Hubbry Logo
GentileGentileMain
Open search
Gentile
Community hub
Gentile
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Gentile
Gentile
Gentile
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Jews and Judaism
Religion
Texts
Tanakh
Talmud
Rabbinic
History
General
Ancient Israel
Second Temple period
Rabbinic period and Middle Ages
Modern era
Communities
Related groups
Population
Israel and Palestine
Africa
Asia
Europe
Northern America
Latin America and Caribbean
Oceania
Denominations
Culture
Customs
Music
Art
Cuisine
Literature
Surnames
Languages
Politics
Jewish political movements
Zionism

Gentile (/ˈdʒɛntaɪl/) is a word that today usually means someone who is not Jewish.[1][2] Other groups that claim Israelite heritage, notably Mormons, have historically used the term gentile to describe outsiders.[3][4][5] More rarely, the term is used as a synonym for pagan.[5] As a term used to describe non-members of a religious/ethnic group, gentile is sometimes compared to other words used to describe the "outgroup" in other cultures[6] (see List of terms for ethnic out-groups).

In some translations of the Quran, gentile is used to translate an Arabic word that refers to non-Jews and/or people not versed in or not able to read scripture.[7]

The English word gentile derives from the Latin word gentilis, meaning "of or belonging to the same people or nation" (from Latin gēns 'clan, tribe, people, family'). Archaic and specialist uses of the word gentile in English (particularly in linguistics) still carry this meaning of "relating to a people or nation."[5] The development of the word to principally mean "non-Jew" in English is entwined with the history of Bible translations from Hebrew and Greek into Latin and English. Its meaning has also been shaped by Rabbinical Jewish thought and Christian theology.[8]

Etymology

[edit]
See also: Gens and Goy

"Gentile" derives from Latin gentilis, which itself derives from the Latin gens, meaning clan or tribe. Gens derives from the Proto-Indo-European *ǵénh₁tis, meaning birth or production.[9] The original meaning of "clan" or "family" was extended in post-Augustan Latin to acquire the wider meaning of belonging to a distinct nation or ethnicity. Later still, the word came to refer to other nations, 'not a Roman citizen'.[10]

In Saint Jerome's Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, gentilis was used along with gentes, to translate Greek and Hebrew words with similar meanings when the text referred to the non-Israelite peoples. The most important of such Hebrew words was goy (גוי‎, plural, goyim), a term with the broad meaning of "people" or "nation" which was sometimes used to refer to Israelites, but with the plural form goyim tending to be used in the Bible to refer to non-Israelite nations.[8] Other words translated in some contexts to mean "gentile/s" in the modern sense were the Biblical Hebrew word nokhri (נכרי‎ – often otherwise translated as 'stranger') and for the New Testament Greek word éthnos (ἔθνος). The first English translators followed this approach, using the word "gentile" to refer to the non-Israelite nations (and principally using the word "nation(s)" to translate goy/goyim in other contexts). See the "Christianity" section.

These developments in Bible translation practice were related to developments in Jewish Rabbinical and Christian thinking[8] which – in the centuries after the Old and New Testament were written – created an increasingly clear binary opposition between "Jew" and "non-Jew".[11] The Hebrew word "goy" went through a change in meaning which parallels the journey of "gentilis/gentile" – both words moving from meaning "nation" to "non-Jew" today. The word "Goy" is now also used in English, principally by Jewish people – see goy.

Judaism

[edit]
See also: Who is a Jew?

The Hebrew Bible

[edit]

In 2006, the academic David Novak wrote, with limited exceptions, "The Bible can be seen as one long discussion of what differentiates Israel from all the other peoples of the world."[12]

The Hebrew Bible does not have a word which directly corresponds to the modern concept of a gentile (see etymology above). Instead, the Bible views different groups of gentiles in different ways. Novak states that, "The biblical categories of Gentiles, beginning with those farthest removed from a relationship with Israel and moving up to those closest to a relationship with Israel, seem to be: (1) the Amalekites; (2) the seven Canaanite nations; (3) the nations of the world; (4) the Samaritans; (5) slaves; (6) resident aliens; (7) proselytes."[12]

The Hebrew Bible does not show much concern for non-Israelites except insofar as they interact with the people of Israel. Nonetheless, because the God of Israel is a universal God, there must be some relationship between gentiles and God. Accordingly, Novak observes, gentiles as well as Israelites are enjoined in the book of Psalms to "ascribe to the Lord glory and strength" (Psalms 96:7).[12]

Christine E. Hayes states that gentiles in the Hebrew Bible were generally gerim (resident aliens). They were not necessarily converts, whether in the modern or rabbinic sense, but were still given many rights and privileges. They were also allowed to keep their distinct ethnic identities. But after Ezra-Nehemiah, many Israelites believed there was an impermeable ritual and genealogical boundary between themselves and gentiles.[2] However, other scholars argue that the boundary is rooted in religious factors.[13]

Saul Oylan argues that gentiles automatically became Israelite when they lived in one of their tribal territories, which was believed to reflect 'early practices' (Ezekiel 47:21–23).[14]

Troy W. Martin believes Jewishness is defined by adherence to covenantal circumcision, regardless of ancestry (Genesis 17:9–14). Thus, even an uncircumcised Jew could be a gentile despite his biological descent from Abraham. He believes this view was extended to the New Testament, where membership in God's chosen people was based on religious adherence rather than ancestry (Galatians 3:28).[15]

Tannaim

[edit]
See also: Tannaim

Tannaim were the rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from approximately 10–220 CE.

It was this rabbinic literature of the first centuries CE that developed the concept of the gentile as we understand it today - as "any individual who is not a Jew, erasing all ethnic and social differences among different others".[11]

"Mishnah-Tosefta makes no clear distinction among the various types of non-Israelites. Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, and the like are classified merely as gentiles, goyim or nokrim" "The rabbis... had one term for all non-Israelites, whether idolaters or farmers, liars or trustworthy, Greek or Roman."

— Gary G. Porton, 2020[16]

However, the attitudes of the Rabbis to gentiles were not simple or uniform. Porton argues that the Mishnah-Tosefta discusses gentiles for two quite different reasons: firstly, practically, to guide the relations between Israelites and gentiles who were living alongside each other in Palestine. Secondly, at a theoretical level, gentiles are discussed because, in order to define the people of Israel and its symbols and institutions, it was necessary to define who lay outside that group.[16]

Some Tannaim show a positive attitude towards the gentiles. Joshua ben Hananiah believed that there are righteous men amongst the gentiles who will enter the world to come. He believed that except for the descendants of the Amaleks, the rest of the gentiles will adopt monotheism and the righteous among them will escape Gehenna.[17]

Other rabbinical writings show more hostility towards gentiles which needs to be understood in the context of frequent persecution of the Jews in this period. The most famous and extreme of the anti-gentile teachers is Simeon bar Yochai. He is often quoted by antisemites[17] in his sayings: "The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed", "The most pious woman is addicted to sorcery" and "The best of snakes ought to have its head crushed".[17] Such extreme views can be explained by the sage's life experience: he witnessed his teacher being tortured to death,[18] and became a fugitive after speaking out against Roman oppression.[19] Later commentators have limited this teaching to idolators and only at times of war.

Eliezer ben Hurcanus writes that the mind of every gentile is always intent upon idolatry.[17] He believed that gentiles only perform animal sacrifice to make a name for themselves. He further believed that gentiles have no share in the world to come.

Eleazar of Modi'im wrote that Jews, when guilty of the same sin as gentiles, will not enter hell whereas the gentiles will.[17] Eleazar ben Azariah believed that the rulings performed by a gentile court are not valid for Jews. Rabbi Akiva believed that Israel's monotheism is far superior to the ever-changing beliefs of the gentiles. Jose the Galilean criticizes Israel for inconsistency compared to the faithfulness of the gentiles to their ancestral beliefs. He believed the good deeds of the gentiles will be rewarded as well.

