Salvation, redemption and liberation in the Christian and Jewish traditions

Before Jesus enters his passion the Synoptic Gospels, that is Marc, Matthew, and Luke, present an apocalyptical speech of Jesus (Marc 13, 1-35; Matthew 24, 1-35; Luke 21, 5-38). This eschatological discourse is about the future of history and the ends of time (Bovon, Francois. 2009. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 19,28–24,53. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/4. 165–209. Neukirchen-Vluyin: Neukirchener Verlag).

In Luke 21, 25-28 Luke creates something like a time-space that runs from the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE to the end of times, that is the second coming of the Son of men (Bovon 2009, 185). Further, Luke 21, 27-28 connects the second coming of Christ, the Son of men, to the realization of liberation, redemption, or salvation by Go’d.

The Greek expression apolutrosis that is used by Luke in 21, 28 means a release that is obtained by payment of ransom money. The Greek expression describes the condition of a liberated slave as well as the act of liberation. The commercial term describing the purchase of a person from slavery (Hebrew: padah) is also used in the Hebrew Bible; see Exodus 21, 7-11; Leviticus 19, 20, and Job 6, 23 (Schüssler Fiorenza, Francis. 1987. “Redemption.” In The New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins and Dermot A. Lane, 836–851. 837. Collegeville, Minnesota: Michael Glazier). For describing the redeeming of relatives from slavery the Hebrew Bible also uses the Hebrew verb “ga’al”. This verb is also used in a religious sense as for example for the reestablishment of a previous relation of integrity (Psalm 77, 15) or of peace and justice (Psalm 107, 2) by Yahweh’s loyalty to his people (ibid.: 837-38).

The Apostle Paul speaks of redemption in the sense of liberation or salvation; Go’d justifies the faithful by grace “through the redemption in Christ” (Romans 3, 24). Salvation translates in Greek as sotaeria. Salvation, redemption (apolutrosis) and liberation (apolutrosis) belong in the New Testament to one semantic field (Bovon 2009, 191).

The terms salvation or redemption are central to Christian theology, because Christian faith claims Jesus Christ to be the Redeemer and Savior of women, men and queer (Schüssler Fiorenza 1987, 836). It is important to insist that redemption and salvation is Go’d’s agency and action. In 1 Corinthians 26-28, Paul asks the sisters and brothers of the Christian community in Corinth to consider that most of them are not wise, not influential, not from noble families but that Go’d had chosen the fools, the weak, the common and contemptible, those who count for nothing. In 1 Corinthians 30, Paul preaches to his sisters and brothers in Corinth that this initiative of Go’d, this election by Go’d had led them to “exist in Christ Jesus, who for us was made wisdom from God, justice and holiness and redemption” (apolutrosis).

It is also of existential importance for Christians to assess that they received the terms salvation, redemption, and liberation from the Jews, from the Hebrew Bible. For almost two thousand years the Roman Catholic Church had forgotten about that fact. Only in the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) The Roman Catholic Church referred positively to some points from Paul’s Christian theology of Israel concerning the history of salvation that had started with Israel. The Second Vatican Council confirms in the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate:

“As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spirituality ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock” (Nostra Aetate 4,1).

What does the expression bond of spirituality mean? Archbishop Seper of Zagreb (1905–1981) in his speech at the aula of the Council on September 29, 1964, claimed that the Catholic Church must take responsibility for her tradition of Antisemitism that had led to the Shoah (Subotic, Goran and Clemens Carl. 2013. “Seper.” In Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, edited by Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter, 251–253. 252. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder) and recognize contemporary Jewry as co-heir of salvation (Siebenrock 2005, 661). The Austrian American theologian Johannes Oesterreicher (1904–1993), who in 1929 converted from Judaism to Catholicism during his studies of medicine in Vienna, had a decisive influence on the redaction of Nostra Aetate at the Second Vatican Council (Quisinsky 2013b, 202). He claimed to speak of a community of heirs concerning Go’d’s saving design (Siebenrock, Roman A. 2005. “Theologischer Kommentar zur Erklärung über die Haltung der Kirche zu den nichtchristlichen Religionen Nostra aetate.” In Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil. Vol 3, ed. by Peter Hünermann and Bernd Jochen Hilberath, 591–693. 661. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Well, the final Declaration Nostra Aetate does not mention the Shoah and speaks in an ambiguous way of the spiritual bond between Christians and Jews.

