Do the Dietary Laws of the Hebrew Bible Still Apply to Christians?

A common question that arises in both church contexts and wider public discourse is whether Christians today are still bound by the dietary restrictions found in the Hebrew Bible—such as the prohibition against eating pork or shellfish outlined in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Some argue that Christians should continue to observe these food laws as part of biblical obedience. But how has the Christian tradition historically addressed this issue? Does the New Testament offer a clear theological answer?

This controversy is not new. Already in the first century, early Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus debated whether elements of the Mosaic Law—especially circumcision and dietary laws—remained binding under the new covenant inaugurated by Christ. One of the most decisive moments in this debate was the Council of Jerusalem, dated around AD 50 (Acts 15). There, the apostles and elders, under the leadership of figures like Peter, Paul, and James, addressed whether Gentile converts to Christianity should be required to follow Jewish law. St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, concluded that Gentiles should not be burdened with the full yoke of Mosaic regulations, including circumcision and, by implication, dietary laws. This decision reflected an emerging consensus that the covenantal requirements given specifically to Israel did not apply to Gentiles in the same way under the New Covenant.

Yet questions persisted—especially for Jewish Christians who remained culturally tied to Torah observance. The Mosaic dietary laws listed in Leviticus 11 include prohibitions against eating animals such as camels, rabbits, pigs, and sea creatures without fins and scales (e.g., shrimp), as well as various birds and creeping animals. For Israelites, these laws were both a ritual expression of holiness and a means of distinguishing themselves from surrounding nations.

The theological rationale behind these food laws, as understood in later Christian interpretation, was both symbolic and protective. According to traditional Christian readings, the ceremonial and purity laws of the Hebrew Bible served to set Israel apart, preserving their distinctiveness as God’s covenant people and, ultimately, safeguarding the lineage from which Jesus would be born. Christian theological reflection, especially in light of salvation history, often frames the laws, wars, and covenantal restrictions of ancient Israel as part of God’s providential plan to bring about the Messiah.

The prophet Jeremiah, writing centuries before the birth of Jesus, anticipated a future moment when God would inaugurate a New Covenant: “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt… This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,’ declares the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.’” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

For Christians, the New Testament presents Jesus as the fulfillment of this promise. His death and resurrection inaugurated a new phase in God’s redemptive work, one in which the ceremonial aspects of the Law—including food laws—were no longer binding on his followers.

This theological shift becomes especially clear in the narrative of Peter’s vision in Acts 10:9–16. There, Peter experiences a vision of a sheet descending from heaven, filled with animals considered unclean under Levitical law. When instructed to "kill and eat," Peter initially protests, citing his adherence to the purity laws. Yet the divine response—"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean"—signals a radical reconfiguration of what constitutes holiness under the New Covenant. While the immediate application in Acts was to the inclusion of Gentiles in the church, the language and imagery also carried dietary implications. The point is reinforced in Mark 7:17–19, where Jesus explicitly declares all foods clean, making a direct statement about the end of dietary restrictions.

Paul’s letters further clarify the issue. Romans 14:20 states plainly: “All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.” In other words, while Christians are free from Mosaic dietary restrictions, Paul also encourages sensitivity toward fellow believers whose consciences may lead them to continue avoiding certain foods. The underlying principle is pastoral care and community unity, rather than ceremonial obligation.

This topic has even found its way into popular satire and cultural critique. The website GodHatesShrimp.org was created to mock Christians who cite Levitical laws against same-sex relationships while ignoring adjacent food laws in the same biblical chapters. The site uses rhetorical humor to highlight perceived inconsistency in how some Christians apply Old Testament laws today. However, both the God Hates Shrimp satire and more strident anti-LGBTQ movements like the "God Hates [Homosexuals]" campaign reflect a shared misunderstanding of Christian theological teaching about the Law and the Covenants.

Historically and doctrinally, mainstream Christian theology has maintained that the ceremonial and dietary laws of the Mosaic covenant were fulfilled and rendered non-binding for Christians under the New Covenant established by Christ. Ethical teachings, by contrast, are reaffirmed and often expanded upon in the New Testament. For this reason, modern Christian communities continue to clarify and explain how covenantal theology informs their understanding of Scripture and its application today.