Later sages

[edit]

Rav Ashi believed that a Jew who sells a gentile property adjacent to a Jewish property should be excommunicated. The violation of Jewish women by gentile men was so frequent[citation needed] that the rabbis declared that a woman raped by a gentile should not be divorced from her husband, as Torah says: "The Torah outlawed the issue of a gentile as that of a beast."[17] A gentile midwife was not to be employed for fear of the poisoning of the baby. The gentiles should be dealt with caution in cases of using them as witness in a criminal or civil suit. The gentile does not honor his promises like that of a Jew. The laws of the Torah were not to be revealed to the gentiles, for the knowledge of these laws might give gentiles an advantage in dealing with Jews. Shimon ben Lakish wrote that "A gentile who observes Sabbath deserves death".[17]

In modern times

[edit]

Under rabbinic law, a modern-day gentile is only required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah, but Jews are required to observe Mosaic law. During periods of decreased animosity between Jews and gentiles, some of the rabbinic laws against fellowship and fraternization were relaxed; for example, Maimonides was the personal physician of Saladin. Even though most contemporary rabbinic schools are not as hostile to Gentiles as Medieval rabbinic schools were[clarification needed], some Orthodox rabbinic schools hold extremely xenophobic views. For example, scholars from the Zionist HaRav Kook yeshiva are schooled in the doctrine that Jews and gentiles have different kinds of souls. One of the yeshiva's scholars, David Bar-Hayim, published a paper in 1989 in which he explained the doctrine, entitled "Yisrael Nikraim Adam" (Israel is called ‘Man’). In his conclusion, Bar-Hayim writes:

There is no escaping the facts: the Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as "Man," and a Gentile. This distinction is expressed in a long list of Halachic laws, be they monetary laws, the laws of the Temple, capital laws or others. Even one who is not an erudite Torah scholar is obligated to recognize this simple fact; it cannot be erased or obscured ... One who carefully studies the sources cited previously will realize the abysmal difference between the concepts "Jew" and "Gentile" -- and consequently, he will understand why Halacha differentiates between them.[20][21]

Bar-Chayim further quotes Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), founder of the yeshiva and the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of British Mandatory Palestine:

The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality.[22]

Similar anti-gentile remarks have been expressed by the late chief Sephardi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, in which he stated in a sermon in 2010 that "The sole purpose of Gentiles is to serve Jews". He said that gentiles served a divine purpose: "Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created.[23] These remarks by Yosef were sharply criticized by many Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and American Jewish Committee.[24]

Those who hold these views do not necessarily support any sort of harm to non-Jews. Rav Ovadia Yosef, himself, condemned those who vandalized Arab property, as did the vast majority of Orthodox leaders.

Many Orthodox schools have expressed more humanistic views. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, Rosh Yeshivah of Gush, for example, strongly opposed what he saw as racist attitudes among certain segments of Religious Zionism.[25]

Jewish philosopher and professor Menachem Kellner criticizes the assumption of some Orthodox Jews that there is an "ontological divide between Jews and Gentiles", which he believes is contrary to what the Torah teaches.[26]

In Kabbalah

[edit]

Some Kabbalistic writings suggest a distinction between the souls of the gentiles and the souls of the Jews. These writings describe three levels, elements, or qualities of soul:[27]

  • Nefesh (נפש): the lower part, or "animal part", of the soul. It is linked to instincts and bodily cravings. This part of the soul is provided at birth.
  • Ruach (רוח): the middle soul, the "spirit". It contains the moral virtues and the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
  • Neshamah (נשמה): the higher soul, or "super-soul". This separates man from all other life-forms. It is related to the intellect and allows man to enjoy and benefit from the afterlife. It allows one to have some awareness of the existence and presence of God.

Other descriptions of the soul add two more levels Chaya and Yechida.

There has been debate among the kabbalists on whether gentiles access the mystical knowledge (Daat). Isaac Luria, prominent kabbalist, wrote:

Israel possesses the three levels of soul, nefesh, ruah, neshamah,—from holiness... the gentiles possess only the level of nefesh from the feminine side of the shells... for the souls of the nations (gentiles), come from the Qlippoth, are called evil and not good' since they are created without knowledge (Daat). The animal soul of man is the good and evil inclination. The soul of the gentiles comes from the three shells: wind, cloud and fire, all of them evil.[28]

Moses de León, presumed author of the main kabbalistic work Sefer Ha-Zohar, agrees with this assumption:

You know that all of the gentiles (goyim) and all of their matters are in the category of the impure... you must know and discern that the gentiles come from the side of impurity, for the souls of the gentiles derive from the side of impurity [29]

The following passage in the Zohar reaffirms this idea:

Said Rabbi Hiyya: If this is true (that neshamah is acquired through following the Torah) is it so that gentiles have no neshamah, only the living nefesh? Rabbi Yohannan said: That is correct.[30]

The view that gentiles only possess bestial souls was more popularized by the main kabbalistic text of hasidic movement, the Tanya (or Likkutei Amarim). Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the founder of the Chabad hasidic dynasty, claims that Jews like gentiles possess a vital animal soul, but the animal soul of the Jew comes from the fourth husk (Qlippoth nogah), while the animal soul of the gentiles comes from the three lower impure husks (Qlippoth Tumaot). Thus nothing gentiles do can elevate them to the level of holiness, their soul remains trapped in the unholy world of the impure Qlippoth.[31]

However, other Kabbalists like Abraham Abulafia believed that higher levels of soul are to some extent accessible to gentiles.[32]

Christianity

[edit]
Further information: Biblical law in Christianity, Paul the Apostle and Judaism, and Christianity and Paganism

The Greek ethnos, where it is translated as "gentile" in the context of early Christianity, implies non-Israelite. In the years after the ministry of Jesus, there were questions over the inclusion of non-Jews and the applicability of the Law of Moses, including circumcision. Over a few centuries, this led to a split between Jewish Christians, who followed Jesus but also Mosaic Law, and Pauline Christianity (also known as Gentile Christianity) which abandoned Mosaic Law and eventually became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Jewish Christian beliefs died out around the fifth century, after being rejected by both orthodox Judaism and orthodox Christianity.

With the ministry of Paul the Apostle the gospel began to be spread among the non-Jewish subjects of the Roman empire. A question existed among the disciples whether receiving the Holy Spirit through proselytization would be restricted to Israelites or whether it would include the gentiles as in Acts 10:34–47:

And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Within a few centuries, some Christians used the word "gentiles" to mean non-Christians. The alternative pagani was felt to be less elegant.[33]

Fathers of the Church

[edit]

Saint Gregory noted that those who had been redeemed included "some from among the Jews and many among the gentiles".[34]

Terminology in Christian Bibles

[edit]

In the King James Version, "gentile" is only one of several words used to translate goy or goyim. It is translated as "nation" 374 times, "heathen" 143 times, "gentiles" 30 times, and "people" 11 times. Some of these verses, such as Genesis 12:2 ("I will make of thee a great nation") and Genesis 25:23 ("Two nations are in thy womb") refer to Israelites or descendants of Abraham. Other verses, such as Isaiah 2:4 and Deuteronomy 11:23 are generic references to any nation. Typically, the KJV restricts the translation to "gentile" when the text is specifically referring to non-Jewish people. For example, the only use of the word in Genesis is in chapter 10, verse 5, referring to the peopling of the world by descendants of Japheth, "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."[35]

In the New Testament, the Greek word ethnos is used for peoples or nations in general, and is typically translated by the word "people", as in John 11:50. ("Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.") The translation "gentiles" is used in some instances, as in Matthew 10:5–6 to indicate non-Israelite peoples:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.[36]

Altogether, the word is used 123 times in the King James Version of the Bible,[37] and 168 times in the New Revised Standard Version.[38]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[edit]
Main article: Mormonism and Judaism

In the terminology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the word "gentile" can be used to refer to people who are not members of the LDS Church, since members regard themselves as regathered Israelites. The LDS Church's website states this about the meaning of gentile in Scripture (including the Book of Mormon), "As used in the scriptures, gentiles has several meanings. Sometimes it designates people of non-Israelite lineage, sometimes people of non-Jewish lineage, and sometimes nations that are without the gospel, even though there may be some Israelite blood among the people. This latter usage is especially characteristic of the word as used in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants."[3]

Thus, in such usage, Jewish people may be gentiles because they are not members of the LDS Church.[39]

Beyond this Scriptural usage, gentile was widely used by Mormons in day-to-day life in the nineteenth century, with such usage declining through the twentieth century. As with the binary Jew/gentile distinction, the Mormon/gentile distinction arose as Mormons were socially excluded and ostracised: according to John L. Needham of Utah State University:

"Nineteenth century Mormons in the American West applied 'gentile', as an adjective as much as a slur, to nearly everyone and everything that did not adhere to their faith or desert kingdom. Their xenophobia stood to reason: they were victims of religious discrimination, from ridicule in the press to acts of mob violence. They had been driven from a half dozen eastern states and were denied asylum in all others. Gentile thus served as a call to circle the wagons socially and politically around the fold - a means of naming the other".

— letter, PMLA Journal (1999)[4]

Needham goes on to say that today Mormons have "outgrown the term".[4]

Islam

[edit]

Some translations of the Quran, such as the famous Pickthall translation, employed the word "gentile" in some instances of the translation of the Arabic word الْأُمِّيِّينَ (al-ʼummiyyīn), the definite non-nominative masculine plural of أُمِّيّ (ʼummiyy), as in, for example, the following verse:

Among the People of the Scripture there is he who, if thou trust him with a weight of treasure, will return it to thee. And among them there is he who, if thou trust him with a piece of gold, will not return it to thee unless thou keep standing over him. That is because they say: We have no duty to the Gentiles. They speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly. - Quran 3:75

The word ummi occurs six times in the Quran. Pickthall only uses the word gentile once in the above passage and translates other occurrences as illiterate. However many other western scholars of the Quran came to similar conclusion that the word ummi is equal to the Hebrew word Goyim. Edward Henry Palmer used the word gentile in his translation of the Quran several times including in the following verse:

He is who sent unto the Gentiles a prophet amongst themselves to recite to them his signs and to purify them the book and wisdom although they were before in obvious error. -Quran 62:2[40]

Palmer like Pickthall did not translate all instances of the word ummi as Gentiles, but his comment on chapter 3 verse 19 shows his opinion :

Mohammad seems to have borrowed the expression from the Jews, ummiyyun having the same significance as Hebrew Goyim.[41]

John Medows Rodwell in his translation of the Quran comments similarly in a note on chapter 52 verse 157 that the word ummi is equivalent to the Greek ethnos and the Hebrew goyim, and was applied by Jews to those who did not know scripture. Elwood Morris Wherry wrote that almost certainly

this appellation came originally from the Jews who used it in expressing their contempt for the Gentile prophet.[42]

Some Muslim scholars also agreed with this idea: a French translation of the Quran by Muhammad Hamidullah uses the expression 'gentile prophet' in Sura 7 verse 157–158.[43] Muhammad Shahrur also believed that ummi prophet means gentile prophet in his book Al-Kitab wa-L-Quran (The Book and the Quran).[44] Abul A'la Maududi similarly translated the following instance as gentile.