In Nostra Aetate 4, 2 the Catholic Church acknowledges the common beginnings of her faith as the faith of the Patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets. “Thus, the Church acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design” (in Latin mysterium Dei salutare), “the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets” (Nostra Aetate 4,2). The declaration does not speak of the Jews as co-heirs of salvation and the declaration does speak of a community of heirs that are equal. The faith of Abraham and of Israel are acknowledged in function not of themselves but because “the chosen people’s Exodus from the land of bondage” serves as something like a precursor-model where “the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed” (Nostra Aetate 4,2).

The Roman Catholic theologian and expert at the Second Vatican Council, Karl Rahner (1904-1984) was angrily disappointed that the final text of the declaration did not express any more the thankfulness for the pilgrimage of faith of the patriarchs. The final redaction of the Declaration Nostra Aetate had eliminated “the acknowledgement with a thankful heart” for the People of Israel (Rahner, Karl, and Herbert Vorgrimler. 1966. Kleines Konzilskompendium. 352. Freiburg: Herder).

How does a Jewish theologian comment on Nostra Aetate, 50 years after its proclamation? Susanne Plietzsch is clear about the fact that the Roman Catholic Church finally withdrew all theological arguments for the traditional legitimization of Catholic Anti-Semitism and with Nostra Aetate established Judaism as a positive fact for Christian theology (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2017. „Nostra aetate 4: Aufbruch und Ausgleich“ In „…mit Klugheit und Liebe“, edited by Franz Gmainer-Pranzl, Astrid Ingruber and Markus Ladstätter, 253–265. 254. Linz: Wagner). This new language to speak to the Jews after the Holocaust was introduced to the Catholic Church by Catholic theologians who were born Jewish and had converted. Their work for the Catholic-Jewish reconciliation was based on their personal experiences of discrimination and persecution as Jews (ibid.: 256). The Catholic Church tried to react with solidarity but did not overcome all traditional theological perspectives of Christian superiority of the people of the New Covenant over “Abraham’s stock”.

The Second Vatican Council was not able to use the term “Israel”. The Catholic Church gave in to the pressure of Arab countries who feared a recognition of the State of Israel by the Vatican (ibid.: 257). Plietzsch recognizes the new and high esteem for the Jews, she does not criticize lack of the terms Holocaust, Shoah and Israel in Nostra Aetate. Yet, she diagnosis the declaration’s incapacity to recognize Israel’s autonomy and self-determination as a state of uncertainty. Israel gets recognition not as Israel but for “foreshadowing” the Christian religion (ibid.: 258).

The Declaration Nostra Aetate further develops the ambiguity of recognizing Israel as the original “olive tree” and at the same time legitimating the goodness of the “roots” of that olive tree not by Go’d’s plan of salvation for Israel, but by the inclusion of Israel into Go’d’s plan of salvation by Christ (ibid.: 258–59). Plietzsch is professor for Jewish culture and studies and holds a doctorate in Protestant theology (ibid.: 266). Therefore, she recognizes and reveals Nostra Aetate’s theological ambiguity analyzing the use of the references to the New Testament. For recognizing Israel as the olive tree as the possibility condition for the Gentile’s integration into Go’d’s plan of salvation Nostra Aetate 4 refers to Romans 11, 17-24. Paul compares Israel to an olive tree with “a holy root and holy branches” admonishing the Roman Greek Non-Jewish Christians “not to consider yourself superior to the other branches; and if you start feeling proud, think it is not you that sustain the root, but the root that sustains you” (Romans 11, 16–18).

