nonresistance

• violet race retained Edenic traditions of peacefulness for many millenniums

78:3.1The vi­o­let race re­tained the Edenic tra­di­tions of peace­ful­ness for many mil­len­ni­ums, which ex­plains their long de­lay in mak­ing ter­ri­to­rial con­quests. When they suf­fered from pop­u­la­tion pres­sure, in­stead of mak­ing war to se­cure more ter­ri­tory, they sent forth their ex­cess in­hab­i­tants as teach­ers to the other races. The cul­tural ef­fect of these ear­lier mi­gra­tions was not en­dur­ing, but the ab­sorp­tion of the Adamite teach­ers, traders, and ex­plor­ers was bi­o­log­i­cally in­vig­o­rat­ing to the sur­round­ing peo­ples.

• violet race retained Edenic traditions of peacefulness for many millenniums

78:4.5The purer strains of the vi­o­let race had re­tained the Adamic tra­di­tion of peace-seek­ing, which ex­plains why the ear­lier race move­ments had been more in the na­ture of peace­ful mi­gra­tions. But as the Adamites united with the Nod­ite stocks, who were by this time a bel­liger­ent race, their And­ite de­scen­dants be­came, for their day and age, the most skill­ful and saga­cious mil­i­tarists ever to live on Uran­tia. Thence­forth the move­ments of the Mes­o­po­ta­mi­ans grew in­creas­ingly mil­i­tary in char­ac­ter and be­came more akin to ac­tual con­quests.

• Lao-tse’s teaching

94:6.4Lao-tse also made one of the ear­li­est pre­sen­ta­tions of the doc­trine of re­turn­ing good for evil: “Good­ness begets good­ness, but to the one who is truly good, evil also begets good­ness.”

• Lao-tse’s teaching

94:6.7Lao’s teach­ing of non­re­sis­tance and the dis­tinc­tion which he made be­tween ac­tion and co­er­cion be­came later per­verted into the be­liefs of “see­ing, do­ing, and think­ing noth­ing.” But Lao never taught such er­ror, al­beit his pre­sen­ta­tion of non­re­sis­tance has been a fac­tor in the fur­ther de­vel­op­ment of the pa­cific predilec­tions of the Chi­nese peo­ples.

• nonviolence is only proper political and economic attitude of religion

99:0.2But re­li­gion should not be di­rectly con­cerned ei­ther with the cre­ation of new so­cial or­ders or with the preser­va­tion of old ones. True re­li­gion does op­pose vi­o­lence as a tech­nique of so­cial evo­lu­tion, but it does not op­pose the in­tel­li­gent ef­forts of so­ci­ety to adapt its us­ages and ad­just its in­sti­tu­tions to new eco­nomic con­di­tions and cul­tural re­quire­ments.

• nonviolence is only proper political and economic attitude of religion

99:2.5The in­sti­tu­tion­al­ized church may have ap­peared to serve so­ci­ety in the past by glo­ri­fy­ing the es­tab­lished po­lit­i­cal and eco­nomic or­ders, but it must speed­ily cease such ac­tion if it is to sur­vive. Its only proper at­ti­tude con­sists in the teach­ing of non­vi­o­lence, the doc­trine of peace­ful evo­lu­tion in the place of vi­o­lent rev­o­lu­tion—peace on earth and good will among all men.

• Jesus › cf: resisted what was inimical to his children

100:7.14His cour­age was equaled only by his pa­tience. When pressed to act pre­ma­turely, he would only re­ply, “My hour has not yet come.” He was never in a hurry; his com­po­sure was sub­lime. But he was of­ten in­dig­nant at evil, in­tol­er­ant of sin. He was of­ten might­ily moved to re­sist that which was in­im­i­cal to the wel­fare of his chil­dren on earth. But his in­dig­na­tion against sin never led to anger at the sin­ner.

• Jesus › refused to defend himself

124:2.4Per­haps his most un­usual and out­stand­ing trait was his un­will­ing­ness to fight for his rights. Since he was such a well-de­vel­oped lad for his age, it seemed strange to his playfel­lows that he was dis­in­clined to de­fend him­self even from in­jus­tice or when sub­jected to per­sonal abuse. As it hap­pened, he did not suf­fer much on ac­count of this trait be­cause of the friend­ship of Ja­cob, a neigh­bor boy, who was one year older. He was the son of the stone ma­son, a busi­ness as­so­ciate of Joseph. Ja­cob was a great ad­mirer of Je­sus and made it his busi­ness to see that no one was per­mit­ted to im­pose upon Je­sus be­cause of his aver­sion to phys­i­cal com­bat. Sev­eral times older and un­couth youths at­tacked Je­sus, re­ly­ing upon his re­puted docil­ity, but they al­ways suf­fered swift and cer­tain ret­ri­bu­tion at the hands of his self-ap­pointed cham­pion and ever-ready de­fender, Ja­cob the stone ma­son’s son.