He it is who has sent to the gentiles a Messenger from among themselves, one who rehearses to them his verses, purifies their lives, and imparts to them the book and the wisdom although before that they were in utter error. -Quran 62:2

Maududi clarifies in notes on this verse that the reason this verse has been sent is because Jews looked down on Arabs as gentiles and did not believe that a prophet can rise from their kind.[45]

However vast majority of Islamic scholars and translations made by Muslims are of the idea that ummi means illiterate.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Gentile

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A gentile is a who is not Jewish, a designation rooted in ancient religious distinctions between the and other . The term derives from the Latin gentilis, originally signifying "of the same clan, , or " (from gēns, meaning "" or "race"), which was adopted in and early English usage to describe pagans or non-Christians before narrowing to non-Jews around 1400 CE. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the equivalent concept translates the word goyim (singular goy), meaning "," which applied neutrally to any group but often denoted foreign, non- populations in contexts emphasizing covenantal separation. This usage carried into the , where Greek ethnē ("" or "") parallels gentile to signify those outside Jewish lineage, frequently portrayed as recipients of divine outreach or objects of prophetic inclusion. Beyond Abrahamic traditions, the label has been repurposed in contexts like Latter-day Saint theology to mean any non-Mormon, highlighting its adaptability to in-group/out-group dynamics rather than inherent ethnic traits. Historically, the term underscored theological boundaries without implying universal inferiority, though interpretations varied by era and interpreter, from biblical calls for gentile incorporation to medieval exclusions.

Etymology

Linguistic Origins

The English term gentile derives from Latin gentīlis ("of or belonging to the same or nation"), an adjective formed from gēns ("; ; ; race"), which denoted a kin group united by descent in ancient Roman . The root gēns originates from Proto-Indo-European *ǵenh₁- ("to ; beget"), reflecting concepts of birth and lineage central to Indo-European . In usage, gentīlis extended to mean "pagan" or "heathen" by , particularly in contexts where it contrasted Roman or Christian "nations" with others. This Latin form entered through the , translated by around 405 CE, where gentīlis rendered Greek ethnos (", people") or Hebrew goy ("") to denote non- or non-Jews in scriptural passages. The word reached as gentil or gentyle by the , initially via gentil (sharing roots with English "gentle," originally connoting from ties), but solidified in its religious sense of "non-Jew" through like the Wycliffite Bible (1380s) and later versions. Unlike direct translations of biblical goyim (plural "nations," applied neutrally to and others alike), gentile imported a Roman ethnographic lens emphasizing foreign clans or outsiders.

Evolution in Religious Contexts

In classical Latin, gentilis referred to someone belonging to the same gens (clan, tribe, or nation), carrying a neutral connotation of shared kinship or national origin. This usage predated Christian adoption, often describing pagans or foreigners in Roman contexts without inherent religious pejorative. With the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible by Jerome (completed circa 405 CE), gentilis was employed to render Hebrew goyim ("nations") from the Old Testament and Greek ethnos ("nations" or "peoples") from the New Testament, specifically denoting non-Israelites or non-Jews in scriptural narratives. This marked a semantic shift in ecclesiastical Latin, where the term evolved to emphasize theological otherness—contrasting the covenant people of Israel with surrounding nations—rather than mere tribal affiliation, influencing early Christian exegesis of passages like Isaiah 42:6 and Acts 10:35. By the , this specialized meaning permeated vernacular translations. The Wycliffite Bible (circa 1382–1395 CE), the first full English version, adopted "gentile" directly from gentilis to translate these biblical terms, solidifying its denotation as non-Jew in English religious discourse. Subsequent Reformation-era Bibles, such as William Tyndale's (1526 CE) and the King James Version (1611 CE), retained this usage, embedding the evolved sense in Protestant and distinguishing Jewish covenant identity from universalist calls to "nations" in contexts like :19. In , parallel rabbinic Hebrew retained goy without Latin influence, but English adaptations in modern Jewish scholarship mirrored the Christian trajectory, applying "gentile" neutrally to non-Jews while noting its Latin overlay on goy's original ethnic pluralism. This evolution reflects causal adaptation to monotheistic exclusivity, prioritizing scriptural fidelity over classical .

In Judaism

Biblical References

In the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), the primary term translated as "Gentile" or denoting non-Israelite peoples is goy (גּוֹי), with its plural goyim (גּוֹיִם), appearing approximately 561 times and fundamentally signifying "nation" or "people group." This usage applies neutrally to collective entities, including the ; for example, Exodus 19:6 designates Israel as a goy kadosh ("holy nation"), emphasizing their covenantal distinction rather than inherent ethnic separation. Similarly, Genesis 12:2 promises Abraham that his descendants will form a great goy, underscoring the term's broad applicability to any organized populace without pejorative connotation in its lexical root. Distinctions between and surrounding goyim emerge in legal and narrative contexts to highlight covenantal obligations, as in Deuteronomy 7:1–6, where warns against intermingling with seven specific Canaanite nations (goyim) due to their idolatrous practices, mandating separation to preserve monotheistic fidelity. Leviticus 18:24–28 extends this by portraying the land's prior inhabitants—collectively goyim—as defiled by abominations, resulting in their expulsion, a causal framework rooted in rather than ethnic inferiority. 2:1–8 depicts rebellious goyim and their rulers opposing 's anointed, yet envisions their subjugation and potential inheritance by the , blending judgment with redemptive possibility. Prophetic texts frequently project an eschatological inclusion of goyim, portraying them as recognizing Yahweh's sovereignty and participating in Israel's worship. Isaiah 2:2–4 foresees nations (goyim) streaming to Zion to learn Torah, beating swords into plowshares under divine arbitration, a vision of universal peace contingent on Torah adherence. Zechariah 8:23 prophesies ten men from goyim of every language grasping a Jew's garment, imploring guidance to the God of Israel, signaling Gentile initiative in seeking divine favor amid Israel's restoration. Isaiah 49:6 extends Israel's mission as a "light to the Gentiles" (le'oy goyim), implying salvific outreach to nations, though subordinate to Israel's priestly role. These references collectively frame goyim as autonomous actors in history, capable of opposition or alignment with God's purposes, without doctrinal endorsement of inherent subhuman status.

Rabbinic and Talmudic Developments

In , the status of gentiles was systematized through Noahide Laws, derived from biblical precedents and elaborated as universal moral imperatives applicable to all non-Jews. These commandments, codified in the ( 4:5, circa 200 CE) and expanded in the Babylonian ( 56a–b, circa 500 CE), prohibit , blasphemy against God, murder, theft, sexual immorality (including adultery, incest, and bestiality), and the consumption of flesh torn from a living animal, while mandating the establishment of legal systems to enforce . Observance of these laws distinguishes righteous gentiles, who, according to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in the ( 105a), merit a portion in , reflecting a rabbinic affirmation of gentile potential for without . Talmudic tractates such as Avodah Zarah (circa 200–500 CE) address practical interactions with gentiles, presuming them as idolaters in the Roman-era context, which imposed restrictions on wine handling, business partnerships, and ritual purity to avoid complicity in pagan practices. For instance, the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2a–b) delineates festivals of gentiles as periods of prohibited commerce due to idolatrous associations, yet permits lifesaving aid under the principle of pikuach nefesh (preservation of life), overriding Sabbath laws even for non-Jews in some interpretations. Divergent views emerged, such as Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai's assertion in the Talmud (Yevamot 61a) that gentile graves do not impart corpse impurity, based on Ezekiel 34:31 distinguishing Israel as "man" in a ritual sense, though this minority position underscores ritual particularism rather than ontological inferiority. Rabbinic texts emphasize causal distinctions in obligations: Jews bear from Sinai, while gentiles' covenant traces to (Genesis 9), enabling through minimal adherence amid historical antagonism from empires like , which influenced stringent halakhic precautions. Positive portrayals include talmudic anecdotes of exemplary gentiles, such as Onkelos the convert consulting spirits of biblical figures ( 56b–57a), highlighting wisdom accessible beyond Jewish boundaries, though study of by gentiles remains prohibited except for Noahide-relevant portions ( 59a). These developments balanced universalism with communal self-preservation, informed by empirical realities of vulnerability rather than abstract .

