The book of Esther and why the Nazis feared it

It’s simple, really. The book of Esther, potentially, was a prophecy of their demise. A Christian preacher saw this with startling clarity at the time. His name was Wilhelm Vischer, and he deserves to be better-known.

This post is written with fellow bloggers like Phil Sumpter and Daniel Driver in mind who respect the work of Karl Barth and Brevard Childs, but may know next to nothing about Wilhelm Eduard Vischer, and why Barth and Childs thought highly of him.

For those who read German, here is an introduction to Vischer’s life and thought. A review article by Robert Yarbrough touches on a number of important points.

Vischer was one of the great preachers of the 20^th century. He had an ability to see connections between scripture and current events. He read scripture prophetically, in the best sense of the word. Heinrich Bodeker, a close friend of Vischer from 1933 to his death, had this to say about him (quote from Yarbrough’s article cited above):

The theological and pastoral influence of Wilhelm Vischer can hardly be overstated. It is impossible to imagine today how he impacted young students. Most of us came from primary schools where religious instruction was used primarily to drive Christian faith completely out of students. When we came in contact with W. V., we could only stand in amazement of what the Bible really said.

That is Vischer's contribution: not only to have made the Bible familiar and dear to us, but to have called forth from us courage and confidence joyfully to be pastors in the midst of life and existence under the thrice-cursed Third Reich.

I can hardly describe the joy I felt preaching the gospel in the sense understood by W. V. from 1936 to 1941 here at home and then in 1944-45 (Allied invasion of Europe) as military camp pastor. Most of all I realized - and this stuck with me till the end of my service in 1976 - that Vischer's approach to Bible interpretation spoke to church members, who gratefully accepted it.

Is it any wonder that Barth and Thurneysen both attended Vischer’s church in Basel? Is it any wonder that his preaching was beloved, not only by them, but by other thinking Swiss Christians in the Nazi period? Yet Vischer rejected the historical-critical method of reading scripture.

Vischer breathed fire against the National Socialists while others kept quiet, laid low, or justified the unjustifiable. He put matters in exquisitely theological terms:

Wenn wir das Alte Testament ablehnen, können wir das Neue Testament auch nicht mehr als Heilige Schrift behalten. Wenn wir es trotzdem noch behalten, dann hat es durch die Loslösung vom Alten Testament einen anderen Sinn bekommen. Das Hauptwort des Neuen Testaments, nämlich `Jesus Christus', sagt dann nicht mehr das Gleiche wie vorher. (Gehört das Alte Testament heute noch in die Bibel des deutschen Christen?, 1932)

When we reject the Old Testament, we can no longer hold on to the New Testament as Holy Scripture either. If we hold on to it nevertheless, then it acquires another sense on account of the dissolution of its connection with the Old Testament. The chief affirmation of the New Testament, “Jesus Christ,” will in consequence no longer mean what it did before. (Does the Old Testament Still Belong in the Bible of German Christians? 1932)

For his defense of the Jews and public disparagement of Hitler, he was banned from speaking in 1936 throughout the Reich, but he traveled back and forth from Switzerland to Germany just the same until 1938, within the context of the Confessing Church.

In 1937, besides serving as pastor of a congregation in Basel – Barth and Thurneysen, as already mentioned, were among his parishioners – he became a Privatdozent at the University, and continued in that position until 1947. In his inaugural lecture, which was promptly published in the series Theologische Existenz Heute (Theological Existence Today), he described the book of Esther as a witness to Christ the acknowledgement of which, under the circumstances, meant the difference between salvation and its opposite (ein “heilsnotwendiges Christuszeugnis”).[1] From 1936 to the end of the war, he was heavily involved in providing aid to Jews and other refugees fleeing Germany. In 1938, he briefly served as president of the “Union of Friends of Israel,” a post which he resigned in August of that year when Karl Barth was disinvited as the speaker at the Union’s annual get-together – Barth had by now become persona non grata to many on account of his outspoken opposition to National Socialism. Vischer carried on, nevertheless, with the practical work of aid. In October of 1938, he published a memorandum with the title “Salvation comes from the Jews.” The contradiction with the National Socialist slogan, “The Jews are our misfortune,” could not have been more pointed.

Vischer made many enemies. He despised mealy-mouthed preaching. It should not be too hard to read between these lines:

Die ganze Heilige Schrift ist also nichts anderes als das Gespräch des Hohenliedes: Ich bin dein, und du bist mein. Im Augenblick, wo wir beim Lesen der heiligen Schrift Begriffe abziehen von der Person Gottes, haben wir alle Worte entleert und verfälscht. Und eben das ist der Sündenfall der christlichen Rede, daß wir von biblischen Wahrheiten reden, und nicht bedenken, daß alle diese Wahrheiten Lügen sind, wenn Gott nicht sagt: Ich bin die Wahrheit, ich bin die Gerechtigkeit, ich bin das Licht, ich bin das Leben. (Der Inhalt der Verkündigung, 1941, 14)

All of Holy Scripture is nothing other than the conversation found in the Song of Songs: “I am yours, and you are mine.” In this light, whenever we, in reading Holy Scripture, treat concepts in isolation from God’s Person, we empty of significance and falsify its every word. Just that is the downfall of Christian discourse, that we talk of biblical truths, and do not consider that these truths are lies if God did not say, “I am truth, I am righteousness, I am light, I am life.” (The Content of Preaching, 1941, 14)

---

[1] “Esther,” Theologische Existenz heute 48 (München 1937) [29 pages] = Theologische Existenz heute 48 (Zollikon/Zürich 1938¹, 1947²). English translation: “The Book of Esther,” The Evangelical Quarterly 11 (1939) 3-21.

Comments

[Looney]

When I was studying the book of Esther, I ended up reading Herodotus cover to cover. What I discovered was that God had made a temporary home for the Jews in the Persians' centrally planned empire. The Persians were warring with the Greeks who were the promoters of Democracy and free market economics.

It was a bit of a shock for me as an American, but perhaps a warning not to place my hope for Christian prosperity in Democracy and freedom?

[JohnFH]

Already in Isaiah 40-48 (in 45:1 he is named), Cyrus is God's anointed one = Messiah on behalf of the people of Israel.

[Phil Sumpter]

Most of us came from primary schools where religious instruction was used primarily to drive Christian faith completely out of students.

My wife teaches evangelische Religion here in Germany, and the situation still hasn't changed. It's a tragedy.

I've often noted Childs' high opinion of Vischer, but still haven't got round to reading him. This has re-inspired me - thanks!

OH, and I come to this post late as technorati didn't inform me about it!

[JohnFH]

Hi Phil,

Isn't that true about parochial school education and publicly funded religion instruction in state schools? But in Italy, I noticed it wasn't always true. Some of my Catholic friends who taught religion in the public schools allowed their classes to be a time for very open discussion, and the students ate it up.

Technorati is so hit and miss. I wish there was a reliable alternative.