The Forerunner
Side by side with Jesus in the great gallery there stands another portrait called ‘ The Forerunner. It is a most suggestive picture. It has always seemed to me a representation of the dawn as distinguished from either the night or the day. John the Baptist is depicted as the forerunner of the Messiah — not necessarily of Jesus, but of the Messiah whoever he may be. As such, he is described in a mediating attitude between the old and the new. He has his hands upon two worlds — the world that has passed and the world that is to come. One arm is stretched back to yesterday; the other is stretched forward to grasp the approaching morrow. And in his face there is something of the old and something of the new. It is partly the face
of Elijah, and partly the face of Jesus, On.
the threshold of a revolution there are always attempts at compromise. The night is admitted to be too dark; yet the daylight is dreaded. As a middle course between them electric light is proposed. So is it in this portrait of the Forerunner. It is the picture of a man of compromise — a man hovering between the old faith and the new. I say ‘hovering, not ‘wavering.’ There is no vacillation in the countenance; it is the face of a man who has made up his mind. None the less it is a man who has made up his mind on a course of mediation. He has refused to vest in the past; he has refused to break with the past; he has insisted on finding a common ground between. He stands in the midst of the desert, and declares that he has found it. Not inappropriately is a desert his home. He is like Israel in its transition age. Egypt is past; Canaan is not yet come, The old is faded; the new has not been assimilated. He has left the land of bondage; he has not reached the Promised Land.
Let us examine these two opposite attitudes of the portrait before us. As we have said, one arm is stretched towards the new, the other backward towards the old. Let us begin with the former — the progressive attitude of the man. He is not altogether a son of the past. He is said to have come in the spirit and power of Elzjah. Yes; but it is the fourth power of Elijah. You remember how over that prophet there swept four successive influences — the thunder, the earthquake, the fire, and the still small voice. In the spirit of the Baptist it is the /as¢ of them that lingers. To him as to Elijah the heavens are opened; but it is not to let zz a chariot of fire, but to let out a dove upon the earth. The symbol of war has been supplanted by the symbol of peace. There is a strong touch of resemblance between the Messianic ideal of the Baptist and the Messianic ideal of Jesus. There is one point of resemblance so remarkable, so different from what we should have expected, and yet so conformable to what we should desire, that I should like here
to give it special emphasis.
I allude to the test proposed by the Baptist for the recognition of the Messiah. You remember I expressed my opinion in a previous chapter that the mission of Jesus was not originally suggested by His connection with the House of David — that it was suggested by the desire to be ‘the Holy One of God.’ Did you ever think how singularly the Baptist’s test of the Messiah corresponds to this view? We should have expected him to say, ‘If you want to know which of you is most likely to be the Christ, search the genealogies.’ Does he say that? On the contrary, he proposes a test of righteousness. He declares that he himself was guided in his search for the Messiah by one consideration alone — the evidence of holiness. I knew him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.’
Now, is not this strikingly suggestive? Here is a man living at the time when the
Messiah was expected in a scion of the House of David. He himself shares the common expectation. Yet to him it is a subordinate question whether that descent can be proved. He is willing to accept the descent from David as a matter of /fazth, provided he can see something else as a matter of fact. What is that other thing for which he demands a direct, an immediate scrutiny? It is the standard of Messianic holiness. The testimony of the genealogies is nothing to the testimony of the Spzrzt. ‘Do you see, asks the Baptist, ‘a man who claims the Messianic office? Test his claim by his goodness. Leave in abeyance any external test — whether miracle or pedigree. Consider only the extent, the intensity, the abidingness of his virtue. Weigh his pretensions to be the Holy One. Mark his claim to be the Lamb of God. Estimate his moral right to be the Atonement for the sins of the world. Inquire whether his garment is without blemish and without spot. Examine whether the light of the Father can detect a stain in him. Thus alone shall you find an answer to the question, “Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?”’ And I take this to be the reason why the Baptist’s first message to the world is, ‘ Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ In the light of the foregoing view it is a highly logical message. If the credentials of the Messiah were to be the proof of the genealogies, I see no ground for repentance; a bad man can examine documents as carefully as a good man. But if the credentials of the Messiah are to be his virtues, I can understand very well the preliminary call to purity. Who can test holiness but the good? Who can see God but the pure in heart? If the claims of the Messiah are to be tried, it must surely be by an intelligent jury. Where shall we find an intelligence fitted to give its verdict upon the possession of holiness? Intellect will not give a right to sit at such a trial. Artistic culture will not give a right to sit at such a trial. Nothing will confer such a right but the possession of a kindred spirit — the spirit of that harmless dove which was to be the sign of the Son of Man.