Medieval and Post-Medieval Views

In the medieval period, Jewish authorities elaborated on the Talmudic framework of the Noahide laws, positing seven universal commandments binding on all non-Jews: prohibitions against , , , , sexual , eating the limb of a living animal, and the positive obligation to establish courts of . These laws, derived from rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 9, distinguished gentiles from while affirming a moral path for non-Jews to achieve righteousness. (1138–1204), in his (Kings and Wars 8:11), explicitly stated that any gentile who accepts and observes these commandments is deemed a "righteous gentile" entitled to a portion in , rejecting notions of inherent Jewish ontological superiority over non-Jews and emphasizing rational as accessible to all humanity. This universalist stance contrasted with more particularist views, such as those of Judah Halevi (c. 1075–1141), who argued for a unique divine election of Jews tied to prophetic descent, rendering gentiles incapable of full spiritual equivalence. Sephardic scholars like Solomon ibn Adret (c. 1235–1310) extended Maimonides' distinctions, treating monotheistic Muslims more favorably than trinitarian Christians, whom they often classified as idolaters under Noahide prohibitions, influencing practical halakhic rulings on commerce and residence. In Ashkenazic communities, amid frequent persecutions, rabbinic responsa adopted cautious attitudes toward Christian gentiles, prohibiting aid in certain life-threatening scenarios for idolaters (per Maimonides' Laws of Murder 4:11) while upholding the Noahide framework for moral non-Jews. Nachmanides (1194–1270) critiqued overly rationalist gentile worship but affirmed that observant Noahides could attain salvation, blending mystical elements with halakhic inclusivity. Post-medieval developments from the 16th to 18th centuries largely perpetuated medieval categories amid shifting geopolitical contexts, such as expulsions from (1492) and (1497), which reinforced insularity but did not fundamentally alter theological optimism toward righteous gentiles. Figures like the Maharal of (1520–1609) integrated Kabbalistic ideas, viewing gentiles as possessing souls capable of elevation through Noahide observance, though subordinate to Jewish cosmic roles. In , where Jewish communities expanded under Polish-Lithuanian protection until the 18th-century partitions, responsa literature maintained distinctions between "Torah-observant" gentiles (worthy of respect) and violators (subject to social separation), with eschatological texts anticipating gentile submission to messianic Israel without wholesale damnation for the righteous. These views prioritized halakhic over medieval philosophical debates, adapting to ghettoization and while preserving the Noahide path as a baseline for gentile legitimacy.

Kabbalistic Interpretations

In Kabbalistic tradition, particularly as articulated in the , the foundational text of compiled in the 13th century, Gentiles (referred to as goyim) are metaphysically distinguished from through the origins and nature of their souls. Jewish souls are characterized as holy and elevated (nefesh hayah kadisha ila'ah), emanating directly from divine sources within the realm of holiness, enabling a unique capacity for eternal communion with . In contrast, the Zohar describes Gentile souls as deriving from impure sources, akin to those of animals, lacking the intrinsic and destined to decay rather than persist eternally. This dichotomy aligns with the broader Kabbalistic framework of the sitra achra (the "other side" or realm of impurity), where Gentile spiritual essence is associated with fragmented or husk-like (klipot) elements that obscure holiness. Lurianic Kabbalah, developed by Isaac Luria in the 16th century and systematized by his disciple Hayyim Vital in works like Eitz Hayyim, extends this view by linking Gentile souls to the cosmic catastrophe of shevirat ha-kelim (the breaking of the vessels). Jewish individuals possess dual souls—a lower nefesh shared with all humanity and a higher divine portion (chelek eloka mima'al)—allowing participation in tikkun (cosmic repair). Gentiles, however, are attributed only the base nefesh from "unclean shards" (klipot), devoid of inherent goodness or higher faculties like ruach (spirit) and neshamah (divine soul), rendering their spiritual potential inherently limited without transformation. The 70 nations of the world, corresponding to the 70 primordial roots descending from (and later Noah's ), embody these klipot in Lurianic cosmology, trapping holy sparks that require elevation primarily through Jewish and ethical action. Specifically, the seven Canaanite nations symbolize the shattered lower sefirot (divine emanations from to malchut), necessitating their eradication as commanded in Deuteronomy 20:16-17 to facilitate tikkun by removing entrenched impurity. Other nations, such as , , and , represent higher sefirot (, chochmah, binah) that retained partial holiness and thus await rectification in the Messianic era, underscoring a deferred role for Gentiles in ultimate cosmic harmony rather than active partnership in repair. Conversion to Judaism, in this schema, does not elevate a Gentile soul but reveals a latent Jewish soul that was concealed, as per teachings in the Tanya (late 18th century, drawing on earlier Kabbalah). Righteous Gentiles may merit a share in the World to Come via adherence to the Noahide laws, but only through parasitic attachment (devekut) to Jewish holiness, without independent access to divine levels. These interpretations emphasize a hierarchical ontology, where Jewish souls uniquely facilitate the rectification of universal impurity, reflecting Kabbalah's esoteric prioritization of Israel's covenantal role over egalitarian spiritual equivalence.

Modern Orthodox and Reform Perspectives

In Modern Orthodox Judaism, gentiles are regarded as capable of achieving righteousness and a share in by observing the seven Noahide laws, which include prohibitions against , , , , sexual immorality, eating the limb of a living animal, and the positive commandment to establish courts of justice. This framework, codified by medieval authorities like and reaffirmed in contemporary Orthodox thought, posits that non-Jews are not obligated to adopt the full but must adhere to these universal moral imperatives derived from Genesis 9. Modern Orthodox rabbis, such as those associated with outreach efforts, actively promote awareness of these laws among gentiles, viewing it as a religious duty to facilitate their observance, as evidenced by the growth of Noahide communities since the late . Relations with gentiles emphasize ethical treatment, including kindness and justice, though halakhic boundaries persist, such as prohibitions on intermarriage and certain business practices to avoid aiding ; deviations from these, like social intermingling that risks assimilation, are cautioned against in . Reform Judaism, emerging in the 19th century as a response to emancipation and Enlightenment influences, adopts a more universalist stance, prioritizing ethical monotheism over ritual distinctions between Jews and non-Jews. This perspective holds that gentiles share in Judaism's prophetic ideals of justice, compassion, and human dignity without needing to convert or follow specific Noahide codes, focusing instead on universal moral principles derivable from reason and shared humanity. The 1978 outreach initiative by Reform leader Rabbi Alexander Schindler explicitly encouraged engagement with non-Jewish partners in communal life, aiming to foster ethical alignment and, where appropriate, conversion, reflecting a view that interfaith ties do not inherently undermine Jewish identity. Unlike Orthodox emphasis on covenantal separation, Reform authorities have historically downplayed particularist barriers, as seen in acceptance of patrilineal descent and officiation at interfaith unions in some cases, though this has drawn internal critique for potentially diluting Jewish continuity. Classical Reform platforms, such as the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform, underscored a "mission" to propagate universal ethics to all peoples, positioning Judaism as a light for gentiles rather than a separate nation.

In Christianity

New Testament Usage

In the New Testament, the Greek term ἔθνος (ethnos, Strong's G1484) is the primary word translated as "Gentile," denoting a , , or multitude, often referring to non-Jewish ethnic groups or pagans in contrast to or . This usage draws from the Septuagint's rendering of Hebrew goyim (nations), applying it to outsiders of the covenant community. Ethnos appears approximately 164 times across the , with contexts emphasizing ethnic or cultural distinction rather than strictly religious , though it implies separation from Jewish law and . Early accounts portray Gentiles as peripheral to ' primary mission. In :5-6, directs his disciples to avoid the way of the Gentiles and , focusing instead on "the lost sheep of the house of ." Similarly, Matthew 15:24 records stating his sending was "only to the lost sheep of ," though exceptions occur, such as the of the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21-28), highlighting potential for Gentile inclusion through persistent belief and instances of healing. :27 echoes this prioritization, with initially declaring it "not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs," a for over Gentiles. These passages reflect a phased , where the perspective shifts from ethnic separation to spiritual inclusion, with Gentile expanding post-resurrection, as in the Great Commission commanding disciples to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19). The Book of Acts marks a pivotal shift toward Gentile incorporation, fulfilling prophecies of nations joining (e.g., Isaiah 49:6). Peter's vision in Acts 10 leads to Cornelius' household receiving the , prompting without . Paul emerges as the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13; :8), commissioned in and 13 to preach to ethnos groups across the . Key events include conversions in Antioch (Acts 11:19-26), the Jerusalem Council affirming Gentile exemption from full observance (:19-20), and Paul's synagogue-to-Gentile pattern (: "It was necessary that the word of be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside... behold, we are turning to the Gentiles"). Epistles, particularly Pauline, elaborate Gentile status in the . Ephesians 2:11-12 describes Gentiles as formerly "separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of and strangers to the covenants of promise," but now "brought near by the ," with Christ breaking down the dividing wall of hostility to make Gentiles fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God (Ephesians 2:14-19), forming "one new man" with . Romans 9-11 addresses Gentile into the of (Romans 11:17-24), warning against arrogance while celebrating inclusion to provoke Jewish jealousy (Romans 11:11). Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11 transcend ethnic barriers: "There is neither Jew nor Greek... for you are all one in Christ ," and "here there cannot be Greek and Jew." These texts underscore by apart from or law-keeping, positioning Gentiles as co-heirs without superseding .