Engaging with questions like "Do the dietary laws still apply?" is therefore more than a matter of academic curiosity. It represents an opportunity for Christian communities to articulate how they read Scripture within its full covenantal and historical context, especially in an age when both sincere seekers and cultural critics frequently challenge them to explain how they navigate the relationship between Old and New Testament teachings.

The overall conclusion remains: within the framework of New Testament theology, Christians are not bound by the dietary laws of the Hebrew Bible. All foods areconsidered clean, as affirmed by Jesus and reiterated by the apostles.

The Mythic City of Atlantis

The title may catch some off-guard. Understandably, when it comes to topics such as the fabled lost city of Atlantis, some turn their head the other way, believing it to be a mere myth, a legend. If you are a regular reader, you will know that whether something appears to be a myth or legend or not, I try to tackle it. Atlantis is the subject of hundreds, if not thousands, of books, articles, poems, movies, the like. (Photo credit to: NASA)

Has there ever really been an Atlantis, and is there any Scriptural basis for it? In other words, does the Hebrew Bible provide any reference to the events? To begin, we ought to learn a bit about this fabled city. The earliest account of Atlantis is found in Plato's Timaeus and Critas, written some 350-400 years before the birth of Jesus. Plato wrote that this island was destroyed, having been swallowed up by the sea. Plato goes on to say that Atlantis was named for Atlas, the oldest twin of Poseidon, son of Cronus, within Greek Mythology. The account continues that Poseidon owned an island, and named it after his son, Atlas: Atlantis. These Atlantians (variant: Atlanteans) had conquered parts of what is now Italy and North Africa, and were a threat to Egypt and Greece. The account tells us that many Athenians could have died fighting the Atlantians shortly before the destruction of Atlantis.

Put simply, Atlantis either existed: or it did not. If it did exist, then we should still find historical and geological evidence of such. If not, then the search is over. Understandably, since the story was handed down from Egyptians to Solon, Plato's ancestor, to Plato himself, there was more than likely some inaccuracies. If Atlantis was biblical, then it could be one of two things: Atlantis was destroyed during a volcanic eruption or local flood, and we would not find remains. Or, Atlantis was destroyed - but not completely - and we could expect to find some remains of the city. Let us take a look at the account given in Critas.

"... which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside of the Pillars of Hercules and all who dwelt within them; this was I am going to describe. Of combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, which, as was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean."

Plato also refers to the Atlantic Ocean and the "pillars of Hercules." Most scholars believe Plato was referring to the Strait of Gibraltar - which is between modern-day Spain and Morocco. Plato, in referencing Libya and Asia, viewed them as a Greek in 500 BC - these post-Flood features and names are not what we think of today as Libya and Asia, but as how they view these places then. For example, Asia was originally viewed as part of modern-day Turkey.[1] In measurements called stadia, (about 600 ft each) Plato also gives the measurements for the island. The dimensions are given as 2000 x 3000 stadia. Modern-day measurement would show the island as 227 x 340 miles - an estimated 77,000 square-mile area. (About the size of Nebraska in the United States) This allows the "continent" to be much smaller than believed.

As put by Bodie Hodge of AiG, "descriptions given by Plato appear to place it outside of the Mediterranean in the Atlantic Ocean."[2] The latest it could have been destroyed was 400 BC, prior to Socrates, who had died around this time. However, taking into consideration that the account had been given to Solon, who had in turn gotten his account from the Egyptians, the latest date was likely a few hundred years before Socrates, say around 700/600 BC. Ranged at 1800's-600's BC. As put in Mystic Places, "Indeed, the very quantity and quality of information in Critas has given Plato's account much of its enduring plausibility. Critas's report is filled with architectural, engineering, and ceremonial detail that would hardly have been needed if all Plato had in mind was to create a parable or legend to help him make a philosophical point. Moreover, Plato laced the dialogue of Critas with uncharacteristic references to the tale as 'the realm of fact' and 'genuine history.' And Solon, who supposedly brought back the story to Greece, was a real person who had actually visited Egypt as a statesman. All in all, Plato took great pains to make his record of Atlantis seem credible to the readers of his time, and that tone of certainty has remained a challenge for more than 2,000 years."

