Commitment

Hear me, now, you fence-sitters, you who prefer to take the middle road or that well-worn road which the crowds have used and do use. Do you not know that such a road is as perilous as the road of opposition? Did not the Lord Jesus Christ say "He that gathers not with Me scatters abroad"? Did He not say that the lukewarm, those inbetween, the uncommitted either way, He would spew out of His mouth? Most certainly He did. The non-committed think they can have the best of both worlds but it does not work that way at all. In fact, the Lord said He would rather have one cold than lukewarm. Be His enemy and tell Him so rather than play the friend and be a broken tooth when it comes time to eating.

Though they are perhaps good in themselves, your smiles, handshakes and friendly gestures are not enough. Sympathetic words and ears can be comforting but they are not enough. As a child, I had a relative who, while with me privately, was very friendly, "sympathetic" and "understanding." We shared intimately, confiding in one another, and I was always left with the impression that he would be this way toward me no matter what, where or with whom, especially being a blood relative. Not so. Without fail, when times of conflict would arise between me and anybody else, he always sided with someone else against me, no matter who it was or what the issue, whether I was right or wrong. He was classically two-faced. Amazingly, right after such an event when other parties went their ways, he would resume friendliness with me as though nothing ever happened.

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful" (Pr. 27:6).

I realize now that there had to have been something between us, of which I was unaware, to cause him to have antipathy toward me consistently. It could well have been something I had done to him for which he never forgave me. Above all, I believe the Lord did it in preparation for what was down the road for me. Nevertheless, the fellow never once expressed enmity toward me privately, or lodged a complaint. Now this is a stark example of two-facedness and hypocrisy. You would think that it would be understandable that such as he would have a price to pay for his conduct.

Now I will relate another example wherein the uncommitted one is not recorded to have been hypocritical at all. He seemed sincere, consistent, and was simply "doing his job." Furthermore, never once did he express antipathy for his friend. The record bears witness quite to the contrary:

"The soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."

"Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan took off the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armour, even to his sword and his bow and his belt."

Then Jonathan's father, King Saul of Israel, "spoke to Jonathan and to all his servants, that they should kill David; but Jonathan delighted greatly in David. So Jonathan told David, saying, My father Saul seeks to kill you. Therefore please be on your guard until morning, and stay in a secret place and hide. And I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where you are, and I will speak with my father about you. Then what I observe, I will tell you. Thus Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father, and said to him, Let not the king sin against his servant, against David, because he has not sinned against you, and because his works have been very good toward you..."

Saul continued to seek to kill David. Jonathan vowed to David that he would inform him of good or evil purposed by Saul, his father, toward David, and he made good his vow. Not only so, but he tried to reason with his father and argue on David's behalf for which cause his life too, was imperiled. At such a point it says, "So Jonathan arose...in fierce anger, and ate no food...for he was grieved for David, because his father had treated him shamefully."

Then came the time when David had to flee to the wilderness. He and Jonathan met for the last time. "They kissed one another; and they wept together, but David more so. Then Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, since we have both sworn in the Name of the Lord, saying, May the Lord be between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants, forever...So he arose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city."

Notice, it says that they wept together, but David more so. Notice, Jonathan did not go with David. "Why should he?" you may ask, "Why should everybody have to suffer with David in the same way if it isn't necessary?" The Bible gives a very clear testimony to the fact than nobody dies a violent, premature death without evil cause except for martyrdom for Christ, for truth and righteousness. Jonathan died on the battlefield against the Philistines, along with his wicked father. It was a day of judgment upon Israel by God for Saul's sins. Would Jonathan have perished as did his father if he was not guilty? Is God unjust that He would kill both guilty and innocent in the same way? Is He not a just and merciful God? Yes, He is, and with Him there is no contradiction, no inconsistency whatsoever. But what happened to David? He received the throne of Israel, succeeding Saul. Those who had identified with David in his wilderness also were glorified with him. And what a motley crew they were: "And everyone who was in distress, everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented gathered to him. So he became captain over them. And there were about four hundred men with him." Princes who would not take a decisive, committed stand and identification with David, perished; misfits who did so came to reign with him.

