Claim. DP distinguishes three types of indemnity conditions by the price of the condition relative to what was lost: equal indemnity (price equal to the value lost), lesser indemnity (price less, possible only through grace), and greater indemnity (price greater, required after a failed prior condition and bearing cumulative restitution for the prior failure).
Elaboration. Per dp-1-the-principle-of-restoration-through-indemnity §1.1:
- Equal indemnity. A condition “at a price equal to the value of what was lost.” DP cites “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Exod 21:23–25) — restitution and compensation.
- Lesser indemnity. A condition “at a price less than the value of what was lost,” like a creditor displaying good will and forgiving part of a debt. The outstanding example is “redemption through the cross” — a small condition of faith in Jesus receives the much greater grace of salvation; baptism and Holy Communion follow the same pattern.
- Greater indemnity. When a lesser condition has failed, the next is set at a higher price. Abraham, after failing the symbolic offering of dove–ram–heifer, had to offer Isaac; the Israelites, after failing the 40-day spy mission, wandered 40 years (one year per day).
The escalation rule: “Whenever a central figure in God’s providence makes a second attempt to fulfill an indemnity condition, he must fulfill not only his own unfulfilled condition; in addition, he must make restitution for the failures of the people who came before him.”
Significance. The lesser-indemnity case is DP’s positive account of grace within an indemnity framework — grace does not bypass condition-fulfillment but reduces the required price. The greater-indemnity rule makes Part II’s escalating providential demands intelligible (Noah → Abraham → Moses → Jesus → Second Advent each carrying cumulative restitution).