• Jesus › did not make teaching of n. a family rule

127:4.5James and Si­mon grew up try­ing to fol­low Je­sus’ plan of pla­cat­ing their bel­li­cose and some­times irate play­mates by per­sua­sion and non­re­sis­tance, and they were fairly suc­cess­ful; but Joseph and Jude, while as­sent­ing to such teach­ings at home, made haste to de­fend them­selves when as­sailed by their com­rades; in par­tic­u­lar was Jude guilty of vi­o­lat­ing the spirit of these teach­ings. But non­re­sis­tance was not a rule of the fam­ily. No penalty was at­tached to the vi­o­la­tion of per­sonal teach­ings.

• Jesus › cf: restrained madman’s attack in Crete

130:5.4One thing hap­pened on a visit to Fair Havens which Ga­nid never for­got; the mem­ory of this episode al­ways caused him to wish he might do some­thing to change the caste sys­tem of his na­tive In­dia. A drunken de­gen­er­ate was at­tack­ing a slave girl on the pub­lic high­way. When Je­sus saw the plight of the girl, he rushed for­ward and drew the maiden away from the as­sault of the mad­man. While the fright­ened child clung to him, he held the in­fu­ri­ated man at a safe dis­tance by his pow­er­ful ex­tended right arm un­til the poor fel­low had ex­hausted him­self beat­ing the air with his an­gry blows. Ga­nid felt a strong im­pulse to help Je­sus han­dle the af­fair, but his fa­ther for­bade him. Though they could not speak the girl’s lan­guage, she could un­der­stand their act of mercy and gave to­ken of her heart­felt ap­pre­ci­a­tion as they all three es­corted her home. This was prob­a­bly as near a per­sonal en­counter with his fel­lows as Je­sus ever had through­out his en­tire life in the flesh. But he had a dif­fi­cult task that evening try­ing to ex­plain to Ga­nid why he did not smite the drunken man. Ga­nid thought this man should have been struck at least as many times as he had struck the girl.

• Jesus › refused to defend himself

133:1.3For days they talked about this prob­lem of man­i­fest­ing mercy and ad­min­is­ter­ing jus­tice. And Ga­nid, at least to some ex­tent, un­der­stood why Je­sus would not en­gage in per­sonal com­bat. But Ga­nid asked one last ques­tion, to which he never re­ceived a fully sat­is­fac­tory an­swer; and that ques­tion was: “But, Teacher, if a stronger and ill-tem­pered crea­ture should at­tack you and threaten to de­stroy you, what would you do? Would you make no ef­fort to de­fend your­self?” Al­though Je­sus could not fully and sat­is­fac­to­rily an­swer the lad’s ques­tion, inas­much as he was not will­ing to dis­close to him that he (Je­sus) was liv­ing on earth as the ex­em­pli­fi­ca­tion of the Par­a­dise Fa­ther’s love to an on­look­ing uni­verse, he did say this much:

• Jesus › cf: would defend himself fully against aggressor without moral judgment

133:1.4“Ga­nid, I can well un­der­stand how some of these prob­lems per­plex you, and I will en­deavor to an­swer your ques­tion. First, in all at­tacks which might be made upon my per­son, I would de­ter­mine whether or not the ag­gres­sor was a son of God—my brother in the flesh—and if I thought such a crea­ture did not pos­sess moral judg­ment and spir­i­tual rea­son, I would un­hesi­tat­ingly de­fend my­self to the full ca­pac­ity of my pow­ers of re­sis­tance, re­gard­less of con­se­quences to the at­tacker. But I would not thus as­sault a fel­low man of son­ship sta­tus, even in self-de­fense. That is, I would not pun­ish him in ad­vance and with­out judg­ment for his as­sault upon me. I would by ev­ery pos­si­ble ar­ti­fice seek to pre­vent and dis­suade him from mak­ing such an at­tack and to mit­i­gate it in case of my fail­ure to abort it. Ga­nid, I have ab­so­lute con­fi­dence in my heav­enly Fa­ther’s over­care; I am con­se­crated to do­ing the will of my Fa­ther in heaven. I do not be­lieve that real harm can be­fall me; I do not be­lieve that my life­work can re­ally be jeop­ar­dized by any­thing my en­e­mies might wish to visit upon me, and surely we have no vi­o­lence to fear from our friends. I am ab­so­lutely as­sured that the en­tire uni­verse is friendly to me—this all-pow­er­ful truth I in­sist on be­liev­ing with a whole­hearted trust in spite of all ap­pear­ances to the con­trary.”