Patristic and Early Church Debates

In the patristic period, early largely affirmed the apostolic decision from the (circa 49-50 AD) that Gentile converts to were not required to observe the , including , as a prerequisite for , emphasizing in Christ instead. This consensus built on Pauline theology, viewing Gentiles as grafted into the covenant through Christ without the "yoke" of the , while interpreting prophecies—such as Isaiah 42:1 and 1:11—as fulfilled in the Gentile offering of spiritual sacrifices like the . Debates persisted against residual Judaizing tendencies among some Christian groups, which insisted on observance for all believers, and against heresies like , which rejected the Jewish scriptures and Creator God as irrelevant to Gentile . Justin Martyr, writing around 160 AD in his , directly engaged a Jewish scholar to argue that Gentile Christians constituted the "true ," inheriting Abraham's promises through rather than physical descent or ritual law. He contended that prophecies of Gentile and inclusion, such as 4:1-2, were realized in the Church's global spread, where Gentiles offered "pure offerings" in every place without temple sacrifices. Justin allowed that a Gentile who observed the Law out of personal conviction might be saved if not proselytizing against Christ, but maintained that the Law's carnal ordinances were obsolete post-Christ, superseded by spiritual circumcision of the heart. This work reflects early supersessionist leanings, positing unbelieving as alienated from covenant blessings now extended to believing Gentiles. Tertullian, circa 200-220 AD, robustly defended Gentile inclusion against Marcion's claim that the Jewish God was hostile to humanity and irrelevant to Christ's universal mission. In Against Marcion, he cited Old Testament texts like Malachi 1:11—"from the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the Gentiles"—as prophesying the Church's liturgical worship by former pagans. Tertullian argued that Marcion's truncated canon ignored divine promises of Gentile conversion, affirming the Creator's plan encompassed both Jews and Gentiles under one economy of salvation, with the Law as a temporary pedagogue leading to Christ. His polemic underscored causal continuity between Testaments, rejecting any bifurcation that would deny Gentiles' prophetic roots in Jewish scripture. Origen of Alexandria, in Contra Celsum (circa 248 AD), responded to pagan critic by portraying Christianity's appeal to Gentiles as fulfillment of Isaiah's "light to the Gentiles" (:6), offering liberation from idolatrous bondage through Christ's universal lordship. He referenced Pauline incidents, such as Peter's withdrawal from Gentile table fellowship due to Jewish pressure (:11-14), to illustrate early tensions but affirmed the Church's transcendence of ethnic barriers, with Gentiles dominating numerically as evidence of divine favor shifting from unbelieving . Origen's allegorical portrayed ceremonies as shadows pointing to Gentile participation in spiritual realities, though he critiqued for misrepresenting Christian-Jewish dynamics as mere factionalism. These debates, preserved in primary patristic writings rather than formal councils, reveal a toward viewing the Church as the people, where Gentiles' exemption from the highlighted grace over works, while countering both legalistic holdouts and antinomian dualisms. of Lyons (circa 180 AD), though focused more on anti-heretical recapitulation , echoed this by integrating Gentiles into Christ's redemptive summation of humanity, drawing from scriptures promising their incorporation without abrogating divine unity. Primary sources like these, as foundational Christian documents, warrant scrutiny for emerging anti-Jewish rhetoric amid growing separation from communities, yet their scriptural fidelity supports the empirical pattern of rapid Gentile-majority growth in the early Church by the third century.

Medieval Theology and Supersessionism

In medieval , asserted that the established by Jesus Christ fulfilled and abrogated the with ethnic , transferring its spiritual privileges to the universal Church composed of believing and Gentiles. This , which positioned Gentile converts as co-heirs with converted in the promises originally made to Abraham's descendants, dominated scholastic thought and justified the Church's self-understanding as the "true ." Theologians maintained that Gentiles, previously excluded from the covenant, were now grafted into God's people through , rendering the old ceremonial laws obsolete and ethnic descent irrelevant for . Augustine's patristic framework profoundly shaped medieval , particularly through his doctrine of Jewish witness-bearing. He argued that , dispersed as punishment for rejecting Christ, should be tolerated but subordinated, preserving their scriptures and existence as involuntary testimony to Christianity's veracity while barring them from equality with Gentile Christians. This view permeated medieval and , influencing policies that confined to marginal roles, such as moneylending, as a form of perpetual servitude reflective of their theological displacement by the Gentile-inclusive Church. Thomas Aquinas systematized these ideas in the Summa Theologica, contending that the Old Law served a preparatory function but ceased with Christ's advent, binding only Jews historically while the New Law extended salvific grace universally to Gentiles without requiring circumcision or dietary observances. He viewed ongoing Jewish unbelief as divine judgment, obligating them to acknowledge Christian superiority, yet he opposed their extermination, echoing Augustine's witness rationale; Gentiles, by contrast, exemplified the covenant's expansion, forming the Church's bulk as the elect nation. Scholarly assessments debate the precise degree of Aquinas's supersessionism, with some interpreting his emphasis on Israel's temporary hardening (per Romans 11) as allowing eschatological restoration, though his overall framework prioritized the Church's fulfillment of Israel's role. Ecclesiastical councils codified supersessionist implications for Gentiles and Jews, as seen in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, which mandated distinctive garb for to prevent social ambiguity with and barred them from public offices over Gentiles, underscoring their theological demotion. These measures reinforced the doctrine's causal logic: Jewish rejection of Christ necessitated Gentile predominance in the covenant community, fostering a hierarchical where the Church, as spiritual , claimed exclusive mediatory authority.

Reformation and Post-Reformation Views

Martin Luther and John Calvin, key figures in the Protestant , upheld the biblical doctrine of Gentile inclusion into the people of God through alone, independent of Mosaic ceremonies or ethnic distinction. In his commentary on Galatians 2:15, Luther contrasted Jews who prided themselves on the Law with Gentiles deemed sinners, arguing that both groups stand condemned apart from justifying in Christ, thereby democratizing beyond Jewish boundaries. Calvin, expounding Ephesians 2:11–22, asserted that Christ abolished the enmity between Jews and Gentiles by his cross, creating one new humanity where Gentiles, once aliens to the covenants, gain equal access to grace without prior adherence to the Law. This emphasis on reinforced the early church's decision against imposing on Gentiles, positioning the Reformation as a recovery of apostolic universality against perceived medieval distortions that elevated ecclesiastical rituals over . Reformers viewed Gentile incorporation as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, such as , where serves as a to the nations, now realized in the gospel's global reach. Calvin, commenting on Romans 11, described the "fullness of the Gentiles" entering as providential, temporarily hardening to provoke jealousy and ultimate restoration, thus framing Gentile not as superseding but as expanding God's redemptive purposes. Luther similarly proclaimed the gospel's call to all nations, decrying Jewish reliance on lineage while affirming Gentiles' access through Christ, though his later polemics against highlighted tensions in applying these principles. Post-Reformation Protestant theology, particularly in Reformed covenantal frameworks, systematized Gentile inclusion within the singular covenant of grace spanning from Abraham to the , where believing Gentiles are grafted into 's olive tree (Romans 11:17–24). Theologians like Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) and Herman Witsius (1636–1708) portrayed the church as the eschatological comprising regenerate and Gentiles, rejecting ethnic exclusivity while maintaining continuity with Abrahamic promises fulfilled in Christ. This view fueled 18th- and 19th-century expansions to unevangelized Gentile peoples, as seen in the Moravian missions beginning in 1732 and the Baptist efforts led by William Carey in 1792, prioritizing gospel proclamation over cultural or ritual prerequisites. Puritan divines, such as (1639–1723), anticipated a future influx of converted joining Gentile believers, underscoring equality in the invisible church bound by faith rather than bloodline.

