(9.) The excellency ov jwide of the .Jordan, so called from its green and shady banks, clothed with willows, tamarisks, and cane, in which lions made their covert (Zech. xi, 3; Jer. xii, 5). See Joud.vn.
(10.) The forest (yaar') of cedars on Afount Lebanon (2 Kings xix, 23 ; Hos. xiv, 5, 6), which must have been much more extensive formerly tlian at present ; altiiough, on the assumption that the "cedar" of Scrip- ture is the Firms cedriis, or so-called " cedar of Leba- non," its growth is by no means confined, among those mountains, to the famous clump of ancient trees which has alone engaged the attention of travellers. Sco Cedar. The American missionaries and others, trav-
FORK
621
FORGIVENESS
elling by unfrequented routes, have found woods of less ancient cedar-trees in other places. See Leba- non, 1.
"The house of the forest (j/aaf) of Lebanon" is sev- eral times mentioned. It appears to have been a part of the royal palace built by Solomon at Jerusalem, and used as an armory (1 Kings vii, 2 sq. ; x, 17-'21 ; 2 Chron. ix, 16-20). The house had " four rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams upon the pillars, and it was covered with cedar above upon the beams." Hence, in all probability, its name (see Keil, ad loc). See Solomon.
" The forest (yaar, opu/^ut) of Camiel' is a phrase used in 2 Kings xix, 23, and Isa. xxxvii, 24, in refer- ence to the ravages committed by the axmj of Sen- nacherib on the land of Israel. The meaning of the clause, ib'2"i3 "^V^ ("forest of his Carmel"), seems to be its garden forest ; that is, the garden-like cedar forests of Lebanon, to which reference is made (see Keil on Kings, and Alexander on Isaiah, ad loc).
(11.) '■'■The forest (gaar) in Arabia" occurs in Isa. xxi, lo. The phrase is remarkable, because Arabia is a country singularly destitute of trees. In no part of it are tliere any traces of forests. (The Sept. trans- lates the passage tV Tfp cpn^ujj f<nrepa(; ; and Lowth and others adopt it ; but the jMasoretic reading is pref- erable.) The meaning of the word 1^'^ in this place is probabh' the same as that of the Arabic 9/m(r, a rug- ged region, whether wooded or not. See Akadia.
(12.) In Zech. xi, 2 there is a singular expression : " Howl, 0 ye oaks of Bashan, for the forest of the vin- tage is come down." The Hebrew "i^iJan 'H"^ (Sept. 6 Spv/idf; o (jofKpvroc) rather signifies "the fortified forest" (Yulg. salius munitus), and it is probable that Jerusalem is thus figurativeh' alluded to, the houses of which are close together as the trees of a forest (compare Micah, iii, 12 ; see Henderson, On the Minor Prophets, ad loc). It may, however, refer to the de- vastation of that region, for the greater portion of Pe- rasa was, and still is, covered with forests of oak and terebinth (Isa. ii, 13; Ezek. xxvii,G; comp. Bucking- ham's Palestine, p. 103 sq., 240 sq. ; Stanley, p. 324). See Bash.vn.
Forest is used S3'mbolically to denote a cit}', king- dom, polity, or the like (Ezek. xiv, 2G). Devoted king- doms are also represented under the image of a forest, which God threatens to burn or cut down. (See Isa. X, 17, 18, 19, 34, where the briers and thorns denote the common people ; " the glory of the forest" are the no- Lies and those of highest rank and importance. See also Isa. xxxii, 19 ; xxxvii, 24 ; Jer. xxi, 14 ; xxii, 7 ; xlvi, 23 ; Zech. xi, 2). It was also an image of un- fruitfulness as contrasted with a cultivated field or vineyard (Isa. xxix, 17 ; xxxii, 15 ; Jer. xxvi, 18 ; Hos. ii, 12). See Wemyss's Clavis Sj/mbolica, s. v. — Kitto, s. V. ; Smith, s. v. See Palestine.
Fork ("|Tw^3p "CJ3"J, shelosh' Icilleshon', a triad of prongs), a three-pronged fork, i. e. pitch-fork with which hay, straw, and the like are gathered (occurs only 1 Sam. xiii, 21). The Targum (on Eccles. xii, 11) uses the same word to express a pointed instrument. See Agriculture.
The Orientals do not use forks at meals as we do, but convey the food to their mouth with the fingers. See Eating.
Forgiveness, "the pardon of any oflTence com- mitted against us. We are not apt to entertain anj' permanent or incurable ill will against the author of injuries to others, and why should we lie irreconcilable when injuries have been done to ourselves ? To love our enemies, or rather not to hate our enemies, is a duty which no guilt can annul, no injur}' efface. We are not required to love our enemies as our friends ; but, when any injury has been done us, wc are to en- deavor to regard it with so much resentment as any
just and impartial person would feel on hearing it re- lated, and no more. To revenge injuries is to retali- ate evil for the sake of retaliation. We are all weak, frail, and sinful creatures. None of us passes through one day without feeling that he requires forgiveness from his God, and too often also from his fellow-crea- tures. Slercy is all our hope, forgiveness our con- stant prayer. In such a state, should we not pity and assist each other ? Does not mutual weakness call for mutual forbearance ? Weak, frail, and sinful as we are, we all hope, through the merits of Christ, to attain the happiness of heaven ; and can creatures who, after a few short years, expect to be forever united in the presence of God, to be liberated from all unruly pas- sions, and to live together forever in heaven, in peace, and joy, and everlasting love — can such creatures hate each other on earth ? can they add to the sorrows of this .state of trial, and spread more thorns in tlie path of life bj' acts of malice and revenge ? can they risk their own eternal happiness by denj'ing to each other that forgiveness without which they must not dare to hope that thej' shall be themselves forgiven.' We know, from the express declaration of our Saviour, that if we forgive not men their trespasses, neither will our heavenly Father forgive us. Christ estimated virtues by their solid utility, and not bj' their fashion or pop- ularity, and hence he prefers the duty of forgiveness to every other. He enjoins it more frequently, with more earnestness, and under a greater variet}' of forms ; and he adds this weightj' and peculiar circumstance, that the forgiveness of others is the sole condition on which we are to expect or even ask from God forgive- ness for ourselves. This preference is justified by the superior importance of the virtue itself. The feuds and animosities which exist in families and among neighbors, which disturb the intercourse of human life, and collectively compose half its miser}', have their foundation in the want of a forgiving temper, and can never cease except by the exercise of this virtue. Let us endeavor to forgive, that we may not be afraid to ask forgiveness. Let us take cai-e so to pray for for- giveness, that our prayers may not justify and increase our condemnation. Let us remember the amazing condescension of the Son of God, in ' taking upon him the form of a servant,' and thence learn humility. Let us represent to our minds the terms of our salva- tion, in order to excite us to repentance. Let us adore the infinite love of our Redeemer, ' who laid down his life for his enemies,' and let this be the pattern of our charity" (Fellowes, Jiodg of Theologi/, ii, 210-213; Pa- le}', Moral and Polit. Philosojihg, i, 2G9 ; Warner, S?/s- tem ofBivinitg and Moralltij, ii, 336). — Robinson, /"//eo- logical Dlctkninry, s. v. ; A merican Presbyterian Review, Oct. 1867, art. ii.