Apocalyptic Abarbanel

Don Isaac Abarvanel lived in the 15th century mostly. He was a great official in the court of the King of Portugal. He was also a great religious scholar. Incidentally, his famous family claimed to be of direct lineage to King David. 

What kind of a religious scholar was he? Not halacha in particular. He dealt with philosophy, but was not primarily a philosopher. The weight of his work was biblical commentary, though he is considered to mostly utilize ideas from previous or parallel thinkers. As a statesman, he also engaged in political matters.

In the year 1483, the young new King of Portugal arrested and executed dozens of officials in the court, but Abarvanel managed to escape, though he abandoned his significant fortune. He relocated to Spain, and took on a similar role with the King of Aragonia in Barcelona. 

But just 8 years later, the King and Queen there decided, and would not be convinced otherwise by the likes of Abarvanel and others, to drive out the Jewish community that was quite wealthy, intellectual, and influential.

Thousands were killed, thousands converted to Christianity, some of whom continued to practice Judaism secretly, or in their hearts believed in Judaism and not Christianity. But most of the Spanish Jews left, scattered around the world. 

Abarvanel settled in Naples in Italy, again, serving the King there, but again they experienced persecution by French soldiers in the context of war between France and Italy. He moved along and eventually would settle in Venice until his death in the year 1508. 

The bulk of his writings are from his time in Italy, after the Spanish expulsion. He wrote a commentary to the whole Bible. His comments are long, unlike the brief remarks and half sentences typical of the classic commentators (Rashi and so forth). He mixes different methods of rhetoric, analysis, and interpretation. 

He is more famous for his ‘trilogy’ on messianism. Three large books on the topic he wrote. The names of the books are easy to confuse - Wellsprings of Salvation; Salvation of His Anointed / Messiah; and Announcing Salvation. The first is a commentary on Daniel, the second is a collection and commentary of rabbinic sources on the Messiah, and the third is a collection and commentary of sorts on messianic prophecies in the biblical prophets mostly.

Indeed, until Abarvanel, it seems the messianic idea in Judaism was not systematized, nor was it necessarily dominant in the Jewish historical consciousness - this is hard to assess. But he was the first. If we place Abarvanel and his messianic writings in the context of this study on messianism, he created a systematic summarizing of the verses and ideas of messianism, following the Talmudic and otherwise rabbinic variety and open-ended series of messianic interpretations and expectations. 

It is in the context of the Spanish Expulsion, the great tragedy and traumatic events, that the messianic writing of Abarvanel is understood. He was the representative leader, statesman, and religious thinker of the era and that community. He addressed, by his literary actions, a need for answers and for apologetics, to encourage the people, to help them rationalize and maintain their faith in the dire circumstances, and deal not only with the longing for redemption, but also in facing the pressures of Christianity - those forces that persecuted them, but also pushed their messianic ideas onto them, and forced thousands to convert to Christianity. 

The works of Abarvanel are by and large argumentative against Christianity, but in a comprehensive and thorough manner. He is not debating publicly in front of a Christian audience, as did Nachmanides famously in the disputation in Barcelona in 1263. His writings are very extensive. They are geared to a Jewish audience, explaining Christian interpretations in a way that Christians would not agree represents them, in other words, he is dealing with apologetics, not debate. 

What is also interesting to us, is that his general system of messianism is very different from that of Maimonides. He disagrees with Maimonides, while conveying respect. Maimonides presented a minimalistic, conservative, and ‘naturalistic’ reading of messianism, citing the position of Shmuel in the Talmud, that there is no difference between this world and the next but subjugation to foreign kings or kingdoms, in other words, national sovereignty, etc. 

But Maimonides literally says - our Sages have said… and then references the position of Shmuel. Abarvanel criticizes this point, pointing out that it was not any plurality but the voice of one, Shmuel, whose position was marginal.

Abarvanel will go on to establish a whole system of messianism, that mixes the logic and approach of the philosophers, the natural medieval scientific rational thinkers they were, with all the grandiose apocalyptic content we are familiar with of messianism in rabbinic literature. 

He actually considers it or presents apocalyptic messianism as naturalistic, by citing astrology and getting into details of natural shifts and changes that will occur in the messianic cosmological developments. He even reinterprets the words of Shmuel to say that the difference will be that the Messiah King will be the ruler of all nations, they will all be subjugated.

What sticks out is that a broad principle behind many apologetic polemic points is that the prophecies were not fulfilled in the past, in the 2ndTemple era. Why?

Christian claims argued that prophecies occurred in the past before the destruction of the Temple, and from there point to Jesus as Messiah. Historical argumentation was a classic medieval Christian polemical approach. 

Abarvanel’s generation was struggling with this pressure, which at least demoralized and destabilized many. So he speaks of the redemption of Egypt and the redemption of the future. He calculates the apocalyptic messianic era in a way that puts it in front of his audience’s generation, thus undermining Christian argument while producing hope and anticipation. 

Lastly, a quote from Abarvanel, from before the tragic events of the Spanish Expulsion, before his messianic trilogy - nothing apocalyptic, sounding more like another classic rationalist, from his biblical commentary, on Genesis 22, explaining why the Sages wrote about the donkey of Abraham during the binding of Isaac (the Akeda) as the same donkey of Moses and the future donkey that the King Messiah will ride on:

Since Abraham was the beginning in the perfection of his faith, and Moses our teacher in the giving of the Torah—which was given through a true agent in order to remove the contamination of the serpent—and the King Messiah will be the ultimate end of all that is uniquely good, therefore the Sages, of blessed memory, expressed this metaphorically: that the very donkey which Abraham saddled is the one upon which Moses rode, and it is the one upon which the King Messiah will ride.

That is to say, that same material (chomer) which Abraham subdued under his intellect was likewise subdued by Moses our teacher in receiving the Torah, and will likewise be subdued by the King Messiah, bringing it to complete rectification in the highest perfection. And they mentioned these three—Abraham, Moses, and the Messiah—because they represent the beginning, the middle, and the end of the perfection of faith.