In Islam

Quranic Terminology

The Qurʾān categorizes non-Muslims through terms emphasizing theological divergence rather than ethnic or national origin, lacking a unitary equivalent to the Jewish "" () that broadly denotes non-Jews irrespective of belief. Instead, it employs al-kāfirūn (disbelievers), derived from the triliteral k-f-r connoting or of truth, to refer to those who reject God's oneness (tawḥīd) or the prophethood of Muḥammad; this term appears in contexts applying to opponents of , including some among and who deny the final message. Scholarly analysis notes that while kāfir is sometimes extended post-Qurʾānicly to all non-Muslims, the text itself distinguishes its usage, often pairing it with specific groups rather than as a blanket descriptor for outsiders. A parallel category is al-mushrikūn (polytheists or associators), targeting those who commit shirk by ascribing partners or equals to , such as the pre-Islamic idolaters; this term underscores as the gravest infidelity, with verses like Sūrat al-Bayyinah (98:1-6) juxtaposing disbelievers from against polytheists in eschatological judgment. Mushrikūn implies active attribution of divinity to non-God entities, differentiating it from mere disbelief and appearing in treaty-related abrogations, as in Sūrat al-Tawbah (9:5), where it addresses treaty-breaking pagans. In contrast, ahl al-kitāb (People of the Book) specifically identifies Jews (Yahūd) and Christians (Naṣārā), acknowledging their possession of prior scriptures like the Torah and Gospel, which grants them qualified protections not extended to polytheists—such as permissibility of food and marriage in Sūrat al-Māʾidah (5:5). This designation reflects a scriptural continuity, though the Qurʾān critiques distortions (taḥrīf) in their traditions and holds them accountable for rejecting Muḥammad's prophethood, sometimes labeling rejecting subsets as disbelievers. The term ummī, applied to Muḥammad as "the unlettered prophet" (Sūrat al-Aʿrāf 7:157-158), has been interpreted by some modern scholars as denoting a "gentile" or non-scriptural origin, paralleling Biblical Gentile prophets from non-Jewish lineages, though classical exegesis favors illiteracy. These terms collectively frame non-Muslims causally through rejection of revelation, prioritizing monotheistic fidelity over neutral ethnic outsider status.

Classical Jurisprudence on Non-Muslims

In classical Islamic , non-Muslims residing in territories under Muslim rule (dar al-Islam) were primarily categorized under the dhimma system, granting protected status () to adherents of recognized monotheistic faiths, known as Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book), including , , and sometimes Sabians or Zoroastrians. This covenant, rooted in Quranic injunctions such as 9:29, obligated the Islamic polity to safeguard the dhimmis' lives, property, and communal religious practice in exchange for submission to Muslim authority, payment of , and observance of specified restrictions designed to affirm Muslim supremacy. Jurists across the four Sunni madhabs—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali—generally concurred on the dhimma's core framework, viewing it as a contractual aman () that precluded but institutionalized social and legal subordination to deter emulation of non-Islamic practices and maintain order. The jizya tax formed the economic cornerstone of dhimmi obligations, imposed as a per capita poll tax on free, able-bodied adult males capable of military service, exempting women, children, the elderly, poor, and sometimes monks or the disabled. Rates were tiered by wealth and varied slightly among madhabs: Hanafi jurists stipulated 48 dirhams for the rich, 24 for the middle class, and 12 for the poor annually, while other schools like Shafi'i set a flat minimum of one dinar (equivalent to about 4.235 grams of gold) without strict tiering, emphasizing proportionality to means. In return, dhimmis received state protection against external threats and exemption from zakat and conscription, though classical texts framed payment as an act of humility (fi saghirin), often collected in ritualized humiliation to underscore inferiority. Violations of payment could revoke protection, potentially leading to enslavement or execution, but consistent compliance ensured communal autonomy in personal status laws like marriage and inheritance. Restrictions on dhimmis, codified in shurut al-umma (conditions of the covenant) and exemplified by the 7th–9th century tradition, prohibited public displays of religion such as loud bells, processions, or new places of ; mandated distinctive or signs (ghiyar) for identification; barred bearing arms, riding saddled horses, or holding over Muslims; and forbade proselytizing or building higher than mosques. These applied uniformly across madhabs, though Hanafis permitted limited repairs to existing synagogues or churches under supervision, while Shafi'i and Hanbali schools were stricter on expansions or public symbols to prevent perceived ascendancy. Intermarriage was disallowed with Muslim women, and testimony against Muslims held limited weight in courts, reflecting a hierarchical order where dhimmis retained economic equality but political and social inferiority, with breaches punishable by fines, expulsion, or war resumption. Polytheists or atheists typically lacked eligibility, facing conversion, under duress, or combat unless granted temporary safe-conduct (musta'min).

Contemporary Interpretations

In contemporary Islamic thought, interpretations of relations with non-Muslims—often analogous to the biblical concept of Gentiles—have shifted toward emphasizing coexistence and mutual respect, influenced by , migration, and discourses, though rooted in Quranic principles of and no compulsion in religion (Quran 2:256). Scholars such as those at the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research argue that Islamic historically granted non-Muslims under Muslim rule protections for life, , , and autonomy as dhimmis, with obligations like tax in exchange for security, and contend these precedents support modern pluralism without abrogating sharia distinctions. This view posits that general Quranic exhortations to benevolence, such as charity and , extend to non-Muslims absent , as evidenced by prophetic practices like aiding non-Muslim neighbors. Reformist jurists, including , extend these protections to include safeguards for non-Muslim honor, welfare against poverty or disability, and equal access to justice, framing them as universal Islamic imperatives rather than relics of medieval polity. In diaspora contexts, bodies like the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) rule that interactions with non-Muslims in non-Muslim lands are permissible by default, provided they avoid haram acts like promoting disbelief or compromising faith, facilitating and civic participation. Similarly, fatwas from SeekersGuidance interpret 5:51 as prohibiting protective alliances (walaya) with belligerent non-Muslims, not prohibiting friendships or social ties with peaceful ones, countering stricter classical views that limited intimacy to prevent assimilation. Debates persist on soteriology, with some modern exegetes, drawing from Quran 17:15's assurance against punishment without messengers, suggesting righteous pre-Islamic non-Muslims (e.g., Hanifs) could attain salvation, while post-Muhammadal era requires submission to Islam for paradise entry, though God judges intentions. Critics of mainstream apologetic sources, such as Yaqeen—which align with institutional Islamic scholarship potentially incentivized to promote harmony—note that empirical implementation in countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan often retains inequalities, such as blasphemy laws disproportionately affecting non-Muslims or restrictions on proselytization, reflecting classical fiqh's prioritization of Muslim precedence over egalitarian ideals. Purposive reinterpretations by scholars like those in the Journal of Islamic Studies advocate adapting texts for contemporary equity, permitting acts like holiday congratulations to foster goodwill, provided they do not endorse kufr.

Usage in Other Traditions

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

In the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "Gentile" draws from biblical precedents, denoting nations or peoples not descended from the house of , as well as those of non-Jewish lineage or lacking , irrespective of Israelite ancestry among them. This usage aligns with scriptural contexts in the , , and , where Gentiles represent groups outside covenant , such as the non-Israelite nations proselytized in the or the American populace to whom the was revealed in 1829. The 's explicitly states its purpose to convince "the Jew and Gentile that is the Christ," positioning Gentiles as recipients of divine records alongside . Latter-day Saints interpret prophecies, such as those in 1 Nephi 22:8 and 109:60, as indicating the gospel's initial restoration through Gentiles—symbolizing and early American converts, despite many being of Israelite lineage—before its full gathering to . In this framework, Church members, through and covenant-making, become "adopted" into via priesthood ordinances, distinguishing them from Gentiles who remain outside these covenants. In practical and historical Latter-day Saint discourse, "Gentile" frequently refers to non-members of the Church, reflecting the view that adherents constitute the modern regathering of as of the Church's founding on , 1830. Early leaders like applied the term to outsiders, including in contexts of , where non-members were labeled Gentiles to fulfill prophecies of the gospel going "first unto the Gentiles" ( 14:10). This persists in some cultural usage, as noted in Church histories describing "Gentile (nonmember)" influences during 19th-century settlement, though official doctrinal emphasis prioritizes scriptural breadth over exclusive denominational application.

Eschatological Contexts in Prophecy

In prophetic literature, Gentiles are frequently portrayed in eschatological scenarios as nations converging upon in the , either in judgment or worship. Isaiah 2:2-4 envisions the "mountain of the Lord's house" established as chief among mountains, with "all the nations" streaming to it to learn God's ways, resulting in swords beaten into plowshares and global peace under divine instruction. Similarly, Zechariah 14:16 prophesies that survivors from "all the nations" who previously warred against will annually worship the King in during the Feast of Tabernacles, with withholding of rain as punishment for non-compliance, underscoring a enforced gentile submission to Israelite-centered worship in the post-tribulation . These texts frame Gentiles as peripheral actors whose ultimate role affirms Israel's centrality in God's redemptive plan, with empirical patterns in ancient Near Eastern treaties reflected in the conditional blessings and curses. New Testament eschatology builds on these motifs, emphasizing a transitional "fullness of the Gentiles" preceding Israel's national restoration. In Romans 11:25, Paul states that Israel's partial hardening persists "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in," after which "all Israel will be saved," interpreting Old Testament promises like Isaiah 59:20-21 as applying to ethnic Israel amid gentile inclusion via grafting (Romans 11:17-24). Jesus' Olivet Discourse in Luke 21:24 predicts Jerusalem trampled by Gentiles "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," linking this era—initiated by Babylonian captivity in 586 BCE and spanning successive empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome)—to the lead-up of his parousia, with fulfillment tied to Israel's spiritual revival rather than mere political shifts. This "times of the Gentiles" concept, echoed in Revelation 11:2 where the outer court is given to Gentiles for 42 months, denotes a final intensification of gentile dominance over the temple precincts during tribulation, yet culminating in divine intervention. Revelation further depicts Gentiles in dual eschatological roles: as a vast redeemed multitude from "every , , and language" standing before the throne ( 7:9), symbolizing gentile participation in salvation post-seals of judgment, and as deceived nations under antichristian beasts, whose armies converge at (:14-16). Prophetic visions in 66:18-23 extend this, foreseeing God's sign gathering all nations and tongues to witness Jerusalem's glory, with some gentiles serving as and Levites in an eternal temple service, though scholarly questions whether such roles literalize gentile co-heirship or subordinate them to Israel's priestly mandate. These contexts, rooted in first-century Jewish apocalyptic expectations, prioritize causal sequences of judgment, conversion, and subordination, with gentile influxes serving to provoke Israelite jealousy and fulfill Abrahamic promises of blessing all families of earth (Genesis 12:3). Interpretations vary, but dispensational frameworks, drawing from (), posit gentile world powers persisting until Christ's kingdom crushes them, restoring Davidic rule without equating the church as fulfilled .