To this extent, then, the Baptist is a new man — a man of the future. But let us pass to the second attitude of the picture. If one arm is stretched toward the world to come, the other is encircling the world of yesterday. This man is not really emancipated from the past. His ideal of the Christ is not identical with the Portrait in our gallery. It is sufficiently different to show that he was not the artzst of that Portrait. The same dove-like purity is on the face of Jesus as shone on the face conceived by the desert preacher; but there are two features in the latter which are absent from the former — an impatience of all delay, and an intolerance of all imperfection. Let us glance at each of these.
The face depicted by the Baptist has an element of impatience in it. He describes the Messiah with his winnowing fan ‘in his hand’ — ready to be used. There is to be no dallying, no delay. The process of renovation is to be immediate. No man is to be allowed a season of pondering. Whosoever will, may enter into the kingdom; but he must enter now or never. [Fleaven is to be taken by violence — by an instantaneous rush. The decision is to be like the decision on Mount Carmel — rapid, unhesitating, fearless. There is to be no time for waiting, no place for doubt. Every cloud of the human heart is commanded to vanish at the rising of the sun.
Do we find this feature in the Portrait of Jesus? No, but the opposite. We have no need to reason on this matter. We have His own express opinion on the subject. What is His parable of the barren fig-tree but a direct statement of the contrary view? He hears borne upon the air the cry of that drastic crowd who have been impregnated with the spirit of the Baptist, ‘Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?’ It is assumed by this crowd that to be sterile now is to be sterile for ever. Jesus says: ‘No; you do not know the possibilities of environment. Improve its surroundings, and you will increase its chances. Do not lay the axe yet to the root of the tree. Give it time; give me time. Wait till I have digged round about it; wait till I have tried its susceptibilities. It may be that its barrenness is an accident. It may be that wider room and brighter exposure will fertilise the germ. The tree which yields nothing in the wilderness may become the Tree of Life when “in the midst of the Paradise of God.”’
The second feature in which the face conceived by the Baptist differs from the actual Portrait of our gallery is the intolerance of imperfection. He expects from his Messiah a drastic separation of the wheat from the tares: ‘He shall thoroughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.’ No wonder at an after-day the Baptist doubted if Jesus had actually fulfilled his ideal! For this is not a feature of that Portrait of the Messiah which hangs in our gallery. It is a distinctive element of the teaching of Jesus that in the formation of
His field the wheat is to be accepted along with the tares: ‘Let both grow together until the harvest. Can any one fail to detect the profound wisdom of such advice? How much of our badness is the exaggeration of something which in itself is useful! You may cure a bad temper by plucking out the temper altogether. Many a boy has been rescued from wayward impulses by a cure worse than the disease — has been reduced by stern training to the attitude of a lifelong weakling, to the position of a poor, timid, vacillating creature, incapable of self-decision and unfit for independent action. Unskilful reaping has in the moral sphere done more harm than injudicious planting. Therefore we greatly esteem the method of Jesus. He prepares a table for the soul in the presence of its enemies. He does not insist upon purity as a preliminary condition. He demands nothing but aspiration. He invites men to come zz their sins. Other masters demand cleansing before we enter their temple. The Brahman demands it; the Parsee demands it, the Jew himself demands it. But Jesus demands it not. He bids us come in with our stains, with our burdens, with our impure garments. He invites the blind, the deaf, the lame, the leper, the spiritually poor who are conscious of their rags, to enter, just as they are, into the presence of the King of kings.
Is not this the meaning of the answer which Jesus Himself makes to the disciples of the doubting Baptist, ‘Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them’? It is as if He had said: ‘Your method is different from mine. You wish to gather into the kingdom the sighted, the nimble-footed, the cleansed. / wish to gather those who xeed these qualities. The temple I construct is a temple for the consciously uxzholy. The table I spread is a table in the desert. The feast I prepare is a feast for the famished. Tell John that the vision of the tares is essential to my kingdom. They who enter the holy precincts must beat upon their breasts and say “Unclean!”’
HOU Man of Nazareth, be Zhou my
forerunner. The Baptist is no longer
in advance of me; I am now in advance of him. 7Z4y light has made his light grow pale. I cannot accept his terms of salvation; they are too severe. Sinful man is ever too severe upon his brother. All that ever came before Thee demanded from me more than I could give; they bade me robe in white ere I entered the audience-chamber. But Thou hast bid me come unrobed. Thou hast offered me admittance in my dusty garb, in my raiment stained with the burdens of the day. Thou hast invited me without the ring on the hand, without the shoes on the feet. Thou hast left the beautifying for an after-hour; Thou hast let me in without one plea, The greatest in the kingdom of heaven has been the most accessible of all. None but Thee had the words of Eternal Life for a heart uncleansed. They, all kept their diamonds for the pure; Thou alone hadst a ring for the prodigal child. Be Thou my forerunner; I can follow none but Thee.