Unlike Judaism, which provides a set of detailed social, cultural, and religious norms and laws (halakha) that regulate many aspects of life of observant Jews,[4] Frank claimed that "all laws and teachings will fall"[5] and, following antinomianism, asserted that the most important obligation of every person was the transgression of every boundary.[6]
Frankism is associated with the Sabbateans of Turkey, a religious movement that identified the 17th-century Jewish rabbi Sabbatai Zevi as the Messiah.[1][3] Like Frankism, the earlier forms of Sabbateanism believed that at least in some circumstances, antinomianism was the correct path.[7] Zevi himself would perform actions that violated traditional Jewish taboos, such as eating foods that were forbidden by kashrut, the Jewish dietary laws, and celebrating prescribed fast days as feast days.[8] Especially after Zevi's death, a number of branches of Sabbateanism evolved that disagreed among themselves over which aspects of traditional Judaism should be preserved and which should be discarded.[9]
Several authorities on Sabbateanism, such as Heinrich Graetz and Aleksander Kraushar [pl], were skeptical of the existence of a distinctive Frankist doctrine. According to Gershom Scholem, a 20th century authority on Sabbateanism and Kabbalah, Kraushar had described Frank's sayings as "grotesque, comical and incomprehensible." In his classic essay "Redemption Through Sin," Scholem argued a different position which placed Frankism as a later and more radical outgrowth of Sabbateanism.[9] In contrast, Jay Michaelson argues that Frankism was "an original theology that was innovative, if sinister" that was, in many respects, a departure from the earlier formulations of Sabbateanism. In traditional Sabbatean doctrine, Zevi (and often his followers) claimed to be able to liberate the sparks of holiness hidden within what seemed to be evil. According to Michaelson, Frank's theology asserted that the attempt to liberate the sparks of holiness was the problem, not the solution. Rather, Frank claimed that the "mixing" between holy and unholy was virtuous.[6] Netanel Lederberg claims that Frank had a Gnostic philosophy wherein there was a "true God" whose existence was hidden by a "false God." This "true God" could allegedly be revealed only through a total destruction of the social and religious structures created by the "false God," thus leading to a thorough antinomianism. For Frank, the very distinction between good and evil is a product of a world governed by the "false God." Lederberg compares Frank's position to that of Friedrich Nietzsche.[10]