lust, consumed by it; they become perverts like Nero. I'll quote the account of Nero because Paul and Nero lived in the same time period.

"XXVII. Little by little, however, as his vices grew stronger, he dropped jesting and secrecy and with no attempt at disguise openly broke out into worse crime. He prolonged his revels from midday to midnight, often livening himself by a warm plunge, or, if it were summer, into water cooled with snow. Sometimes too he closed the inlets and banqueted in public in the great tank, in the Campus Martius, or in the Circus Maximus, waited on by harlots and dancing girls from all over the city. Whenever he drifted down the Tiber to Ostia, or sailed about the Gulf of Baiae, booths were set up at intervals along the banks and shores, fitted out for debauchery, while bartering matrons played the part of innkeepers and from every hand solicited him to come ashore. He also levied dinners on his friends, one of whom spent four million sesterces for a banquet at which turbans were distributed, and another a considerably larger sum for a rose dinner.
XXVIII. Besides abusing freeborn boys and seducing married women, he debauched the vestal virgin Rubria. The freedwoman Acte he all but made his lawful wife, after bribing some ex-consuls to perjure themselves by swearing that she was of royal birth. He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero s father Domitius had had that kind of wife. This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the assizes and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images, fondly kissing him from time to time. That he even desired illicit relations with his own mother, and was kept from it by her enemiess who feared that such a relationship might give the reckless and insolent woman too great infiuence, was notorious, especially after he added to his concubines a courtesan who was said to look very like Agripinina. Even before that, so they say, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, he had incestuous relations with her, which were betrayed by the stains on his clothing.
XXIX. He so prostituted his own chastity that after defiling almost every part of his body, he at last devised a kind of game, in which, covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the private parts of men and women, who were bound to stakes, and when he had sated his mad lust, was dispatched by his freed man Doryphorus; for he was even married to this man in the same way that he himself had married Sporus, going so far as to imitate the cries and lamentations of a maiden being deflowered. I have heard from some men that it was his unshaken conviction that no man was chaste or pure in any part of his body, but that most of them concealed their vices and cleverly drew a veil over them; and that therefore he pardoned all other faults in those who confessed to him their lewdness."
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/suet-nero.asp