Santorini

The continent set beyond Atlantis that Timaeus refers to is likely the Americas, so it could be ruled out, and it sill exists - it has not sunk into the sea. Some believe that the islands of Azores, Madeira, or Canary may be Atlantis. In 1669, Athanasius Kircher drew a map, placing Atlantis between Africa/Europe and the Americas. If Atlantis did exist, it likely was a post-Flood island not far from the Strait of Gibraltar.

As Plato wrote, "But at a later time there occurred portentous earthquakes and floods, and one grievous day and night befell them, when the whole body of your warriors was swallowed up by the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner was swallowed up by the sea and vanished; wherefore also the ocean at that spot has now become impassable and unsearchable, being blocked up by the shoal mud which the island created as it settled down."[3]

When we look at stories such as the Iliad that describes the city of Troy, up until 1873, the general concept of the story was believed to have been made up, when in fact, it was based on truth. Heinrich Schliemann, amateur archaeologist, set out to prove that the story described in the Iliad and the Odyssey, written by Homer around 700 BC, were based on some history. In the late 1860's, Schliemann decided that the town is Hissarlik in Turkey seemed to match the scene of the Iliad. He began to dig in 1871.[4] He found that there was truly a city beneath Hissarlik. The layers, which had been scorched by fire, seemed to depict Homer's Troy. One morning, in the summer of 1873, golden necklaces, earring, dishes, and more out of the ground was found. This discovery made Schliemann famous, and since then, archaeologists generally agree that the city he found is likely Troy. This find continues to fuel the search for Atlantis, showing that sometimes, stories do have some truth to him.

If Atlantis really did exist, why was it destroyed? "It was not long before Atlantis - gifted with wealth, strength, and internal harmony, began to extend its power outward. But at the same time, the divine and virtuous character of its populace had begun to weaken with the passage of years. 'Human nature,' Critas reported, 'got the upper hand.' The Atlanteans began to exhibit less seemly qualities: Uncurbed ambition, greed and ugliness grew among the citizens and their rulers as well. Perceiving that an 'honorable race was n a woeful plight,' Critas said, Zeus summoned the gods to determine what punishment to inflict on Atlantis. 'And when he had called them together he spoke as follows:' And this is where Critas breaks off. For unknown reasons, Plato ended his chronicle of Atlantis before he had given the details - only touched upon in the earlier dialogue of Timaeus."[5]

There is another point to consider. "It is known that the volcanic island of Thera, in the Aegan Sea, exploded in about 1470 BC. [A few decades before the Exodus in Israel] The 4,900-foot mountain erupted with such violence that the central portion of the island collapsed into the rapidly emptied chamber 1,200 feet below the sea. The surrounding area, now known as the island of Santorini, was covered in a 100-foot-thick layer of volcanic ash, and it is beneath this layer that relics of the Minoan Empire have been found."[6] 

Could Thera have been Atlantis? No, some argue. Yes, others insist. What if Plato had misinterpreted Solon's writings to mean that the destruction had actually occurred 900 years before the birth of Solon - not 9,000? This would place the event closer to the destruction of Thera. An island about 80,000 sq. miles would neatly fit into the Aegan Sea. Also, the Greek word for "greater than" is similar to their word, "midway." Was Atlantis actually midway between Libya and Asia, and not "greater than?" If this is true, and Atlantis is actually the island of Thera, then the mystery is solved.[9] Yet, doubt remains. Perhaps Atlantis was another story to tell around the campfire. Perhaps it was just a myth. However, if there is any truth to Atlantis, research seems to show that it is highly possible. Now, some may argue that because Plato's account states that Atlantis was swallowed up by the sea, that Thera could not possibly be Atlantis. Yet, if Atlantis was located in the central portion of the island, it would have sunk when the volcano erupted, around 1470 BC. Regardless of how many different angles we look at Atlantis, there seems to be a "reasonable doubt," allowing for further investigation, yet we may never know if Atlantis ever actually did exist. In short, is there a Scriptural basis for Atlantis? Atlantis itself is not mentioned in the Bible, but it may have existed as a civilization near the Strait of Gibraltar, and the story has served in some ways as a cautionary tale, similar to the the Genesis pericope of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Troy Hillman

