Since Emmanuel Levinas declared in Totality and Infinity (1961) that Franz Rosenzweig’s The Star of Redemption is “too often present” in his own work “to be cited,” an uninterrupted affinity between the two authors has been assumed. Nevertheless, throughout his æuvre, Levinas frequently underlines the philosophical differences marking his and Rosenzweig’s thought. In this article, I endeavor to demonstrate that the concept of redemption and salvation are wholly incompatible in Rosenzweig’s and Levinas’s philosophies. Whereas Rosenzweig pleads for a Jewish redemptive model that turns towards Judaism’s past, Levinas seeks to mobilize Judaism’s salvific potential in the name of a common human future. It is this conjunction between salvation and futurity that allows Levinas to establish a notion of the Kingdom of God that can redeem humanity from its own catastrophe after the Shoah.

自从伊曼纽尔·列维纳斯（Emmanuel Levinas）在《全面与无限》（Totality and Infinity，1961）中宣布弗朗兹·罗森茨威格（Franz Rosenzweig）的“救赎之星”在他自己的作品中“经常被引用”时，这两位作者之间的联系就一直存在。然而，在他的整个学习过程中，列维纳斯经常强调标志着他和罗森茨威格思想的哲学差异。在本文中，我努力证明，救赎和救赎的概念在罗森茨维格和列维纳斯的哲学中是完全不相容的。Rosenzweig主张建立一种转向犹太人过去的犹太救赎模式，而列维纳斯则以人类共同的未来为出发点，动员犹太人的救赎潜力。正是救赎与未来之间的这种结合使列维纳斯树立了上帝王国的概念，可以使人类从大屠杀之后的灾难中救赎出来。