Qoiim (n'Sa * nations,' or C'^irrSj ' all the nations *) occurs very freq. in OT as a designation of non^Jeicigh peoples (1 SS'^-^', 2 K ISffl 19", I Ch 1-1" 1(P», 2 Ch 3223 30I4, Neh 6", Ps 7910 lOft" etc.). The phrase gflU haggoiim {D;i:n h'^3 'circle of the nations') was applied to a district in the N. of Pal., whose population contained a large Gentile element. It is most familiar to us under its NT form 'Galilee of the Gentiles' (Mt 410)u The LXX equivalent of D'^a is W»*i, which is the regular term for dentiiea in NT as well as in Apocr. (e.g. 1 Es ti"" 8™, Wis 1411 151*). The form tditxa occurs in NT three times (Mt fP lb'7, and in the correct text of 3 Jn *0i the adverbial fonn i»i.»w (■ after the manner of Gentiles ') once (Oal 2^*).
Another designation, practically identical with goiim, is M* •drtUdth, ' the lands • (n'lx^^^■^t more fully nHs-iti.T "py or riil^c-} n'ti'^Nn ' peoples or kingdoms of the lands '). This term Is char- acteristic of late tieb. (occurring 23 times in Ezk and 22 times In Ch, rf. Jor 10", Dn 87 U*" *'-. Ps lor." Kxr-n 1073 11('.''X
In NT '£Uf]>ir ('Greeks') Is sometimes used, especiullv by St. Paul, as 8)-n. with (ientUet (Ro 2», 1 Co 12" eU-.X The same writer employs i'»n in a twofold sense, cither as ^^^xl^an Gentiles
in opposition to the Jews (Ro 21* 329, Gal &) or as = Gentile in opposition to Jewish Chriitians (Ro H'3, Gal 212- H). This double usage is well illustrated by comparing Eph 3i with 4*', in both of which passages 'tti»n is used ; but in the first it is simply a mark of nationahty, wliile in the second it has a morul touch, as is often the case with goiim in OT and l^tn In the Apocr., where (Jrntiies is sometinv^s practically equivalent to heathen (2 K 103 212, Ezr C-', Ps 2' », Jer 102 etc.). From this point Of view Ti (()**■„ the nations outside Isr., have no part in the covenants of promise (Eph 21'-), hence the emphasis which NT lays upon the new order of things when the mystery of the gospel (Eph 619) ig made known (.\c lui^ uls v/j etc.), until, tinally, the difference between Jew and Gentile having dis- appeared, the word i('vv; (heathen) niav be simply opposed to the (united) Christian Church (1 Co 51 10* 122, 1 Th 4^, 1 P 21^
Israel's attitude towards other nations, never marked by much cordiality, underwent most important modifications in the post-exilic period. The reformation of Ezra deliberately aimed at fostering that spirit of exclusiveness which gave so much offence to the GentUe world, and wTiich lent not a little colour to the charge of Tacitus (Hist. V. 5, cf. 1 Th 2") and others, that the Jews were enemies of the human race. Even to enter the house of a Gentile, and mucli more to eat with him, involved ceremonial uncleanness (Jn IS''*, Ac 10'^ 113). In the Talm. {Aboda Zara, i. 1, 2) we find it enacted that for three days before and after a heathen festival it was unlawful to transact business with G., to lend to or borrow from them, to pay money to or receive it from them. Side by side, indeed, with this exclusiveness, a prose- lytizing tendency was developed, to which we find allusions both in Jos. and NT [Ant. XX. ii.-iv., Mt 23"). By what seems at first a strange incon- sistency, but which is easily susceptible of explana- tion, even G. who were not proselytes might have sacrifices offered in the temple. This, which is implied in Lv 222*, jg expressly asserted by Jos. (c. Ap. ii. 5; fVars, II. xvii. 2^; Ant. XI. viii. 5, XIII. viii. 2, XVI. ii. 1, xvill. v. 3 ; cf. 1 Mac 7**). But that the G. could enter into full participation in the blessings of salvation except through the portal of Judaism, was an idea that dawned very slowly upon the minds even of some of the ajiostles of our Lord. The OT prophets suffered from the same limitations of vision. Even Deutero- Isaiah, who delights to describe the mission of Isr. to be a light to the G. (l.s 42* 49*), doubtless regarded con- formity to Israel's law as necessary on the part of the latter. It is crue that Isaiah himself reaches the sublime conception of Egypt and Assyria being, equally with Israel, the object of God's complacency (Is 19-'"2'), and that something approaching the conception of a universal religion set free from every trammel of national individuality is reached in Is .')(5"''' and Zeph 3"- '". But these exceptions simply prove the rule. Even the Hel. Jews did not neces.sarily through contact with the G. rise superior to the ancestral contempt for everything outside the pale of Judaism. On the contrary, their pride and exclusiveness were sometimes intensified, as we see from the bitter opposition with which they met the work of St. Paul. And in the Christian Church itself there was con- siderable friction between Jewish and G. Chris- tians— a fact which, in spite of the exaggerated importance attached to it oy the Tiibingen school, must never be left out of account in our con- struction of the early history of the Church. See further KoRElGNKB, Heathe-V, Paul, Pkopiiecv, Proselyte.