Theological and Cultural Implications

Noahide Laws and Gentile Obligations

The Noahide laws, also known as the seven laws of Noah, represent the minimal ethical and religious obligations imposed on all non-Jewish humanity (gentiles) according to traditional Jewish jurisprudence. These laws originate from rabbinic interpretation of Genesis chapters 2 and 9, where commandments were given to and reiterated to after the , binding descendants of Noah—i.e., all humankind—as universal moral imperatives distinct from the (mitzvot) binding upon . The Babylonian in 56a explicitly enumerates them as follows: (1) establishment of courts of to enforce societal laws; (2) prohibition of against ; (3) prohibition of ; (4) prohibition of ; (5) prohibition of ; (6) prohibition of sexual immorality, including relations with close relatives, , and homosexual acts; and (7) prohibition of consuming flesh torn from a living animal. Maimonides (Rambam), in his 12th-century codification Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Melachim uMilchamot 9:1-10), affirms that six of these laws were commanded directly to Adam—excluding the dietary prohibition added post-Flood to Noah—emphasizing their pre-Sinaitic, covenantal status for gentiles. Violation of any constitutes a capital offense under Noahide jurisprudence, theoretically punishable by decapitation through a duly established court, though enforcement requires a functioning judicial system among gentiles themselves. Gentiles who uphold all seven are deemed "righteous among the nations" (chasidim umot ha'olam), meriting a share in the world to come (Olam HaBa), without needing conversion to Judaism or observance of additional Jewish laws. This framework underscores a dual covenantal structure: Jews as a "kingdom of priests" under the full Torah, while gentiles achieve moral sufficiency through Noahide compliance, promoting societal stability and monotheistic ethics globally. Rabbinic sources stress proactive fulfillment, such as gentiles forming legal systems to adjudicate these laws internally, rather than relying on Jewish authority. Historical Jewish thought, from the onward, views non-observance as contributing to pre-Flood corruption (Genesis 6:11-12), justifying the deluge as , while post-Flood adherence ensures human preservation. Modern Orthodox interpretations, drawing on these texts, maintain that these obligations remain unaltered, rejecting in favor of objective divine mandates derivable from scripture and reason.

Controversies Over Exclusivity and Anti-Gentile Traditions

Critics of Jewish tradition, such as Israel Shahak in his 1994 book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, argue that classical Halakhah contains discriminatory laws against non-Jews, fostering an ethos of exclusivity and moral asymmetry. Shahak cites provisions where the murder of a Gentile by a Jew does not incur capital punishment in a Jewish court, unlike the killing of a Jew, which is one of the gravest offenses; he attributes this to Talmudic interpretations emphasizing Jewish covenantal priority. Similarly, Maimonides rules that Gentiles in the Land of Israel face stricter property and residency restrictions, including prohibitions on Jews selling land to them, justified as preserving Jewish sovereignty but interpreted by detractors as supremacist. Talmudic passages have fueled accusations of anti-Gentile animus, such as 26b, which states that Gentiles "are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]," implying indifference to their welfare; Shahak links this to broader norms exempting to idolaters in certain contexts. Another controversial dictum, from Soferim 15:10 (a minor Talmudic tractate), declares "even the best of the Gentiles should all be killed," often contextualized by defenders as a wartime exhortation against ancient persecutors like the Romans, yet cited by critics as reflective of enduring ethnocentric hostility. These texts, Shahak contends, were historically concealed from outsiders to mitigate anti-Semitism but persisted in Orthodox education, influencing discriminatory attitudes in modern , such as leniency toward violence against under religious pretexts. Jewish exclusivity controversies also stem from the doctrine of Israel as the "chosen people," articulated in Deuteronomy 7:6, which mandates separation from nations to avoid assimilation and ; critics like those in academic critiques of sacred literature view this as inherently exclusionary, embedding contempt for Gentiles as spiritually inferior. Halakhic extensions, including bans on intermarriage and social intermingling to prevent adoption of "idolatrous behaviors," reinforce this divide, with some Orthodox rulings obligating reciprocity only in universal Noahide laws while prioritizing Jewish communal welfare. Responses from Jewish scholars emphasize contextual historical persecution—e.g., Roman oppression informing harsh rhetoric—and highlight counterbalancing positive views, such as recognition of righteous Gentiles earning eternal reward via Noahide observance. Tractates like 105a praise Gentile prophets, and modern Orthodox thought, per J. David Bleich, frames distinctions as preservative rather than derogatory, with full moral reciprocity urged in contemporary ethics. Shahak's interpretations, while drawing on primary texts, are contested for selective emphasis and alleged exaggeration, as mainstream sources like My Jewish Learning note their amplification in anti-Semitic narratives without acknowledging Judaism's universalist elements, such as the obligation to sustain Gentile poor equally with Jewish poor under ' .