Well, Paul’s reminder that it is the root that sustains the branches is not any more cited in Nostra Aetate 4. Nevertheless, there is recognition of the “good olive tree” in the declaration (Plietzsch 2017, 258). Unfortunately, Nostra Aetate 4 uses in the following paragraph the Letter to the Ephesians to introduce a different, a negative perspective on Israel. With Ephesians 2, 14 the Declaration Nostra Aetate speaks of a necessary conciliation of Jews and Gentiles by Christ because the Jews “were excluded from membership of Israel”, they “were separate from Christ” (ibid.). Some decades after Paul’s death, the authors of the letter to the Ephesians have forgotten Paul’s warning not to feel superior to the Jews. In Ephesians there is no more talk of the one olive tree and of the priority of the root of the olive tree Israel over the new branches that are the Christians, and the Declaration Nostra Aetate does not set the record straight again in 1964CE (ibid.: 259).

Recognizing contemporary Jewry in 1964 as co-heir of salvation was a challenge for Catholic theologians. Following this recognition, Christian theologians and scholars of Jewish studies started investigating what Jews and Christians had made of their common heredity that is the Hebrew Bible and its Greek translation, the Septuagint. The Christians had developed the New Testament and rabbinic literature developed the Talmud. In the first quarter of the twenty-first century, Christians and Jews consider themselves not only as children of the same heredity. Scholars insist studying them as brothers and sisters that contemporarily developed on their heredity in the first century CE. The authors of the New Testament were Jews, Jewish-Christians and the Rabbis were Jews. There was not only this proximity of sisters and brothers. Both, Jews, and Christian-Jews had to develop from the common heredity facing the same political, social, cultural and religious crisis that eventually destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem and the territorial integrity of Israel. Christians and Jews developed two different answers to this crisis and thereby created their differences and enforced the otherness of the other.

Contemporary scholars of Jewish studies and New Testament exegesis alike claim that the interactions of the Jews and Christian-Jews within the first century CE need consideration for the assessment of the proper tradition in the twenty-first century. Susanne Plietzsch calls the study of the early rabbinic texts from the Mishna until the Babylonian Talmud a necessary condition for the exegesis of the New Testament (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2005. Kontexte der Freiheit. Konzepte der Befreiung bei Paulus und im rabbinischen Judentum. 19. Verlag W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart). Undoubtedly, it helps to understand the texts of the New Testament reading the texts of the Jewish sisters and brothers from the time when there was still vivid interaction with the Christian sisters and brothers. Therefore, I am going to get some information from Jewish historians on the rabbinic movement and I am getting help from Susanne Plietzsch’ reading of the Rabbis’ texts concerning salvation, liberation and redemption.

The Roman suppression of the Jewish revolts in 72 CE and in 135 CE with the annexation of Palestine as a Roman province were most significant for the emergence of the Rabbis (Lapin, Hayim. 2015. “The Rabbinic Movement.” In The Cambridge Guide to Jewish History, Religion, and Culture, edited by Judith R. Baskin and Kenneth Seeskin, 58–84. 58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511780899.005). Roman hegemony had already been established in Judea in 63 BCE creating a political environment of deep-seated hostility to Roman rule (ibid.: 60). The destruction of the Temple in 70 CE destroyed the institutional basis for the priesthood and a central feature of the Judean economy (ibid.). After the emperor Hadrian most cruelly crushed the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 135 CE, the province of Palestine receded into insignificance, and we know very little about the history of Palestine from 135 CE to the fourth century (ibid.: 61). This period was marked by reorganization and something like a reinvention of Jewishness as a form of religious or ethnic identity (ibid.). The subsequent period between 350 and 635 CE saw renewed literary productivity and Palestinian Jewish communities centered on synagogues (ibid.: 62).

The rabbinic movement also flourished in central Mesopotamia in the Sassanian period (224–651 CE) and produced the Babylonian Talmud. Rabbi Judah the Patriarch created at the turn of the second century to the third century CE the earliest surviving rabbinic text, the Mishnah. The Mishnah is in many cases a utopian treatment of the Temple and a compilation of ritual, marital and financial legal tradition expressing an ideal state of the law that may never have existed (ibid.: 67–68). The Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud are organized around the Mishnah. The Palestinian Talmud was completed from the late fourth to the mid-fifth century CE, the Babylonian Talmud knew a period of editing and reworking that extends at least into the sixth century CE.

