Forego (Hastings' Dictionary)

Sir 7" ' Forego not a wise and good woman : for her grace is above gold ' (ijl^ d(rr4x« ymaiKii aotpfii xal dyaBrjs, RV ' Forgo not a wise and good wife'). "The Gr. verb occurs elsewhere in LXX only in 8' ' Miss not the discourse of the elders' (RV 'aged'). In NT it is found only in the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Ti 1« (EV ' swerve '), 6-' (EV 'err'), 2 Ti 2" (EV 'err'), and at each occurrence RVm gives 'miss the mark,' which is its lit. meaning (d and arSxas, a mark).

Tlie meaning here is almost certainly that suggested by Walil noli separari ab uxore sapiente, ' do not separate yourself from, i.e. do not divorce a wise wife.' And that is probably the meaning of AV, which seems to be a new tr", the earlier Versions having uniformly ' Depart not from a discreet and good woman,'* with tne addition, 'that ie fallen unto thee for thy portion in the fear of the Lord,' after Vulg. quam sortitus es in timore Domini. For in earlier Eng.

' forgo ' had the meaning of forsake, as Cursor Mundi (1340), 13,280, ' Peturand andrew . . wth o word haue thei ship forgone ' ; and Shaks. Henry VIII. UL ii. 422— ' Crom. O my lord. Must I thM iftave you ? Must I needs forgo So pood, 9D ncMe, and so true a master ? * And this sense is still in use poetically, as in Mrs. Browning, Catarina to Camoens, iv. — ' And if they looked up to you. All the light which has forgone them Would be gathered back anew.'

The spelling of modem e<iitions of AV is forego, but forgo, which is the spelling of 1611 (' forgoe '), is the correct form. Forego is a different word, and means * to go before,' as Fotherby (1619), Atheom. n. iii. 2. 214, "The cause doth ftlwayea his effect fore-goe.' 'rhe prep, in 'forgo' i3/»r(Ger. ver), not fore, and reverses the meaning of the verb, as in forbid, fordo, forget, forswear, forspent, forspoke. In forbear ftnd forgive it add^ force to the simple verb. J. Hastings.

FOREHEAD (ns?, /j^om-oi').- This word occurs repeatedly in the Bible, both in a literal and in a metaphorical sense. It was upon his forehead that the high priest wore the plate of gold inscribed ' Holy to the Lord' (Ex 2S'«j ; the stone slung by David entered the forehead of Goliath (1 S IT'") ; leprosy broke out in the forehead of Uzziah when he sought to bum incense (2 Ch 26""^).

In Jer 3' • a harlot's forehead ' is the type of shamelessness ; in Ezk 3'- • " the people in their obstinacy are described as ' of an hard forehead,' but the propliet's forehead is to be made hard against them, his determination is to be equal to their own. In Ezk 9'- a mark is directed to be put on the forehead of the faitliful in Jerusalem. The name for this mark is w tav, a letter (n) which may have boen used in much the same way as a X amongst ourselves (cf.

Job 31^, where, however, the sense appears to be somewhat dill'erent ; see Davidson's and Dillmann's notes, ud loc). It is even possible that the reference in Ezk is to practices such as that described in Is 44' ' Another shall mark on his hand. Unto the Lord.' See CUTTIN(;S IN THK FLESH, vol. i. p. SSS" The.-ic OT passages suggested tlie NT usage (Rev 7' 9 13" 14'- » 17'20<'22^). • Kxcept Wyclif (13i>2), ' Wile thou Dot goo •wel fro a wel felende womman, and a good.' VOL. II.

— 4 In Ezk 1612, where AV has ' I put a jewel on tliy forehead,' RV gives more correctly ' I put a ring upon thy nose' (iisrSy dij [bni). For Lv 13"»- (' forehead bald') see Baldness. »,«T>„,«„„ J- ^- Selbik. FOREIGNER occurs four times in AV. It is the tr» m E.X 12" of ^yw (RV more accurately 'so- journer'), in Dt 15» and Ob" of nj;, and in Eph 2'" of TTdpoiicoj (RV 'sojourner'). RV sub- stitutes 'foreigner' for AV 'stranger' as tr° of TJJ-I? in Lv 232=, and of njj in Dt 17" 23*' 29', . Amer.