When angels came to Sodom to rescue Lot and his family from the impending doom, there were two directions of commitment manifest. Some of Lot's children were so committed to Sodom and the unbelief there that they (his sons-in-law) thought he was joking when he tried to warn them. Isn't it understandable that they would not believe him? After all, what proof did he have? Who would believe it if I were to speak to people in Lethbridge, saying, "God is about to destroy this city; get out of here, now?" Understandable? Listen to me, people, commitment is always there, in one direction or another, for good or for evil, for or against or inbetween, but the commitment is there. Those sons-in-law were committed.

When Lot, his wife and two daughters were led out of the city, they were expressly told not to look back. Lot and his daughters were committed to obeying. Think for a minute. Would it have been easy? Wouldn't the suspense and curiosity be difficult to deal with? The saying is very true that "Curiosity kills the cat." They had to have commitment to survive. As for Lot's wife, who remains nameless as do all those uncommitted, her heart lingered for her children left behind. One might say that was understandable too. It was her daughters who would be perishing. She was not committed to obey, to pay the price, and she perished.

Ananias and Sapphira were believers in the days of the apostles shortly after the Lord's days on earth in His flesh. The saints were selling their lands, houses and possessions and bringing the proceeds to the apostles for distribution among all the saints so that none would go without. This was purely voluntary. Ananias and his wife sold a possession, kept part of it back for themselves and gave the rest to the apostles but told them that they had given all of the proceeds to them. They had lied but Peter told them that they had lied not to men but to God. It is apparent that they really didn't know with Whom they were dealing. They weren't really believing that God was working through Peter and the apostles, that all that was happening there was God's doing. It seemed more of a social movement of some sort than a moving of God Himself. They were uncommitted through unbelief. They were not committed to God, to the apostles, to the saints nor to the truth. But they were committed to themselves first and foremost, to preserve and nourish themselves above others. It would not have been so bad had they done it openly. It was not against the law nor against God to keep back what they did. Their hypocrisy and pretense of commitment was the sin. "We want in on this new thing but we want to cover our bets in case it doesn't go the way we would like it to." A little insurance. God slew them.

We tend to admire people who are "everybody's friend." They are popular; they don't make waves; they'll do you favors; try to find any common ground possible upon which to agree and share thoughts and opinions. Often their social and business contacts and relationships are quite enviable. They know everybody and everybody knows them. They can often get elected or appointed to positions of importance or popularity and could conceivably be nominated "friend of the year." But people, it is not so with the kingdom of God. Whoever will walk with God must forsake all the benefits of this world. The price must be paid.

Why is it that the saints have always been hated and persecuted throughout history? Why did Jesus say that those who followed Him would be hated by all men for His Name's sake? Why was He Himself so hated that they should kill Him? I will tell you why. It was because He was committed, committed to speak the truth, committed to testify against the world, committed to the Father Whom the world hated and does hate. "All those who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution," the Bible says. All means all. If there is no persecution, it is because there is no godliness. If there is no godliness, it is because there is no commitment to God and to all those who identify with Him. It is that simple. If there is no commitment to truth and to God, yet the talk or the show is present, the end will be as that of Jonathan, of Ananias and Sapphira, and of Lot's wife.

What are the churches all about? They are all talk and in most cases come nowhere near to Jonathan's degree of friendship with one identified with God. As you know, Jonathan fell well short. Do they identify with God? In appearance only, in word only, in all pretense and hypocrisy. "Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof..." In fact, they are vicious enemies of the cross of Christ, working the works of men, opposing all that is good by their ways which appear to men to be good. Let me say this, that if any in organized churches want to commit themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth, they will have to become "enemy of the year." They will have to leave all their securities and comforts behind...their friends, families, everything. They will have to become fools, spectacles, fanatics, misfits. Tough? Yes. Impossible? Yes. "But with God all things are possible."

Elisha, a prophet of God, was dying. King Joash of Israel came to him and wept over him, saying, "O my father, my father, the chariots of Israel and their horsemen!" lamenting his death. Elisha told him to take a bow and some arrows. He told the king to take the arrows and strike the ground, concerning his battles with the Syrians. The king did so, not once, not twice but three times! "Commitment or what!" you may say. The fact of the matter is that it was not satisfactory to the man of God for he said: "You should have struck five or six times; then you would have struck Syria till you had destroyed it! But now you will strike Syria only three times."