133:1.5But Ga­nid was not fully sat­is­fied. Many times they talked over these mat­ters, and Je­sus told him some of his boy­hood ex­pe­ri­ences and also about Ja­cob the stone ma­son’s son. On learn­ing how Ja­cob ap­pointed him­self to de­fend Je­sus, Ga­nid said: “Oh, I be­gin to see! In the first place very sel­dom would any nor­mal hu­man be­ing want to at­tack such a kindly per­son as you, and even if any­one should be so un­think­ing as to do such a thing, there is pretty sure to be near at hand some other mor­tal who will fly to your as­sis­tance, even as you al­ways go to the res­cue of any per­son you ob­serve to be in dis­tress. In my heart, Teacher, I agree with you, but in my head I still think that if I had been Ja­cob, I would have en­joyed pun­ish­ing those rude fel­lows who pre­sumed to at­tack you just be­cause they thought you would not de­fend your­self. I pre­sume you are fairly safe in your jour­ney through life since you spend much of your time help­ing oth­ers and min­is­ter­ing to your fel­lows in dis­tress—well, most likely there’ll al­ways be some­one on hand to de­fend you.” And Je­sus replied: “That test has not yet come, Ga­nid, and when it does, we will have to abide by the Fa­ther’s will.” And that was about all the lad could get his teacher to say on this dif­fi­cult sub­ject of self-de­fense and non­re­sis­tance. On an­other oc­ca­sion he did draw from Je­sus the opin­ion that or­ga­nized so­ci­ety had ev­ery right to em­ploy force in the ex­e­cu­tion of its just man­dates.

• Jesus › refused to defend himself

140:8.4Je­sus had great dif­fi­culty in get­ting them to un­der­stand his per­sonal prac­tice of non­re­sis­tance. He ab­so­lutely re­fused to de­fend him­self, and it ap­peared to the apos­tles that he would be pleased if they would pur­sue the same pol­icy. He taught them not to re­sist evil, not to com­bat in­jus­tice or in­jury, but he did not teach pas­sive tol­er­ance of wrong­do­ing. And he made it plain on this af­ter­noon that he ap­proved of the so­cial pun­ish­ment of evil­do­ers and crim­i­nals, and that the civil gov­ern­ment must some­times em­ploy force for the main­te­nance of so­cial or­der and in the ex­e­cu­tion of jus­tice.

• resist not injury to feelings of personal dignity

141:3.8Je­sus por­trayed con­quest by sac­ri­fice, the sac­ri­fice of pride and self­ish­ness. By show­ing mercy, he meant to por­tray spir­i­tual de­liv­er­ance from all grudges, grievances, anger, and the lust for self­ish power and re­venge. And when he said, “Re­sist not evil,” he later ex­plained that he did not mean to con­done sin or to coun­sel fra­ter­nity with in­iq­uity. He in­tended the more to teach for­give­ness, to “re­sist not evil treat­ment of one’s per­son­al­ity, evil in­jury to one’s feel­ings of per­sonal dig­nity.”

• accusation that enfeebled specimens would soon perish

143:1.2A ques­tion asked by Philip was typ­i­cal of their dif­fi­cul­ties. Said Philip: “Mas­ter, these Greeks and Ro­mans make light of our mes­sage, say­ing that such teach­ings are fit for only weak­lings and slaves. They as­sert that the re­li­gion of the hea­then is su­pe­rior to our teach­ing be­cause it in­spires to the ac­quire­ment of a strong, ro­bust, and ag­gres­sive char­ac­ter. They af­firm that we would con­vert all men into en­fee­bled spec­i­mens of pas­sive non­re­sisters who would soon per­ish from the face of the earth. They like you, Mas­ter, and freely ad­mit that your teach­ing is heav­enly and ideal, but they will not take us se­ri­ously. They as­sert that your re­li­gion is not for this world; that men can­not live as you teach. And now, Mas­ter, what shall we say to these gen­tiles?”