RV makes the same change in Ru 2'", 2 S 15", where the Heb. word is the same. A cognate term is alien (s) , which occurs in A V of Ex 18» as tr" of -u (RV correctly 'sojourner'), of -gi 'J? in Is 61', and of nn in Dt I4-' (RV 'foreigner'). Job 19", Ps 69», 'La 5-. RV adds Ex 12*, Ezk 44'- 9, Pr 5", where AV has 'stranger,' and Ps 144'-", where AV has 'strange children' (Heb. in all these -gi -s). Strangers is the favourite rendering in AV, not only of Ijj or i?:-]?

and \i (see below), but also of "13 and afJiB. The latter circum&tance is specially unfortunate, because it obscures to the Eng. reader the distinction between the foreigner and the ger, which in Heb. is marked clearly enough, and on which not a little depends for the understanding of many passages.

The ^Sr is indeed a foreigner by birth, but he resides m Israel and is protected by the community ; whereas the foreijjner proper ("I'i) is not only an alien by birth, but lias neither lioine nor rights in Israel It would have been well if RV had uniformly, instead of occasionally, substituted 'sojourner" for 'stranger' as the tr° of "13, and left ' strangei,' 'foreigner,' 'alien' to represent such words as ijj and ii. We shall now examine the linguistic u.sage of the last two Heb.

words and their equivalents in LXX and NT. (a) n; izir) in its root meaning appears acarcely to differ from gSr, although ultimately the two words have very different connotations. The orig. sense of both is one who turns asiae from the way (sc. to lodge somewhere). It is easy to connect this with the idea of a stranger or ati^n. Amongst other applications 11 is used to designate one who is not of a priestly family. Ex 2ff<3 3033, Nu sm- 8S 187 (aU P), Lv 2210- !» " (H).

or who does not belong to the tribe of Levi, Nu 1" 18^ (P). "The plur. D'ni is a frequent designation of foreign (generally hostile) peoples in contrast to Israel, Hos 79 S', Is 1', Ezk T^i, Jl 3", Ob 1* etc. The LXX equivalents are iXJ^rpiei and iXXtyif^t, the former of which occurs not infrequently in NT, the latter only once (Lk 17^8 of the Samaritan leper). (i) -i;; (nokhri) or 'cril (tlen-n^khdr).

If the root Idea here is Hrangenegs, perhaps 'stranger' might with advantage be reserved as the special tr° of these two equivalent terms. n^J Is y n)i 'exile' in 2 8 1519 (of Ittai the Oittite); it is opposed to a 'brother' (nN), i.e.

a fellow-Israelite, in Dt 15^ 17"; it is used of the stranger who directs his prayer towards the temple of Israel's Ood, 1 K 81 = 2 Oh 632 ; of the foreign wives (ni■^:;X Ezr 103 ; of foreign garb ClyJ Eha^D perhaps referring to the uniform of the foreign body-guard), Zeph 18 (cf. I?}'?? 'every- thing foreign,' Neb 1330). The commonest LXX equivalent il aXA«T^/« (cf. Ac 7, He 119-34). aiXXoyitrit also occurs (/.a. On n^J, Ex 12«, Lv 22», Is SOS-H) and IlXXc^Xm (Is 2« 61).

This last, wliich is the favourite LXX tr" of D'Pf '75 (Philistines), occurs only once in NT (Ac lO^s of Cornelius). Another favourite LXX rendering of i;j Is {i.« {e.g. 2S 16'» of IttoiX It is the exact opposite of \vtxipi*. The only Instances of it« occurrence in NT are Mt 2534 si » 277, Ao 17*1. Eoh S^ '» Hell", 3Jn». As in olden times foreigner and enemy were almost convert- ible terms, we find both it and "l^; used so as to include the idua of hostility or barbarism (cf.

Is 1', Ps M», Ezk ll", Hos 7» [all C"!!), Ps IS*^ «» ("i;j 'j;l. The same meaning of hottile Is contained in the ixyirpM of He lis, 1 Mac 1»8 S7, Sir *518 etc.) Presencte and Position of Foreigners in I.'SRAEL. — In the early stages of their history, the relations of Israel to foreigners did not differ essen- tially from those of other nations.

As the law, however, was grjftlually introduced, the attitude of Israelites to non- Israelites underwent a material change, until ultimately the 'nations' outside 50 FOKEIGNEK FOREIGXEK Israel became the ' heathen,' while the stranger domiciled in Israel, the 'jcr,' became tlie ' prose- lyte'(Uertholet). (a) The pre- Deuteronomic Period. — Our earliest sources contain abundant references to foreigners, whetlier passing stranj;ers or residents in Israel.