Writing a history of the rabbinic movement is not easy (ibid.). The New Testament Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls give plausibility to the emergence of the rabbinic movement “within the sectarian religious and social milieu of the first century CE” (ibid.: 76). The Rabbis formed a tiny minority of Jews in Palestine and Babylonia, they were adult, literate men, forming a small network of pious ritual experts, teachers, and disciples studying the Torah in urban contexts (ibid.: 77–78). We have no historic knowledge how the Rabbis’ teachings developed an importance for medieval Jewish communities that “continue to shape Judaism to this day” (ibid.: 82).

It is a central aspect of the rule of scriptural exegesis in Judaism that is of the Mekhilta, that the Passover Festival not only concerns the commemorating of the deliverance from the bondage in Egypt (Plietzsch 2005, 56). Commemorating the salvation from Egypt inspires and prefigures the hopes for salvation at the end of times (ibid.). The celebration of the Exodus as the liberation of creation creates a state of equilibrium between the beginning and the end of times that embraces the certainty about Go’d’s saving agency in the presence to help Israel cope with existence (ibid.). There is no alternative to the confession of the Exodus for Israel because this confession ensures that each member of the confessing community accepts her or his obligation to live and live a life with the responsibility for freedom and social choices (ibid.: 59).

The Rabbis interpret the revelation of the Torah at the Sinai as the revelation of freedom and liberty (ibid.: 66). Exodus 32, 16: “The tablets were the work of God, and the writing on them was God’s writing, engraved on the tablets”. A tractate from the Mishna, Pirkei Avot 6, 2, cites Exodus and interprets: The Torah “says (Exodus 32, 16) ‘and the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tablets,’ do not read ‘graven’ (harut) but rather “freedom” (herut) for there is no free man except one that involves himself in Torah learning;” (https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.6?lang=bi).

Studying the Torah realizes once more the exclusive Exodus event, the liberation from alienating suppression in Egypt. By the term herut the Rabbis link the revelation at Mount Sinai with the Exodus from Egypt. The text of the Torah operates liberation and freedom and therefore the Rabbis legitimately call the Torah “freedom” (ibid.). The Rabbis communicate that Go’d’s writing down the Torah for Israel constitutes the end of Israel’s way from slavery to freedom (ibid.). In Mishna Pesachim 10 Rabban Gamaliel is cited saying:

“The Passover-offering is offered because the Omnipresent One passed over the houses of our ancestors in Egypt. The bitter herb is eaten because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our ancestors in Egypt. In every generation a person must regard himself as though he personally had gone out of Egypt, as it is said: It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt (Exodus 13, 8). Therefore, it is our duty to thank, praise, laud, glorify, exalt, honor, bless, extol, and adore Him who performed all these miracles for our ancestors and us; He brought us forth from bondage into freedom, from sorrow into joy, from mourning into festivity, from darkness into great light, and from servitude into redemption. Therefore, let us say before Him, Hallelujah!” (https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Pesachim.10.5?lang=bi).

Reading “harut” as “herut” legitimately claims that the tablets realized the inconceivable that is the documentation of the result of the process of Exodus, namely freedom and liberty (ibid.). The liberty gained by the Exodus from Egypt is again materialized in the “ha-luchot”, that is the engraved tablets of stone as “the work of Go’d”, that is a creation. The Exodus is the coming into existence of Israel, the creation of Israel, Go’d’s creation. The individual person, who does not realize the Torah in her or his life negates the Exodus, negates his or her realization of freedom and liberty and negates his or her responsibility for the given fact of one’s existence, disobeying Go’d like the first man had disobeyed the law Go’d had given him (ibid.: 69). Therefore the terms creation, Exodus, Torah and liberty are linked inseparably with each other (ibid.: 66).