Sources

[1] Hodge, Bodie. "Did Atlantis Exist?" Web. 11 Jan 2011. < http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/did-atlantis-exist >Ibid.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Timaeus 25c–d, Bury translation.
[4] Various Authors. "Mystic Places". 2nd ed. TIME-LIFE, 1987. 14-19. Print.
[5] Various Authors. "Strange Stores, Amazing Facts." 4th ed. Reader's Digest, 1976.60-61. Print.
[6] Ibid. 

"Is Jesus Really God?": How Christian Theology Assembles Biblical Witnesses to the Divinity of Jesus

Introduction 

Few figures in human history have generated as much theological, philosophical, and historical discussion as Jesus of Nazareth. Across centuries, debates have ranged from his historical existence to his divine status within Christian theology. Modern perspectives on Jesus vary widely: some view him as a moral teacher, others as a prophet, a divine being, or a social reformer. Within Christian orthodoxy, however, Jesus is understood not simply as a great human figure, but as God incarnate—a core tenet of Trinitarian doctrine. This article examines how Christian theology historically constructed this claim, drawing upon an interwoven web of Hebrew Bible texts, New Testament passages, and post-biblical interpretation.  

The Historical Existence of Jesus: A Brief Note

 Before turning to theological questions, it is worth noting that the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is broadly accepted among historians of antiquity. References to Jesus appear in the works of several Roman and Jewish authors within roughly 150 years of his death, including Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian of Samosata, among others. While the theological interpretations of Jesus remain divisive, his historical existence is generally not.

The Question of Identity: "Who Do You Say That I Am?"

At the heart of Christological debate is the question Jesus himself reportedly posed in the Gospels: "Who do you say that I am?" (Matt. 16:15). New Testament texts present Jesus making claims that Christians later interpreted as affirmations of divinity. Among the most cited are John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), John 14:9 ("Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"), and the climactic confession of Thomas in John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God!").

However, these passages come from the latest strata of the New Testament (particularly the Gospel of John), which reflects a fully developed high Christology. Earlier sources such as the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) offer more nuanced or ambiguous Christological statements, where Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God, calls himself the Son of Man, or acts with divine authority without making direct ontological claims to divinity.

The Christology of the Synoptics vs. John: Varied Voices in the New Testament

The Synoptic Gospels tend to emphasize Jesus' role as the anointed one (Messiah), Son of God, and eschatological judge, while John’s Gospel offers a more explicit identification between Jesus and God. For example, John’s "I am" sayings (e.g., John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM") connect Jesus to the divine self-identification of YHWH in Exodus 3.

This diversity reflects how early Christian communities struggled to articulate Jesus’ identity within the monotheistic framework inherited from Second Temple Judaism. Trinitarian and incarnational theologies, which later became orthodox, emerged through centuries of interpretive development, drawing on all these strands.

Forgiveness of Sins and Divine Prerogatives

One early argument for Jesus' divinity is that he exercises divine prerogatives, especially the forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:7). In the cultural and religious context of Second Temple Judaism, forgiveness was understood as something God alone could grant. Jesus’ actions and words here create what theologians sometimes call "Christological pressure points" within the narrative, forcing early audiences to grapple with his unique authority.

Theological Models and Apologetic Frameworks: The "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" Argument

In the 20th century, C.S. Lewis famously popularized a trilemma: Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. This apologetic model rests on the assumption that the Gospel accounts preserve historically accurate, direct claims to divinity from Jesus himself. Historically, however, many biblical scholars argue that such formulations (especially in John) reflect later theological reflection rather than the ipsissima verba (exact words) of the historical Jesus.