Trade was frequently the motive of their visits. The two words for ' merchant,' ins and Szi, both mean originally 'traveller' ; in Pr Zl''* and Job 41" ' Canaanite ' is synonymous with ' trader,' showing that in early times the travelling merchantmen in Palestine had been, not Israelites, but Canaanites. The danger of travelling alone (Jg 5") was avoided by caravans, some of the most important of whose trade-routes traversed Palestine (Gn ST'", 1 K 10-, Is 8-3 [Eng. 9'] 60"- ', Ezk 20-).

It must never be forgotten that from the occupation of Canaan downwards Israel was in constant contact with foreigners in the shape of the large remnants of the original inliabitants of the land. Our different sources offer different explanations of the survival of the Canaanites, but they all agree as to the fact (Ex 23^, Dt 7^, Jg 22» 31*-). We have the well- kno\\Ti stoi^y of the Gibeonites (Jos 9), as well as a whole list of Can. towns enumerated amongst the various Isr. tribes (Jg !"

•) ; in 1^'- it is the Isr. that dwell among the Can., while Issachar is actually tributary to the latter (Gn 49''"-)- In Jg 5" (of. 12") we hear of Amalekite remnants, in Jg S» (cf. Ex IS""-), Nu W\ 1 S IS" of Kenites, Midianites, etc. The Jerahmeelites, the clans of Caleb, Othniel, Kenaz, etc. (1 S 30"- =9), appear to have been of Arabian or Edomite origin. Even at the era of the Exodus the early narrative JE speaks of a ' mixed multitude ' which attached itself to Israel (Ex 12^, Nu 11*).

Shechera was still a Can. city in the time of Abinielech (Jg 9) ; Jerus. continued in the possession of the Jebusites Aown to the time of David (2 S 5"^-), and even after its conquest by the latter we find Araunah the Jebusite still in possession of property there (2 S 24 ; cf. Jos IS^^, Jg 1=') ; RahaVs descendants dwell in Israel 'to this day' (Jos 6^, JE) ; Gezer is first taken from the Can. bv the Pharaoh who was Solomon's father-in-law (1 If 9'").

The general attitude to foreigners was one of hostility, where some special agreement or safe- guard was not present. Driven out from Ins old settlement, Cain protests, ' Whosoever findeth me shall slay me' (Gn 4'^). The Song of Deborah (Jg 5), the story of Samuel and Agag (1 S IS'^'-), the cruelties of DaWd to his prisoners (2S 8- 12"), illustrate the prevailing temper towards a foreign foe.

Conduct passes uncensurcd when non-Israel- ites are concerned, which would have been con- sidered improper towards a fellow, countryman (Gn 12 Abraham and Pharaoh, Gn 26 Isaac and Abinielech, Gn 30-^*- Jacob and Laban, Ex 3- the ' spoiling ' of the Egyptians). Tlie position of the foreigner being so precarious, people were slow to leave their own country, esp. as this implied also abandoning the service and losing the protection of their ancestral gods (1 S 26'°).

Amongst the most frequent causes that leil to such self, expatriation were famine (Gn 12'" Abraham, 26' Isaac, 47'' Jacob and his sons, Ku 1'- Elimelech and his family, 2 K 8"- the Shunam- mite), blood-feud (Gn 4'«' Cain, Ex 2" Moses, 2 S IS Absalom) or political reasons (1 S 27' David, 1 K 11 Jeroboam, 11" Hadad).

There were, however, three circumstances that helped to mitigate the lot of tlie stranger in a strange land — (1) The hospitality to strangers, which is one of tlie noblest virtues of ancient E copies : ' the stranger did not lodge in the street, ut 1 opened my doors to the traveller' (Job 3 P'' ; cf. Gn 18. 19. 24. 43, Jg 13. 19, 2 S 12*, 1 K 17). Public inns in the modern .sense (the Eastern khnn is something quite different) were unknown and unneedeil.

In Lk lu-" we first hear of an inn (iravSoxf^ov) where the host (vavSoxd-^) takes pay- ment for accommodating travellers. While spiea naturally received no consideration (Gn 42', Joa 2"'-), the narratives of Gn 19 and Jg 19 show how scrupulously the old Israelites guarded their guests. In an age when the altar was univer- sally an a.sylum (see Altaii, p.

70''), the helpless stranger was frequently considered to be iinder the special protection of the god of the land, hence the ' fear of God ' (Gn 20" 42") was an extra safe- guard to him.

(2) The alliances with other nations of which we read must have exercised a consider- able influence upon Israel's attitude towards foreigners (1 K IS'"'- Asa with Benhadad, 2 K 10 Is 7' Pekah with Rezin, 2 K \& Ahaz with Tiglath- nileser, 2 K 17* Hosea with So, 2 K 20'="- Is 39 Hezekiah ■^^■ith Merodaehbaladan, Ezk 17" Zede- kiah with Egj-pt). Those who had fought shoulder to shoulder against a common foe would not bo strangers in each other's country.