• Jesus › refused to defend himself
• nonviolence is only proper political and economic attitude of religion

143:1.7“To­day, the un­be­liev­ers may taunt you with preach­ing a gospel of non­re­sis­tance and with liv­ing lives of non­vi­o­lence, but you are the first vol­un­teers of a long line of sin­cere be­liev­ers in the gospel of this king­dom who will as­ton­ish all man­kind by their heroic de­vo­tion to these teach­ings. No armies of the world have ever dis­played more cour­age and brav­ery than will be por­trayed by you and your loyal suc­ces­sors who shall go forth to all the world pro­claim­ing the good news—the fa­ther­hood of God and the broth­er­hood of men. The cour­age of the flesh is the low­est form of brav­ery. Mind brav­ery is a higher type of hu­man cour­age, but the high­est and su­preme is un­com­pro­mis­ing loy­alty to the en­light­ened con­vic­tions of pro­found spir­i­tual re­al­i­ties. And such cour­age con­sti­tutes the hero­ism of the God-know­ing man. And you are all God-know­ing men; you are in very truth the per­sonal as­so­ciates of the Son of Man.”

• Jesus › opposed negative or passive nonresistance

159:5.9Je­sus did not hes­i­tate to ap­pro­pri­ate the bet­ter half of a Scrip­ture while he re­pu­di­ated the lesser por­tion. His great ex­hor­ta­tion, “Love your neigh­bor as your­self,” he took from the Scrip­ture which reads: “You shall not take vengeance against the chil­dren of your peo­ple, but you shall love your neigh­bor as your­self.” Je­sus ap­pro­pri­ated the pos­i­tive por­tion of this Scrip­ture while re­ject­ing the neg­a­tive part. He even op­posed neg­a­tive or purely pas­sive non­re­sis­tance. Said he: “When an en­emy smites you on one cheek, do not stand there dumb and pas­sive but in pos­i­tive at­ti­tude turn the other; that is, do the best thing pos­si­ble ac­tively to lead your brother in er­ror away from the evil paths into the bet­ter ways of righ­teous liv­ing.” Je­sus re­quired his fol­low­ers to re­act pos­i­tively and ag­gres­sively to ev­ery life sit­u­a­tion. The turn­ing of the other cheek, or what­ever act that may typ­ify, de­mands ini­tia­tive, ne­ces­si­tates vig­or­ous, ac­tive, and coura­geous ex­pres­sion of the be­liever’s per­son­al­ity.

159:5.10Je­sus did not ad­vo­cate the prac­tice of neg­a­tive sub­mis­sion to the in­dig­ni­ties of those who might pur­posely seek to im­pose upon the prac­ti­tion­ers of non­re­sis­tance to evil, but rather that his fol­low­ers should be wise and alert in the quick and pos­i­tive re­ac­tion of good to evil to the end that they might ef­fec­tively over­come evil with good. For­get not, the truly good is in­vari­ably more pow­er­ful than the most ma­lig­nant evil. The Mas­ter taught a pos­i­tive stan­dard of righ­teous­ness: “Whoso­ever wishes to be my dis­ci­ple, let him dis­re­gard him­self and take up the full mea­sure of his re­spon­si­bil­i­ties daily to fol­low me.” And he so lived him­self in that “he went about do­ing good.” And this as­pect of the gospel was well il­lus­trated by many para­bles which he later spoke to his fol­low­ers. He never ex­horted his fol­low­ers pa­tiently to bear their obli­ga­tions but rather with en­ergy and en­thu­si­asm to live up to the full mea­sure of their hu­man re­spon­si­bil­i­ties and di­vine priv­i­leges in the king­dom of God.

159:5.11When Je­sus in­structed his apos­tles that they should, when one un­justly took away the coat, of­fer the other gar­ment, he re­ferred not so much to a lit­eral sec­ond coat as to the idea of do­ing some­thing pos­i­tive to save the wrong­doer in the place of the olden ad­vice to re­tal­i­ate—“an eye for an eye” and so on. Je­sus ab­horred the idea ei­ther of re­tal­i­a­tion or of be­com­ing just a pas­sive suf­ferer or vic­tim of in­jus­tice. On this oc­ca­sion he taught them the three ways of con­tend­ing with, and re­sist­ing, evil:

159:5.121. To re­turn evil for evil—the pos­i­tive but un­righ­teous method.