Interfaith Relations and Criticisms

The concept of Gentiles as non-Jews has influenced interfaith dialogues among by providing a theological framework for coexistence, particularly through the Noahide laws, which outline seven universal moral imperatives applicable to all humanity outside the . These laws—prohibiting , , , , sexual , eating flesh from living animals, and requiring establishment of courts—position righteous Gentiles as eligible for a share in without , fostering a basis for ethical pluralism in Jewish outreach to and . Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in his writings on interfaith relations, described the Noahide framework as enabling non-Jews to relate to the divine within Judaism's ethical boundaries, thus supporting collaborative efforts on shared moral issues like human dignity and . Similarly, Chabad-Lubavitch promotes the Noahide tradition as a foundation for global civilization, emphasizing its role in uniting and Gentiles under monotheistic principles without . In Christian-Jewish interfaith initiatives, the historical inclusion of in —evident in accounts like the (circa 50 CE), which exempted Gentiles from full observance—has been reframed as complementary to Jewish particularism, with some Jewish thinkers crediting for extending Noahide to the world. This perspective appears in post-Vatican II dialogues, such as those facilitated by the International Council of and , where mutual recognition of Gentiles' spiritual legitimacy mitigates supersessionist tensions, though debates persist over whether fulfills or distorts Jewish universalism for non-Jews. With , overlaps arise in shared Abrahamic , as Islamic incorporates analogous universal prohibitions (e.g., against and ), allowing Jewish-Muslim forums to discuss Gentiles under Noahide-like covenants, as seen in joint statements on in pluralistic societies. However, divergences in views of prophethood and complicate these exchanges, with some Muslim scholars critiquing Jewish ethnic particularism as limiting divine universality extended to Gentiles. Criticisms of the Gentile concept in interfaith contexts often center on allegations of inherent Jewish exclusivity or hostility derived from rabbinic texts, which some interpret as devaluing non-Jewish life or property. , in his 1994 book Jewish History, Jewish Religion, cited Talmudic passages (e.g., from tractates like and ) to argue that medieval halakhic rulings treated Gentile bloodshed or theft leniently compared to intra-Jewish cases, potentially eroding trust in Jewish commitments to equality. Such claims, echoed in critiques from secular and anti-Zionist perspectives, portray Noahide laws as a minimal ethic masking supremacist undertones, hindering genuine interfaith parity. Jewish defenders, including Orthodox scholars, counter that these texts addressed ancient idolatrous threats amid , not contemporary monotheists, and that post-Enlightenment interpretations—codified in works like ' Mishneh Torah—mandate fair treatment of all ethical non-Jews, with historical censorship by Christian authorities distorting records. Empirical analysis of modern Jewish behavior, such as participation in interfaith coalitions like the , shows adherence to reciprocal norms, undermining systemic bias narratives, though isolated ultra-Orthodox statements invoking harsh giddulei (wartime) precedents fuel ongoing skepticism. Broader interfaith critiques highlight how the Gentile label reinforces in-group/out-group dynamics, with Christian theologians occasionally decrying residual Pharisaic separatism as antithetical to Pauline (Galatians 3:28), while Muslim interlocutors question Jewish covenantal priority as ethnocentric amid Quranic emphasis on inclusivity for believers regardless of origin. These tensions surfaced in forums like the 2008 Catholic-Jewish-Muslim trialogue on , where exclusivity debates underscored Gentile status as a flashpoint for reconciling particular revelation with global ethics. Despite such frictions, pragmatic alliances—e.g., on anti-extremism—demonstrate that theological critiques rarely derail cooperation, as evidenced by joint declarations from bodies like the affirming Gentiles' moral agency under analogues.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gentile
  2. https://www.etymonline.com/word/gentile
  3. https://biblehub.com/q/what_does_the_term_%27gentile%27_mean.htm
  4. https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/who-are-the-gentiles.html
  5. https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-a-Gentile.html
  6. https://www.hebrewreaders.com/what-is-a-gentile
  7. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6585-gentile
  8. https://turningtogodsword.com/gentiles/
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3194464
  10. https://thechurchco-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/3919/2022/07/Ethnicty-in-the-New-Testament.pdf
  11. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/gentile-christianity-as-a-category-in-the-study-of-christian-origins/79E4083F4FF363717BBC96B81573218B
  12. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/hh63t528f
  13. https://momentmag.com/jewish-word-gentile/
  14. https://www.franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=174
  15. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1471.htm
  16. https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/G/gentiles.html
  17. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/overview-attitudes-toward-non-jews/
  18. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-judaism/gentiles-in-rabbinic-thought/0B3A4B2F1A7146613B47E260D7036122
  19. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-non-jew-in-jewish-law/
  20. https://www.etzion.org.il/en/philosophy/issues-jewish-thought/rabbinic-thought/talmudic-attitudes-gentiles-2
  21. https://academic.oup.com/book/12793/chapter/162974351
  22. https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/learning-torah-from-the-talmuds-greatest-gentiles/
  23. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-noahide-laws/
  24. https://academic.oup.com/book/10695/chapter/158743174
  25. https://kavvanah.blog/2016/02/07/interview-with-menachem-kellner-they-too-are-called-human-gentiles-in-the-eyes-of-maimonides/
  26. https://www.jewishideas.org/article/review-essay-menachem-kellners-new-book-rambams-views-non-jews
  27. https://torahinmotion.org/programs/e-tim-maimonides-vs-judah-halevi-on-the-distinction-between-jew-and-gentile
  28. https://shs.hal.science/file/index/docid/797215/filename/Freidenreich_Conceptions_of_Gentiles_in_Halakhic_Literature_from_Christian_Spain.doc
  29. https://repository.yu.edu/bitstreams/bdb27218-4149-4ccf-94c9-fd4543942e2b/download
  30. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2011.00821.x
  31. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/the-fate-of-gentiles
  32. https://libcom.org/article/jewish-religion-and-its-attitude-non-jews-part-2-israel-shahak
  33. https://hakirah.org/Vol%2016%20Balk.pdf
  34. https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379644/jewish/Evil-Among-the-Nations.htm
  35. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-modern-noahide-movement/
  36. https://www.jewfaq.org/attitudes_toward_gentiles
  37. https://aish.com/what-does-judaism-really-say-about-non-jews/
  38. https://reformjudaism.org/beliefs-practices/what-reform-judaism/history-reform-judaism-and-look-ahead-search-belonging
  39. https://urj.org/rabbi-schindler-1978-speech-establishing-outreach
  40. http://www.reformjudaism.org.uk/reform-judaism-1000-words-intermarriage/
  41. http://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm
  42. https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/ethnos
  43. https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/jews-the-greeks-and-the-gentiles-who-are-they.htm
  44. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1484/kjv/tr/0-1/
  45. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/85282/would-using-nations-instead-of-gentiles-be-more-appropriate-as-a-translation
  46. https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/ethnos.html
  47. https://biblehub.com/matthew/28-19.htm
  48. https://rbgdevotional.org/tswmfm/tswmfm820115/
  49. https://precepts.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/gentiles-and-nations/
  50. https://rlsolberg.com/gentiles-and-the-law/
  51. https://biblehub.com/ephesians/2-14.htm
  52. https://knowingscripture.com/articles/prophecy-of-israel-applied-gentiles-romans-9-24-26
  53. https://biblehub.com/colossians/3-11.htm
  54. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01288.htm
  55. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm
  56. https://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/evans_marc_10book4_eng.htm
  57. https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
  58. https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/justin
  59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1510157
  60. https://ccel.org/ccel/tertullian/against_marcion/anf03.v.iv.iv.xxi.html
  61. https://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_marc/evans_marc_12book5_eng.htm
  62. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm
  63. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm
  64. https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/origen-celsus
  65. https://earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/e-books/williams_a-lukyn/dialogue-with-trypho_williams.pdf
  66. https://tyndale.tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj19c.pdf
  67. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=pretrib_arch
  68. https://www2.arpel.org/index.jsp/s5GBH5/246463/Augustine%2520And%2520The%2520Jews%2520A%2520Christian%2520Defense%2520Of%2520Jew.pdf
  69. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cgf6vw
  70. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/56/article/691456/pdf
  71. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm
  72. https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/344latj.html
  73. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.v.html
  74. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41/calcom41.iv.iii.v.html
  75. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iv.iii.i.html
  76. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xv.vi.html
  77. https://americanreformer.org/2025/09/luther-the-apostle-to-the-gentiles/
  78. https://heidelblog.net/2013/08/covenant-theology-is-not-replacement-theology/
  79. https://learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/gentiles-full-inclusion
  80. https://christoverall.com/article/concise/reformation-and-re-embracement-a-brief-history-of-the-puritan-hope-for-israel/
  81. https://www.juancole.com/2020/10/infidels-christians-called.html
  82. https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=98&verse=6
  83. https://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/juancole.htm
  84. https://myislam.org/quran-verses/people-of-the-book/
  85. https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2540/do-the-disbelievers-include-people-of-the-book
  86. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004687134/BP000005.pdf
  87. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=histuht
  88. https://ibir-api.hbku.edu.qa/sites/default/files/2022-09/Minority_rights_in_Islam_from_dhimmi_to.pdf
  89. https://www.academia.edu/35266022/Minority_rights_in_Islam_from_dhimmi_to_citizen
  90. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379750580_Concept_of_Jizyah_under_Islamic_Law_and_The_Historical_Factors_Contributing_to_its_Decline_ALAWIYE_Habeebulah_Olawale
  91. https://rke.abertay.ac.uk/files/15104389/Abu_Munshar_2003_A_historical_study_of_Muslim_treatment_PhD.pdf
  92. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-pact-of-umar-regulating-the-status-of-non-muslims-under-muslim-rule
  93. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/download/law/chpt/islamic-law.pdf
  94. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/4880052.pdf?abstractid=4880052&mirid=1
  95. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/religious-minorities-under-muslim-rule
  96. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/does-that-apply-to-non-muslims-too
  97. https://islamonline.net/en/the-rights-of-non-muslims-in-society-a-reading-of-al-qaradawi-thought/
  98. https://www.amjaonline.org/declaration-articles/amjas-11th-convention-2018-istanbul-contemporary-dawah-issues-in-non-muslim-lands
  99. https://seekersguidance.org/answers/general-counsel/friendship-with-non-muslims-explaining-verse-551/
  100. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2020/03/19/heaven-hell-and-non-muslims-in-the-quran/
  101. https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-134
  102. https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/ajis/article/download/13183/12774/46226
  103. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/gentiles?lang=eng
  104. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/gentile?lang=eng
  105. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/gentiles
  106. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/21-covenant-israel?lang=eng
  107. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times/chapter-thirty-four?lang=eng
  108. https://walvoord.com/article/25
  109. https://www.gotquestions.org/times-of-the-Gentiles.html
  110. https://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/125/125.htm
  111. https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/isaiah-66-and-the-conversion-of-the-gentiles
  112. https://scribesofthekingdom.com/2018/07/11/eschatological-gentiles/
  113. https://walvoord.com/article/22
  114. https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.56a
  115. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-seven-noachide-laws
  116. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/62221/jewish/The-7-Noahide-Laws.htm
  117. https://matzpen.org/english/1981-10-10/the-jewish-religion-and-its-attitude-to-non-jews-appendix-israel-shahak/
  118. https://www.fisheaters.com/shahak5.html
  119. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/israel-and-anti-gentile-traditions/
  120. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-Talmud-say-Even-the-best-of-Gentiles-all-must-be-eliminated
  121. https://acjna.org/articles/it-is-time-to-confront-the-exclusionary-ethnocentrism-in-jewish-sacred-literature/
  122. https://baytarrahmah.org/media/speeches/r20-2022/Rabbi-Professor-Alan-Brill_Problematic-Exclusivist-Texts.pdf
  123. https://rabbisacks.org/?s=Noahide
  124. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4157474/jewish/Seven-Laws-for-a-Beautiful-Planet.htm
  125. https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/in-praise-of-christian-jewish-interfaith-dialogue
  126. https://academic.oup.com/book/10695/chapter-abstract/158743174?redirectedFrom=fulltext
  127. https://jcpa.org/article/the-contemporary-rivalry-over-the-chosen-people-jewish-christian-and-muslim-perspectives/
  128. https://blog.hartfordinternational.edu/2022/01/25/history-of-interfaith-dialogue/
  129. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/63/article/199776
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.