One of the most familiar results of this Intercourse is seen in the syncretism in religious matters, against which the prophets protest (Is 17'°, Ezk 8'"'- etc.) (3) Israel's own trading enterprises, which carried her citizens beyond the confines of Palestine (Ez'<c 27" to Tyre, 1 K 9=8 lO" 22« to Ophir, 20^* to Damascus), taught the Israelites to sympathize with the feelin^js of a stranger who came to sojourn in their land (Ex 23").

In Israel, as in most Oriental nations, the king encouraged the presence of foreigners at his court, and depended upon their fidelity more than upon that of his o^vn subjects (IS 21' 22' Doeg the Edomite, 2 S IS' 20' 1 K l^- " Cherethites and Pelethites, 2 S 15" Ittai the Gittite, 2 K 11- '" Car- ites). By foreign marriages the Isr. king also sought to strengthen his position.

Amongst David's wives were Abigail a Kalibbite, Rlaacah a Gesluir- ite (1 S 25'=, 2 S 3'), while his sister was married to Ithra an Ishmaelite (\ Ch2", not Israelite 2 S 17-=). Solomon's harem included, besides Pliai'.aoh's daughter, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidon- ians, and Hittites (1 K 11'). The wife of Aliab w.as Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians(l K 16"). Intermarriages with the Can.

are forbidden in Ex 34'"- (JE), and there were doubtless many in Israel who disliked mixed mar- riages (Gn 29'i' 24-'-", Nu 12', J" 14') ; yet these must have been quite common. Unfortunately, the story of Dinah and Shechem (Gn 34), which is of composite origin ( Well h. Com/). 47 f.,312f. ; Kuenen, Abhnndl. 2.55 If. ; see also artt.

Sheciikm, SlMEO>f), has been so often worked over that it is impossible to draw inferences from it ^\^tl^ certainty, but Jg 3'"- doubtless gives a true picture of the condition of things (cf. Gn 3S=, Jg 8", 1 K 7'''). It was really more through amalgamation than by war tliat the Can. were subdued. The tribe of Judah con- fessedly contained a large admixture of Can. elements (see Caleb), and Ed. Meyer goes the length of maintaining [ZAW, 1886, pp. Iff.) that Joseph was originally a Can. tribe.

It is this pro- cess of amalg.amation that helps to account for the rapid increase in the number of Israel's warriors between tlie time of the judges and the early days of the monarcliy (cf. Jg 5" with 2 S 24°). Besides foreign traders and resident gcrim, there must always have been in Israel a number of foreign slaves, either taken captive in war, or bouglit from Phcen. or other traders (Gn 17'-', Lv 25"'-, Nu 3r-<"f-). See Slaves. (6) The Period of the Deuteronomic Legislation.

— To protest against religious syncretism had always been a chief part of the prophet's work. The worship of the Tyrian Baal, and the corrupting iulluences of foreign civilization, werespecially dis- FOREIGNER FOREKNOWLEDGE 5] tastefal to Elijah, whose feelin{;s were shared by Elislia and the usurper Jehu (2 K 9. 10). It is signiticant that Jehonadab the son of Rechab is associated with Jehu (2 K 10'^"^), for tlie whole raison (Cctre, of the Rechabite movement lay in opposition to Can.

civilization and in attachment to the primitive simplicity, alike in religious and secular matters (Jer 35, cf. W. R. Smith, Proph. of 1st. 84 f.) The attitude of the prophets who have left us their ivritings is equally clear (Am 2" 318 511. a 6» 85, Hos 2'" S" O'" lu" 12'"- W). Speci- ally noteworthy is Hos 9 ' Kejoice not, 0 Israel, like the peoples,' where already ' peoples ' is almost = ' heathen.

The same disinclination to foreigners appears in Is 2" 10 17'" 2S"> SO'"" (protest against forei^ alliances), Zeph l^- ", Jer 2'- 10-Malthough this last may be a late interpolation) 35'°^- S?"'-. These feelings find e.xpression in the highest degree in the Deuteronomic ' law-book ' of Josiah's reign (2 K 22). Israel is a ' holy people ' (Dt 7"^), and the land must not be ' defiled ' (21^) or ' caused to sin ' (24).