159:5.132. To suf­fer evil with­out com­plaint and with­out re­sis­tance—the purely neg­a­tive method.

159:5.143. To re­turn good for evil, to as­sert the will so as to be­come mas­ter of the sit­u­a­tion, to over­come evil with good—the pos­i­tive and righ­teous method.

159:5.15One of the apos­tles once asked: “Mas­ter, what should I do if a stranger forced me to carry his pack for a mile?” Je­sus an­swered: “Do not sit down and sigh for re­lief while you be­rate the stranger un­der your breath. Righ­teous­ness comes not from such pas­sive at­ti­tudes. If you can think of noth­ing more ef­fec­tively pos­i­tive to do, you can at least carry the pack a sec­ond mile. That will of a cer­tainty chal­lenge the un­righ­teous and un­godly stranger.”

• Jesus › cf: approved use of force to protect majority

173:1.11This cleans­ing of the tem­ple dis­closes the Mas­ter’s at­ti­tude to­ward com­mer­cial­iz­ing the prac­tices of re­li­gion as well as his de­tes­ta­tion of all forms of un­fair­ness and prof­i­teer­ing at the ex­pense of the poor and the un­learned. This episode also demon­strates that Je­sus did not look with ap­proval upon the re­fusal to em­ploy force to pro­tect the ma­jor­ity of any given hu­man group against the un­fair and en­slav­ing prac­tices of un­just mi­nori­ties who may be able to en­trench them­selves be­hind po­lit­i­cal, fi­nan­cial, or ec­cle­si­as­ti­cal power. Shrewd, wicked, and de­sign­ing men are not to be per­mit­ted to or­ga­nize them­selves for the ex­ploita­tion and op­pres­sion of those who, be­cause of their ide­al­ism, are not dis­posed to re­sort to force for self-pro­tec­tion or for the fur­ther­ance of their laud­able life projects.

• of selfish reaction to universe

180:5.9This same phi­los­o­phy of the liv­ing flex­i­bil­ity and cos­mic adapt­abil­ity of di­vine truth to the in­di­vid­ual re­quire­ments and ca­pac­ity of ev­ery son of God, must be per­ceived be­fore you can hope ad­e­quately to un­der­stand the Mas­ter’s teach­ing and prac­tice of non­re­sis­tance to evil. The Mas­ter’s teach­ing is ba­si­cally a spir­i­tual pro­nounce­ment. Even the ma­te­rial im­pli­ca­tions of his phi­los­o­phy can­not be help­fully con­sid­ered apart from their spir­i­tual cor­re­la­tions. The spirit of the Mas­ter’s in­junc­tion con­sists in the non­re­sis­tance of all self­ish re­ac­tion to the uni­verse, cou­pled with the ag­gres­sive and pro­gres­sive at­tain­ment of righ­teous lev­els of true spirit val­ues: di­vine beauty, in­fi­nite good­ness, and eter­nal truth—to know God and to be­come in­creas­ingly like him.

• Jesus › teaching on n. is comprehended only by living

180:5.11And so must we clearly rec­og­nize that nei­ther the golden rule nor the teach­ing of non­re­sis­tance can ever be prop­erly un­der­stood as dog­mas or pre­cepts. They can only be com­pre­hended by liv­ing them, by re­al­iz­ing their mean­ings in the liv­ing in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the Spirit of Truth, who di­rects the lov­ing con­tact of one hu­man be­ing with an­other.