Reader, if we are not committed to the utmost, we will not make it. We will not rid ourselves of our enemies, be they within or without. We will not win the crown, be it within or without. True, the battle is not to the strong nor the race to the swift and all things God alone determines. Nevertheless, it is the violent, Jesus says, that take the kingdom by storm. It is the one who puts his hand to the plough and doesn't look back who gets the field done. It is the one who lets the dead bury the dead that is committed. "You shall seek Me and find Me if you search for Me with all your heart," says the Lord. He is not prepared to commit Himself to the double-minded man who is not utterly committed. He is particularly disgusted with those who make a show of piety or godliness or profess faith in Him but who betray that which is right, proper, true and good the moment it is required of them to be faithful and genuine. With such are His greatest displeasure and wrath. Hypocrites will have their part in the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, where the worm never dies and the fire is not quenched.

One sure mark of one of the categories of the uncommitted is this notion that they don't have to live unto the Lord totally committed. They have been taught the diabolical doctrine of "once saved, always saved." They believe that they can go about their business in this life in mediocrity insofar as their spiritual lives are concerned and that will suffice (some even go so far as to think they can live in sin because "Jesus paid for all sin, past, present and future" and "we are all weak, God knows our frame and is very forgiving"). They think they will be granted entrance into heaven simply because they once "asked Jesus into their hearts." They reason,"Sure, it won't be a seating at the head table, it won't be a position of highest rulership but it will be heaven nevertheless."

I tell you, you are seriously misinformed and deceive yourself thinking that way. If Jesus spews the lukewarm out of His mouth, how can you possibly think to be accepted of Him in any way? And did He not also say, "He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved"? Did not Paul and Barnabas say to believers that "we must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God"? And what sort of tribulations? Many in the world suffer all kinds, yet do not enter, so obviously it must not be simple tribulation that brings us in but that tribulation that grows out of God's internal dealings with us, of enmity with the world. Such enmity comes out of commitment to God, to truth, to holiness, to righteousness, to sincerity.

It is not a commitment to "church," to reading the Bible or witnessing or any religious activity, though true believers will believe the Bible and speak the truth to neighbor and friend. It is a commitment in spirit and in truth, in reality.

Many read their Bibles avidly, "witness of Christ" at every opportunity (it's a power trip usually), get very involved in their churches yet are not only uncommitted to God but are very antiChrist, diametrically opposed to genuine faith and genuine obedience to Jesus Christ. I tell you, substitutions are thoroughly unacceptable to God and your works will not only not profit but condemn you because you are so presumptuous as to play God by telling Him what you want to do for Him. It is self-righteousness which to Him is filthy.

If there is no total commitment to God, there is no acceptance with Him. Remember Jonathan; remember Ananias and Sapphira; remember Lot's wife.

How is it you can possibly think that you can be accepted with God while living a mediocre life toward Him (which is not toward but against Him)? Think of the total commitment and sacrifice required of athletes and performers to win an earthly crown and how many make it? The exceptional few...one in thousands. God's requirements are exceedingly higher than any of those on earth. Why do you think that only three souls were saved from Sodom, Gomorrha and the surrounding cities? Why do you think that in spite of his "good behavior" and sincerity with David, along with his help to him, that Jonathan didn't make it but was destroyed? Why do you think that only eight souls out of the entire world were saved in Noah's day?

Yes, it is certainly not our righteousness that wins the day. That is why we need a Savior and why Christ died for us. But faith is accounted to us for righteousness which, if genuine, will be manifest by works...obedience to God. As Jesus says, "He that has My commandments and KEEPS THEM, he it is that loves Me..."

There once was a man who lived prosperously and comfortably in a certain country. He had heard that he could also prosper across the border in another. Checking it out, he liked the benefits and advantages and decided to take out dual citizenship. Then war broke out between the two nations. It was not easy to tell which way the war would go. He, of course, as we all do, wished to be on the winning side. He also did not want to fight if he could help it, risking all he had including his life.

However, the day soon came when he was served a draft notice by each of those nations to join and fight. He did not know what to do but thought, "I will tell this nation that I belong to the other and to the other that I belong to this. Perhaps I can avoid fighting and even get to live with the winner when it is all over."

The day came when a small wooden crate was delivered to the second nation, with letter attached, which said, "We chanced on a man who had a dual citizenship with our countries. He refused to serve us in our war against you, claiming to be one of your nation, though he was also registered with us and enjoyed subsequent benefits. Enclosed therefore, you will find your half."

Victor Hafichuk