On June 16, 1858, Abraham Lincoln gave a famous, and divisive, speech at the statehouse in Springfield Illinois. Lincoln gave this speech at the closing of the Republican State Convention where he had just been named their candidate for senate. Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”
Lincoln was in fact referencing this scripture from Luke 12. Lincoln often quoted the bible in his speeches, although there was considerable debate about whether or not he was religious because he didn’t regularly attend worship services. Quoting the bible was a regular occurrence in political debates at that time, and Lincoln even once said, “the Bible is the richest source of pertinent quotations.”
But why this quote? Because Lincoln understood that the country was on the brink of civil war and there was no compromise possible on the issue of slavery. Lincoln understood what Jesus had meant when he said the words. Sometimes, there is no compromise- the answer is either all of one thing or all of another.
Jesus says these words toward the end of his ministry, at the height of his confrontation with religious fundamentalism in the form of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This is one of the rare moments in Luke where Jesus isn’t preaching love and acceptance. Instead, Jesus is reminding his followers that they have a choice- that they can choose to follow and believe him or they can choose to follow the religious elite and the Roman occupiers. But, they have to choose.
Just a few lines prior to this morning’s reading, Jesus says, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” and later in the story, he will say “give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s and to God the things that are God’s.” Jesus makes it clear- there is a definite division between God’s way and Rome’s way and Jesus’s job is not to bring peace but to show the difference between these two ways of thinking. He is preaching division- but not about a political matter. It’s about much more than that.
Jesus wants the disciples to understand that his job is not one of unity for unity’s sake. But rather to show the ways in which his message and his followers are different from the status quo. He’s not unifying his message with that of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but rather unifying his followers in a common direction. He’s moving them away from the legalities and rules and towards love. He is intentionally sowing division so that those who hear him speak will understand that they must make a choice. They must choose between following Rome or following God.
This is revolutionary Jesus, a Jesus who wants to lead his followers away from a legalistic religion and political pandering. This is a Jesus who wants the crowd to get riled up and angry. This is a Jesus who came to start a fire and watch the structures of the world burn and tumble to the ground. But his motivation is still the same. Jesus is motivated by love.
We’ve discussed before how Roman rule of Jerusalem was not a good thing. This is during the rule of Herod Antipas who had increased taxes, essentially eliminating the bartering system that had allowed for people to feed and clothed themselves. Often peasants sold their land to Rome just to be able to pay their taxes and then would stay on those lands to work as indentured servants or tenant farmers.
These were desperate political and financial times steeped in violence and greed. And in the middle of all of this, there’s Jesus who sees people under the painful yoke of Roman occupation and taxation. And while the religious authorities could have worked to helpe hte people, they instead operated as spiritual elites, mostly ignoring the people most affected by Rome’s occupation.
Jesus loved the people and wanted them to be clothed and fed. He didn’t want them to suffer. He knew the only way forward was division. Division from Rome, division from spiritual elitism. He knew that the only way to be able to build something new was to burn the old systems to the ground and start over. Jesus understood that there is no unification possible when a division is so deep. It will become all one thing or all the other.
The choice was to become completely as desired by Rome- compliant, obedient, rule-following people who kept their religion mostly quiet and didn’t get in the way. OR the people could follow their faith and live it out authentically and fully. There was no halfway or compromise possible. What Jesus was working toward was a revolution- a true change in the way things were done. A rejection of Rome, a reclaiming of a religion that would be accessible to all people, a singular way forward. Historian Archibald Robertson puts it this way:
“The earliest strata of the Gospels...point back to a revolutionary movement led first by John the Baptist and then by Jesus...aimed at the overthrow of Roman and Herodian rule in Palestine and the establishment of an earthly "kingdom of God" in which the first would be last and the last first, the rich sent empty away and the poor filled with good things and given houses and land”
A choice had to be made: Rome’s way or Jesus’ way. It’s no wonder then that the Roman establishment and the religious zealots colluded to crucify Jesus. He was calling for an end to their power. He was calling for their destruction. He was intentionally inciting division knowing that a house divided could not stand. This was Jesus at his most radical- at his most political. And it’s this rhetoric that ultimately got him arrested and killed.
Lincoln intentionally referenced this scripture and its counterpart in Matthew 12 because he too was calling for a radical change. He understood that division was a step toward unity in one direction or another. He said, “I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” It’s no coincidence that Lincoln’s rhetoric also got him killed. He was being just as radical as Jesus had been.
This brings to mind other radicals who have been assassinated for their strong beliefs. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr come to mind. They also called for radical change and understood that division could be the beginning of a revolution. None of these revolutionaries were seeking unity for unity’s sake, but rather were pushing for a major change.
And it makes me wonder if all of the political and social division we’ve seen in the past few years isn’t leading us toward a breaking point, toward a moment as revolutionary as the work of Lincoln or King or Gandhi…or perhaps even Jesus. What if the point of the division is to remind us that we must choose sides?
As Elie Wiesel said, “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe.”
AMEN