The relation of Israelites to non-Israelites is henceforth determined bi/ laiv. The watchword is separation. The old injunction of Ex 23^"- (JE) is repeated in much stronger terms in Dt 7'"'' 20'^''* (where the present aversion takes the form of a past command to exterminate the Can.), and special stress is laid upon the prohibition of inter- marriages with Can. (Dt 7^, Jos 23'^).

Further, in Dt 15' and 23"°, the foreigner (nokhri) is expressly excluded from participation in two of the Israelite's privileges — that of having a creditor's claims waived every seventh year, and that of borrowing without having to pay interest.

In Dt 14-' he is allowed to use for food the flesh of an animal that has died of itself, a concession which, although made in the same passage to the grr, is ultimately withdrawn from the latter, and pronounced to be improper for any dweller in the land of Israel (Lv 17''). See (JER. It is well to remember that universalism as well as particularism may be traced in the conduct and the teaching of the early prophets (cf.

1 K ll^"- Elijah and the widow of Zarepliath, 2 K 5 Elisha and Naaman, Is 2-'*=Mic 4'"' the oracle of the mountain of the Lord's house). This element found expression, however, in the direction of proselytiz- ing the grr, not in that of cultivating fiiendly relations with foreigners proper. For the develop- ment of this subject see Ger. (c) The Exilic and Post-Exilic Periods. — If an approximation of gpr to Israelite was fostered by the Deut.

legislation, and grew as time went on, upon the other hand the gulf between Israelite and /(weiy7jer became always wider. Even in the 'unclean' land of their exile (Ezk 4"'), where sacrifice could not be offered, Israel could cling to her Sabbaths and to circumcision, and probably meetings akin to those of the later synagogue con- tributed to tlie maintaining of her separate exist- ence and manner of life. The legislative pro- gramme of Ezekiel is specially instructive for our subject.

The uncircumcised foreigners who kept guard in the temple (2 K ll*"-). and probably pcr- toniied uilier services (see CllKRETHITES), are hence- forward to be strictly excluded (Ezk 44"'°), and sn!!h functions are to be discharged by the Levites (cf. 44" priests to marry only virgins of the seed of the house of Israel or the widow of a priest). The exiles who returned from liabvlon had to solve the problem of their relations witli the otlier inhabitants of Juda'a and with their ncighliours.

A large number of the original inhabitants had never been carried captive at all, Edoinite.s and others had taken possession of unoccupied settle- ments, and the colonists ]ilantc(l by the As.syr. king in Samaria (2 K 17"") Imd probably also encroached on .Iu(ia>a. The majority of tlie old inhabit.

ants, and a section of the returned exiles, were quite willing to coalesce with their nei"h- bours (Neh 13=*, Mai 2"), but, thanks to the fiery zeal of Ezra and Nehemiah, such an incorporating union was prevented. The unsparing rigour with which the two reformers carried out their work is matter of history. See Ezra, Nehemiah. It was a veritable crisis. Weapons of various kinds were used on both sides. It may be that literature was pressed into the service.

If Dt 23*'' be, as Well- hausen and Cornill think, a later interpolation, it may date from this period, while the Book of Ruth may have been a manifesto issued by the party of toleration. The triumph of the puritan party was completed when the covenant was sealed (Neh l(P^}, 'that we would not give our daughters unto the peoples of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons,' and when the Torali (P) was accepted as the norm of Israel's conduct (Neh 8).

The ideal of P, even more than of D, is a holy people dwell- ing in a holy land, and serving God axicording to the prescriptions of His law (Nu 35**, cf. Lv 19-"' ''). The narrative portions of P carefully omit or modify what does not tally with this conception (e.g. no mention of Moses' sojourn in Midian, or his relations with the priest of that people ; Balaam, again, could not be a prophet of J", but becomes a Midianite counsellor, by whose in- strumentality Israel was led into immorality).

In accordance with the above conceptions, Ezra de- liberately sought to erect a hedge, not only around the law, but around Israel, and thus to prevent all contact, except what was absolutely unavoidable, with those outside the pale of Judaism. If the gcr had become the proselyte to be welcomed, the nokhri had become the heathen to be shunned. For the further development of the subject see Gentiles, Heathen. Literature.— Eertholet's monograph, Die Stellung d Igr. u. d. Jud. zu d.

Frcinden (to wliicli the above article has special obligations); Driver, Deut. xxxjf., 98, 239; W. R. Smith, OTJC^ 279, 364f.; ChejTie, Jeremiah, 67; Schurer, UJP II. i. 61-56; Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 339f., 360, 479; Thayer, NT Lex.t and Cremer, Bib.-Theol. Lex. 8. iAAo^(vr,f, ixAcr^fof. J. A. Seluie.