Names, Titles, and Divine Identity: Yahweh, Elohim, Theos

A central strategy in Christian theological argumentation has been to map Old Testament names and titles for God onto Jesus. The term "Yahweh" (LORD), "Elohim" (God), and the Greek "Theos" (God) all appear in later Christian interpretation as references to Jesus.

For instance:

• John 20:28 records Thomas addressing the risen Jesus as "My Lord and my God" (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou).
• Romans 10:9 and Philippians 2:11 describe Jesus as "Lord" (Kurios), the Greek term used in the Septuagint for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH).
• Hebrews 1:8 applies Psalm 45:6-7 to Jesus, calling him "God" (Theos) and emphasizing his eternal throne.

These textual links became crucial for later doctrinal formulations, such as the Nicene Creed, which defined Jesus as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God."

Christophanies and the Angel of the Lord: Retrospective Theological Interpretation

A notable interpretive move within Christian theology is the reading of Old Testament theophanies (divine appearances) as pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. One prominent example is the "angel of the Lord" figure in texts like Exodus 3 (burning bush) or Genesis 22 (the near-sacrifice of Isaac).

From a historical-critical perspective, these Hebrew Bible passages do not refer to Jesus or anticipate a Trinitarian theology. However, for later Christian exegetes like Augustine of Hippo and others, these were seen as Christophanies—early manifestations of the Logos before the Incarnation. This theological retrojection demonstrates how Christian theologians reread Hebrew Bible texts in light of New Testament Christology.

Divine Attributes: Eternality, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Sovereignty, Sinlessness

Christian theological argumentation also emphasizes that Jesus demonstrates attributes reserved for God:

• Eternality: John 1:1, Hebrews 1:8–11
• Omniscience: Jesus’ knowledge of people’s thoughts, future events, and hidden realities (e.g., John 11:14, Matthew 21:2-4)
• Omnipresence: Promises of presence with followers (Matthew 28:20)
• Sovereignty: Jesus portrayed as ruling over all powers (1 Peter 3:22, Revelation 19:16)
• Sinlessness: New Testament assertions of Jesus’ moral perfection (Hebrews 4:15)
• Worship and Religious Practice: Jesus as the Object of Devotion

In the context of Second Temple Judaism’s strict monotheism, worship directed toward any being other than God was viewed as idolatrous. Yet in multiple New Testament texts, Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11, John 9:38, Matthew 28:9, 17). For later Christian theology, this served as further confirmation of his divine status.

Soteriology and Creation: Jesus as Creator and Savior

Another key pillar in theological constructions of Jesus’ divinity is his role in both creation and salvation:

• Creator: John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2 all present Jesus as the agent through whom the universe was made.
• Savior: Old Testament texts state that only God saves (Isaiah 43:11), yet the New Testament applies the title "Savior" directly to Jesus (Titus 2:13).

The Progressive Revelation of Trinitarian Doctrine

The Trinitarian framework—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—was not fully articulated within the pages of the New Testament but developed over subsequent centuries. Nevertheless, Christian interpreters have pointed to scriptural moments as seeds of the doctrine:

• Plural references like Genesis 1:26 ("Let us make humanity") and Isaiah 6:8 ("Who will go for us")
• The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19
• Pauline benedictions (2 Corinthians 13:14)

Conclusion: From Biblical Texts to Christian Doctrine

The belief in Jesus as God emerges from a complex theological trajectory: rooted in Second Temple Jewish categories, refracted through the diverse voices of the New Testament, and systematized in the creeds and councils of the early church. Christian theologians assembled a multi-layered Christology by retroactively rereading Hebrew Bible texts, interpreting New Testament claims, and engaging in centuries of doctrinal debate.

While many theological traditions affirm Jesus' divinity as a matter of faith, the historical process by which that belief was constructed remains a fascinating case study in how religious communities negotiate scripture, interpretation, and doctrine across time.