Reflecting on the variegated influences that Protestant theology has exercised on America’s approach to the world beyond its shores, Robert Nicholson turns to the great mid-century theologian and political thinker Reinhold Niebuhr. In his writings, Niebuhr frequently distinguished between what he called the “Hebraic” and “Hellenic” strands of thinking that have contributed to Christianity, and Western civilization more broadly, while also believing that Christianity, “when it is true to itself, is Hebraic rather than Hellenic.” Nicholson explains:

The Bible contains several ideas that inform the Hebraic worldview, but here I’ll mention only three: limits, particularism, and a divine end of history. . . . The Hellenic approach to the world is an optimistic one, believing that natural limits can be overcome and application of right reason can tame historical forces. Differences among languages, nations, and moralities dissolve in the face of universal truths waiting to be discovered in nature. Science and mathematics can, in fact, conquer nature. . . .

The Hebraic approach, by contrast, sees things like human nature, morality, and government as inherently limited inside history. The Hebraic God is, in fact, a God of limits. The first book of the Bible begins with God making distinctions between celestial and terrestrial, sea and land, man and woman, Himself and mankind. He draws lines between sacred and profane, Israel and the nations, weekdays and the Sabbath. He imposes boundaries on knowledge, land, leaders, and governments; creates borders between nations and languages; demands accountability to a higher order against which all things, including political power, must be measured. Ultimately, the Hebraic God even sets limits on Himself as He enters into history to initiate a personal encounter with man.

The biblical concept of limits naturally gives rise to a second concept. Niebuhr writes that “the ‘scandal of particularism’ . . . is a necessary part of revelation in biblical faith.” The idea that “universal history should be the particular revelation of the divine, to a particular people, and finally in a particular drama and person” is scandalous to all rationalistic interpretations of history because it places meaning in discrete historical events rather than in universally valid concepts to which all historical phenomena must conform. The Hellenic man sees the Hebraic man as parochial in his attachment to “signs and wonders” that took place among a “chosen people.” . . .

Looking upon this “divine Majesty,” the Hebraic man arrives at a third concept of biblical faith: God’s final intervention as the only solution to history’s flaws. . . . The Hellenic man finds hope inside history; the Hebraic man, beyond it. . . . Limits, particularism, and a divine end of history—it isn’t hard to see how these ideas lead to . . . support for the moral right of the Jewish people to regather in their ancient homeland and a realistic view about the ultimate hope of humanity lying outside the reach of human hands.

Information about a supposedly near-finalized hostage deal continued to trickle out yesterday. While it’s entirely possible that by the time you read this a deal will be much more certain, it is every bit as likely that it will have fallen through by then. More likely still, we will learn that there are indefinite and unspecified delays. Then there are the details: even in the best of scenarios, not all the hostages will be returned at once, and Israel will have to make painful concessions in exchange, including the release of hundreds of hardened terrorists and the withdrawal from key parts of the Gaza Strip.

Unusually—if entirely appropriately—the president-elect’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has participated in the talks alongside members of President Biden’s team. Philip Klein examines the incoming Trump administration’s role in the process:

President-elect Trump has repeatedly warned that there would be “all hell to pay” if hostages were not returned from Gaza by the time he takes office. While he has never laid out exactly what the specific consequences for Hamas would be, there are some ominous signs that Israel is being pressured into paying a tremendous price.

There is obviously more here than we know. It’s possible that with the pressure from the Trump team came reassurances that Israel would have more latitude to reenter Gaza as necessary to go after Hamas than it would have enjoyed under Biden. . . . That said, all appearances are that Israel has been forced into making more concessions because Trump was concerned that he’d be embarrassed if January 20 came around with no hostages released.

While Donald Trump’s threats are a welcome rhetorical shift, part of the problem may be their vagueness. After all, it’s unlikely the U.S. would use military force to unleash hell in Gaza, or could accomplish much in doing so that the IDF can’t. More useful would be direct threats against countries like Qatar and Turkey that host Hamas, and threats to the persons and bank accounts of the Hamas officials living in those counties. Witkoff instead praised the Qatari prime minister for “doing God’s work” in the negotiations.”