The Least In The Kingdom

Jesus does speak of the "least" of the kingdom in the gospels. The majority of those statements are concerned with well-ordering upon the set of all His disciples; These statements take the form of,;

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. (KJV)

However there is one verse that qualifies the least in the kingdom of God, that verse is;

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (KJV)

Now the "least" commandments Jesus referred to were those of the OT law, upon which Jesus taught of the virtues He expected to find in His people. If we state that these virtues "q" are such as to be a fixed set of virtues being God's "intent" for the law, (that the positive properties in "p" which are separated out by the commandments in "right and wrong") are to properly keep a man living in those virtues, we make great headway.

Then to be caught breaking even one commandment is to shift the set of virtues upon which the choices in "p" of right and wrong - in effect by holding a set of virtues q leads to a choice of two positive properties becoming mutually exclusive. P(p1) v P(p2) say.

Now we would ascribe from virtue one as beneficial and the other as not: We would rather make better progress if we consider that the law is such as to permit good and remove evil from the man that holds the same virtues q that are the intent of the law.

Now God does not assume men to be virtuous; and the difference of positive properties as "right and wrong" are apart from virtue. If a man may consider it positive to turn the other cheek as well as to avenge himself in God's place, then he is double minded: although it is positive for God to avenge Himself upon those whom harm His people, not to permit them to do it unjustly in His place.

So we clearly see how two positive properties may be mutually exclusive when it comes to virtue.

We must leave the decision of the commandments up to God, for if we alter the commandments, we ascribe to us the ability to choose that which is right and wrong, and deprive and limit ourselves of virtue before God.

However, if a man has all (or every) virtue 'q' yet teaches that the breaking of any commandment 'p' is legally permissible: even if he does choose right and wrong in all 'p' properly he does so in a manner that those possible virtues in "q" (Since they be positive properties of a non-principle ultrafilter) must in their intersections also be positive properties in a non-principal ultrafilter. So, if any believers teach that the least commandment may be broken legally, then the intersection of those sets of virtues (amongst all that teach so) will exclude the whole of the law from the set of possible virtues. (Except for the law of faith L(G) common to every believer).

The law is finite and virtue we assume infinite if positive properties form an infinite set. Would changing one positive property from right to wrong exclude some virtue? As these positive properties limited by law are themselves not virtues (and would private some virtues) we would indeed do so.

Thus teaching the principle that a law may be broken without fear is such (as in the intersection of the non-principal ultrafilter of all "q") that we would reduce the law to no law at all, being one of the assumption of the arbitrary virtue L(G) only. The believer has some virtue it is assumed, but teaches that the law may be broken in full, as easily as in part, and then that which entails from His firm belief in L(G) only is that "virtue is entirely up to the individual", or that He relies solely on the Holy Spirit, without guidance of the law. (Yet is himself potentially perfect in all virtue.)

Equivalent teaching is then that a grievous sinner with only bare faith in L(G) may enter the kingdom of God as all commandments are "breakable"- such a sinner in heaven? God forbid! Or rather, permit: (lol) for God listens to death bed confessions as well as any other, we do not make God's choices! Yet in teaching "law breaking" in the least case to be permissible is to not affirm that L(G) is the sole requirement, but that L(G) may not be excluded.

Such a man without clearly communicable virtues is then "the least" in the kingdom of heaven as if holding only L(G). And the principle of well ordering is actually spot on as inferred by Christ. We will be judged according to our words as well as deeds.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page