The celebration of Rosh Hashanah on the first day of Tischrei, the beginning of the civil year, according to the Rabbis must be understood as the anniversary of the sixth day of creation that is the creation of man as well as the day of the final judgement of all inhabitants of the earth (ibid.: 79). Creation and judgement are understood as one unique process that links the sovereign Go’d Yahweh and the creation of man who is empowered to realize social choices and responsibility (ibid.: 80). Individual responsibility and autonomy are given by Go’d and since Go’d does not forget his creation his justice converts into mercy (Hebrew: rahamim) (ibid.). Sounding the Shofar is part of the liturgy of Rosh Hashanah and creates a link between Rosh Hashanah and the proclamation of the year of Jubilee. Mishna Rosh Hashanah 3, 5 reads:

“The proceedings on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year are equivalent to Rosh Hashanah with regard to bowings and blessings.” (https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Rosh_Hashanah.3?lang=bi).

At the end of times, Yahweh himself will sound the Shofar and reveal Himself as owner of the whole creation (ibid.: 84). The picture of Go’d sounding the Shofar serves the Rabbis to speak of liberty and freedom. Go’d is the owner of creation, therefore He or She is able to reverse the property situations on earth at the end of times. From this picture, the Jubilee takes possibility condition and legitimation (ibid.). The sounding of the Shofar at Rosh Hashana performs the hope that the universal claim of Go’d’s relation with his creation still is valid and empowered to contradict the facts of daily life. Sounding the Shofar, Israel reminds Go’d of His or Her creation, calls for justice in the sovereign belief that Go’d will show mercy. Sounding the Shofar claims and proclaims the kingdom of Go’d against the experience of the loss of political sovereignty; the sound of the Shofar expresses the certainty that liberty and freedom will actually be realized (ibid.: 85).

The Rabbis speak about free will, social choices and liberty in a similar way as the wisdom Writings. Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) and the Rabbis interpret the free will of men and women being constituted by the complete and free dependence of the love of Go’d (ibid.: 45). Ecclesiasticus 15, 14–17:

“He himself made human beings in the beginning and left them free to make their own decisions. If you choose, you will keep the commandments and so be faithful to his will. He has set fire and water before you; put out your hand to whichever you prefer. A human being has life and death before him; whichever he prefers will be given him; for vast is the wisdom of the Lord; he is almighty and all-seeing.”

The free decision amounts to a choice between life and death. With this interpretation, the Lord is the beginning of freedom and the Lord of freedom at the same time. From the validity of this claim to validity follows that nobody on earth has the right or power to take away this freedom from the Jew who believes in Go’d (ibid).

It is not the intent of Plietzsch (2005) to elaborate a concept of freedom and liberty for democratic structures and agents in a liberal democratic state in the twenty-first century CE. Nevertheless, it is of existential importance for the development of our habitats that Jews, Christians, and Muslims learn to live together peacefully. Plietzsch’ study of the rabbinic tradition of the Torah reconstructs for our days and conflicts the possibility condition of the realization of social choices that is freedom and liberty. She interprets the social choice for the Torah as a social choice for the Exodus and therefore as the social choice for a life in liberty and freedom. The social choice for the Exodus and the Torah is at the same time a social choice for an authentic life and a recognition of the fact that this authentic life is a gift and is not yet in accordance with my actual life experience (ibid.: 95–96). Plietzsch’ study of rabbinic literature (Plietzsch 2005) reconstructs a discourse of the Jewish tradition that claimed liberty, freedom and individual responsibility. We must read the Jewish tradition as a discourse on relation, individuality and dignity, as Plietzsch claims (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2018. „Horizonte erweitern. Einleitung“ In Durchblicke. Horizonte jüdischer Kulturgeschichte, edited by Susanne Plietzsch and Armin Eidherr, 7–13. 9. Berlin: Neofelis). This Jewish discourse inspires me as Christian theologian, who is trying to describe the dignity of the individual woman, man and queer as a social realization of social choices. The Jewish discourse gives me hope and courage for a discourse in the Catholic Church on the equal dignity, liberty and rights for all, that is for women, men and queer. It is the same Go’d who created Jews and Christians and made the Rabbis claim liberty and responsibility instead of obedience to a law that does not come from Go’d.