• Jesus › oft-repeated teaching

183:4.2An­drew had been re­leased from all re­spon­si­bil­ity in the group man­age­ment of his fel­low apos­tles; ac­cord­ingly, in this great­est of all crises in their lives, he was silent. Af­ter a short in­for­mal dis­cus­sion, Si­mon Ze­lo­tes stood up on the stone wall of the olive press and, mak­ing an im­pas­sioned plea for loy­alty to the Mas­ter and the cause of the king­dom, ex­horted his fel­low apos­tles and the other dis­ci­ples to has­ten on af­ter the mob and ef­fect the res­cue of Je­sus. The ma­jor­ity of the com­pany would have been dis­posed to fol­low his ag­gres­sive lead­er­ship had it not been for the ad­vice of Na­than­iel, who stood up the mo­ment Si­mon had fin­ished speak­ing and called their at­ten­tion to Je­sus’ oft-re­peated teach­ings re­gard­ing non­re­sis­tance. He fur­ther re­minded them that Je­sus had that very night in­structed them that they should pre­serve their lives for the time when they should go forth into the world pro­claim­ing the good news of the gospel of the heav­enly king­dom. And Na­than­iel was en­cour­aged in this stand by James Zeb­e­dee, who now told how Pe­ter and oth­ers drew their swords to de­fend the Mas­ter against ar­rest, and that Je­sus bade Si­mon Pe­ter and his fel­low swords­men sheathe their blades. Mat­thew and Philip also made speeches, but noth­ing def­i­nite came of this dis­cus­sion un­til Thomas, call­ing their at­ten­tion to the fact that Je­sus had coun­seled Laz­a­rus against ex­pos­ing him­self to death, pointed out that they could do noth­ing to save their Mas­ter inas­much as he re­fused to al­low his friends to de­fend him, and since he per­sisted in re­frain­ing from the use of his di­vine pow­ers to frus­trate his hu­man en­e­mies. Thomas per­suaded them to scat­ter, ev­ery man for him­self, with the un­der­stand­ing that David Zeb­e­dee would re­main at the camp to main­tain a clear­ing­house and mes­sen­ger head­quar­ters for the group. By half past two o’clock that morn­ing the camp was de­serted; only David re­mained on hand with three or four mes­sen­gers, the oth­ers hav­ing been dis­patched to se­cure in­for­ma­tion as to where Je­sus had been taken, and what was go­ing to be done with him.

• Jesus › refused to defend himself

184:4.5What is this trait of the an­i­mal in man which leads him to want to in­sult and phys­i­cally as­sault that which he can­not spir­i­tu­ally at­tain or in­tel­lec­tu­ally achieve? In the half-civ­i­lized man there still lurks an evil bru­tal­ity which seeks to vent it­self upon those who are su­pe­rior in wis­dom and spir­i­tual at­tain­ment. Wit­ness the evil coarse­ness and the bru­tal fe­roc­ity of these sup­pos­edly civ­i­lized men as they de­rived a cer­tain form of an­i­mal plea­sure from this phys­i­cal at­tack upon the un­re­sist­ing Son of Man. As these in­sults, taunts, and blows fell upon Je­sus, he was un­de­fend­ing but not de­fense­less. Je­sus was not van­quished, merely un­con­tend­ing in the ma­te­rial sense.

• Jesus › goodness of Jesus destroys evil

188:5.2The cross for­ever shows that the at­ti­tude of Je­sus to­ward sin­ners was nei­ther con­dem­na­tion nor con­do­na­tion, but rather eter­nal and lov­ing sal­va­tion. Je­sus is truly a sav­ior in the sense that his life and death do win men over to good­ness and righ­teous sur­vival. Je­sus loves men so much that his love awak­ens the re­sponse of love in the hu­man heart. Love is truly con­ta­gious and eter­nally cre­ative. Je­sus’ death on the cross ex­em­pli­fies a love which is suf­fi­ciently strong and di­vine to for­give sin and swal­low up all evil-do­ing. Je­sus dis­closed to this world a higher qual­ity of righ­teous­ness than jus­tice—mere tech­ni­cal right and wrong. Di­vine love does not merely for­give wrongs; it ab­sorbs and ac­tu­ally de­stroys them. The for­give­ness of love ut­terly tran­scends the for­give­ness of mercy. Mercy sets the guilt of evil-do­ing to one side; but love de­stroys for­ever the sin and all weak­ness re­sult­ing there­from. Je­sus brought a new method of liv­ing to Uran­tia. He taught us not to re­sist evil but to find through him a good­ness which ef­fec­tu­ally de­stroys evil. The for­give­ness of Je­sus is not con­do­na­tion; it is sal­va­tion from con­dem­na­tion. Sal­va­tion does not slight wrongs; it makes them right. True love does not com­pro­mise nor con­done hate; it de­stroys it. The love of Je­sus is never sat­is­fied with mere for­give­ness. The Mas­ter’s love im­plies re­ha­bil­i­ta­tion, eter­nal sur­vival. It is al­to­gether proper to speak of sal­va­tion as re­demp­tion if you mean this eter­nal re­ha­bil­i­ta­tion.