Does the question make sense, if Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism was inspired by his knowledge of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible who criticized the corrupt ways of the kings of Israel and their suppression of the poor? Does the question make sense, if Sigmund Freud’s dream analysis and discovery of the subconscious mind and its fundamental importance for the individual’s physical, psychic, and social integrity was inspired in any way by the Biblical stories of prophets interpreting dreams of kings and pharaohs? Does the question make sense, if Ludwig Wittgenstein’s sentence “The way you use the word God does not show whom you mean – but rather, what you mean” (Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1980. 51. Culture and Value. Edited by G. H. von Wright, translated by Peter Winch. Oxford: Blackwell) was inspired by the Decalogue’s prohibition of making oneself images of God? Does the question about inspirations from Albert Einstein’s Jewish beliefs on his theory of relativity make sense? These questions focus attention on the fact that our world today owes substantial cultural, scientific and political contributions to women and men with a Jewish background. The world is ready to acknowledge these contributions but is reluctant to acknowledge the cultural creativity of Judaism throughout history.

After having presented a theology from rabbinic literature that links the themes of creation, Exodus, Torah and salvation through the acceptance of Go’d as the possibility condition for their realization, Plietzsch turns to the study of the letters of Paul. She studies the term creation and new creation especially in the letters to the Corinthians and in the letter to the Romans, she analyses his concept of liberty and freedom and his understanding of the Torah (Plietzsch 2005, 99–193). Plietzsch is clear about the impossibility to project rabbinic Judaism onto the time of the second Temple that is from the end of the 6th century BCE to 70 CE; it is also wrong to read and discuss Paul from the perspective of discussions and conflicts in later centuries and not to recognize him as an original author of his time (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2018. „Rhetorik der Differenz und der Gleichheit im Galaterbrief“ In Durchblicke. Horizonte jüdischer Kulturgeschichte, edited by Susanne Plietzsch and Armin Eidherr, 50–74. 52. Berlin: Neofelis).

In 2005, Plietzsch claims that Paul’s concept of the law (in Greek: nomos) is very different from the Rabbis’ view on the Torah because rabbinic thinking about the Torah is not possible without taking into consideration the Exodus (Plietzsch 2005, 135). For the Rabbis the Torah constitutes the extraordinary and unheard possibility condition for the social choice of responsible self-determination by following God’s will (ibid.). I do not think that Paul claims that the Torah leads but to death as Plietzsch suspects (ibid.). Above all, Paul accepts and defends God’s grace as a possibility condition for man’s justification through God’s mercy. It is Paul’s belief and faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah that constitutes for him God’s grace and mercy. Death and resurrection of Jesus Christ constitute the new creation, a realization of God’s justification and mercy that changes his faith in the Torah. Paul claims in Galatians 2, 21: “I am not setting aside God’s grace as of no value; it is merely that if justice comes through the Law, Christ died needlessly.” Paul confesses the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as Go’d’s mercy. In the end Go’d’s justice is reconciliation by mercy and grace. We must understand that Paul speaks of Go’d’s justice that is of reconciling justice. The Law is not contrary to God’s promise. The Christian Paul polemizes against the Law because he embraced a different perspective on salvation than his Jewish brothers and sisters. At the same time Paul speaks of a Law of the Spirit that relates to Jesus Christ. We read in Romans 8, 2 of “the law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ”. The Pharisee Paul changed his mind set, convictions and believes before Damascus where he experienced the Messiah, that is Jesus Christ. This experience makes him a Jewish-Christian. A Jew cannot accept Jesus as Messiah (Acts 9, 1-22). Jesus Christ changes the priorities of Paul’s faith and life: “I am living in faith, faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2, 20).

Reading rabbinic literature with Plietzsch (2005) as a discourse of the Jewish tradition that claimed liberty, freedom, and individual responsibility, as a discourse on relation, individuality and dignity (Plietzsch 2018a, 9) helps my understanding of Luke 10, 25–28 (The great commandment) and 29–37 (Parable of the good Samaritan). Luke evidently knew about the connection of the Law and eternal life in the last times that the Rabbis discussed. Reading the parallel stories in Mark 12, 28–31 and Matthew 22, 35 – 40 we observe that a scribe and the Pharisees asked Jesus about the greatest commandment of the Law. In Mark Jesus answers the scribe and in Matthew Jesus answers the Pharisees as he had answered the lawyer in Luke, although the lawyer had asked a different question. Luke makes a Jewish lawyer ask Jesus concerning his eternal life, concerning his eschatological hope of justice (Luke 10, 25). Jesus answered with a double question: “What is written in the Law” and what is your interpretation of it? (Luke 10, 26). The lawyer answers with Deuteronomy 6, 5 and Leviticus 19, 18: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself”. Jesus assesses the answer of the lawyer: “You have answered right, do this and life is yours”. Luke makes Jesus join the justice function of the Law with life just as the Rabbis claim that Go’d does not forget his creation and converts his justice into mercy (Hebrew: rahamim) (Plietzsch 2005, 79). The Rabbis taught that Yahweh had written down the Torah in order to give life and Yahweh will do mercy in the final judgement and liberate Israel again and for all times.

Luke makes Jesus narrate to the lawyer the parable of the Good Samaritan to make him understand that Go’d wants mercy and not a legal definition of “the neighbor”. A passing priest and a Levite did not help a man who had fallen into the hands of bandits. “A Samaritan traveler who came on him was moved with compassion when he saw him” and “looked after him” (Luke 10, 29–35). The social choice to relate to the man who had fallen under the bandits is the realization of the liberty and dignity of the Samaritan. Realizing the law of love is realizing one’s dignity and responsibility, just as Go’d realizes mercy in the final judgement giving eternal life to all women, men and queer. Jesus asks the lawyer: “Which of these three, do you think, proved himself a neighbor to the man who fell into the bandits’ hands?” (Luke 10, 36). The lawyer replied: “’The one who showed pity toward him’. Jesus said to him, ‘Go, and do the same yourself’” (Luke 10, 37). At the end of the parable, Luke shows that Jesus had succeeded relating to the lawyer, just as the Samaritan had related to the wounded and robbed man (Bovon, Francois. 1996. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 9,51–14,35. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/2. 99. Neukirchen-Vluyin: Neukirchener Verlag). The lawyer and Jesus consent that love is a realization of a social choice for freedom and dignity. Luke insists on Jesus’ successful relating to the lawyer. Jesus provided himself a neighbor to the lawyer and only then, he encouraged the lawyer to provide himself neighbors too. Jesus realizes the validity condition of his claim to mutual relations of dignity by making himself a neighbor to the consenting lawyer.

Rabbinic literature insists on Go’d’s faithful relation to Israel. The Prophet Jeremiah already had spoken of “a new covenant” that Go’d will make (Jeremiah 31, 31), Jesus will take up the term at the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, 25. The references in 1 Corinthians 11, 25, in Luke 22, 20 and in Hebrews 8, 8–12 concerning the new covenant that Jeremiah announces are the longest citations of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament (Lyonnet, Stanislas. 1989. Etudes sur l`Epitre aux Romains. 231. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico). Yahweh will “write on the hearts” of the Israelites this law of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31, 33) and Ezekiel identifies this law as the law of the Spirit of Yahweh (Ezekiel 11,19; 18,31; 36, 25; 36, 27; 37, 14). This allows Paul to speak in Romans 8, 2 of “the law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ” (Lyonnet 1989, 325). Is it permitted to read Luke 10, 25–28, which is about the connection of the Law and eternal life, and Mark 12, 28–31 as Matthew 22, 35–40, which are about the greatest commandment, together with Romans 13, 8 that speaks about the law?

“The only thing you should owe to anyone is love for one another, for to love the other person is to fulfil the law” (Romans 13, 8).

Yes, as Christians we confess the hope that the love of Christ that we are allowed to receive with faith will liberate and save us (Lyonnet 1989, 320).