The Paganism of Christmas part 3 - Black-Eyed Peas and New Year's Day

 The Paganism of Christmas Black-Eyed Peas

As we close out the remainder of the year, once again, I find my social media feed flooded with anti-Christmas posts claiming that Christmas is a holiday created by the Roman Catholic Church based upon a pagan holiday named Saturnalia. These posts likewise cite random Old Testament passages—out of context, I might add—amongst a list of various reasons why they do not celebrate Christmas.

But then, once December 25th has passed, a peculiar thing happens. These same brethren and fellow ministers (especially in the Southern United States) make social media posts about how they are preparing for their “Black-Eyed Peas New Year’s Day” meal, apparently never considering the pagan connections of eating black-eyed peas on New Year’s Day.

Now, just for clarification, this blog post is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the point of this post is actually quite valid in this whole anti-Christmas tradition some of my Apostolic brethren adhere to. It is one thing to simply not participate in a particular holiday or tradition, but it is another thing entirely to preach against a holiday or tradition, especially when you make inaccurate statements regarding history and lift Old Testament passages out of their context.

The following is a list of reasons commonly cited by anti-Christmas preachers not celebrating Christmas that can also apply to not participating in the Black-Eyed Peas New Year’s Day tradition:

1. Jesus never commanded His disciples to celebrate New Year’s Day, let alone eat black-eyed peas on New Year's Day as a tradition. [This is the same exegetical fallacy as saying that Jesus never commanded to celebrate his birth. There are a lot of things Christians participate in—weddings, funerals, baby dedications, etc.—that Jesus never commanded to do.]

2. The Bible never records the apostles either celebrating New Year’s Day or eating black-eyed peas on New Year's Day as a tradition. [Same exegetical fallacy as above. The Bible never records the apostles ever bathing, combing their hair, brushing their teeth, etc. There are a lot of things the Bible never recorded. The Bible was not the apostles' day-to-day journal or diary.]

3. The apostles never taught that believers should observe New Year's Day or eat black-eyed peas on New Year’s Day. In fact, Paul chastised early believers for observing days (Gal 4:10–11). [Random NT passage taken out of context 😉. Also, the same exegetical fallacy as above is often used against Christmas. There are a lot of holidays or celebrations that anti-Christmas preachers hold religiously such as Mother's Day, Independence Day, and Trump MAGA Rallies.]

4. January 1 is not the biblical first day of the new year (Exod 12:1–11). [This is the same argument that December 25 is not Jesus’s birthday, when, in fact,  several biblical and historical reasons support a late-winter birth of Christ. See https://theweatherlyreport.blogspot.com/2010/11/paganism-of-christmas.html.]

5. The January 1 date as the New Year was established by Roman emperor Julius Caesar, and thus named the month “January” after Janus, the Roman god of doors and gates,  depicted having two faces, one looking forward and one back. [This is similar to the argument that the Roman Catholic Church invented Christmas.]

6. The tradition of eating black-eyed peas on New Year’s Day originated as a Western African pagan tradition, which found its way into Southern America via enslaved Africans. https://www.foodnetwork.com/fn-dish/holidays/why-do-you-eat-black-eyed-peas-collard-greens-new-years. [This is similar to the claims that Christmas was an ancient pagan celebration of the birth of Tammuz or Saturnalia.]

7. The tradition of eating black-eyed peas on New Year’s Day is based on the superstition of prosperity and luck. You might as well call black-eyed peas “Magic Prosperity Legumes.” Paul declared that the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim 6:10). [Another random NT passage taken out of context. This is similar to how some preachers take "tradition" passages out of context.]

8. Black-eyed peas are actually beans, one of the foods that the LORD listed as “defiled bread” that Israel ate among the Gentiles (Ezek 4:9–13). [A random OT passage taken out of context similar to how anti-Christmas preachers misuse Jeremiah 10:1–5.]

9. Cornbread is a type of cake. Since January 1 is founded on the pagan god Janus, it could easily be argued that corn “cake” is an offering to a pagan god. Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:19 speak against making cakes to the queen of heaven. [Another random OT passage taken out of context. This is similar to how anti-Christmas preachers take OT passages about trees out of context.]

10. New Year’s Day celebrations were illegal in early America. The Puritans did not celebrate New Year’s Day or any other religious holidays. [Inaccurate historical fact taken out of context. Just keep this in mind next Christmas when you see the anti-Christmas posts boasting that Christmas was illegal “in early America.” Actually, Christmas—as well as all holidays—was illegal in Massachusetts. Other colonists in New England, such as Germans, Scandinavians, and Dutch, celebrated Christmas.]

Now, again, this post is meant as a bit of tongue-in-cheek, but the Southern tradition of eating black-eyed peas on New Year’s Day DID originate from a pagan West African prosperity superstition! My anti-Christmas brethren may reply that “they” are not eating black-eyed peas for some kind of pagan prosperity blessing. Oh really??!!

What you are saying then is that you are participating in the same type of tradition (eating black-eyed peas) on the same day (January 1), but somehow, your eating of black-eyed peas is not a pagan tradition because that is not why you are eating black-eyed peas. How is this type of justification any different from those who celebrate Christmas, especially when Christmas (December 25) is not the same date at Saturnalia or the Winter Solstice? There is a much closer connection to the pagan origins of eating black-eyed peas on New Year’s Day than any supposed pagan connection(s) of the Christmas holiday.

So, this New Year’s Day, when my anti-Christmas brethren are simmering their “Magic Prosperity Legumes” in their cauldrons along with baking their corn cakes in their ovens, remember that every reason you can come up with that you are not, in fact, participating in an ancient West-African pagan tradition equally applies to those who celebrate Christmas—that they too are not participating in some supposed pagan holiday.

If you are going to preach against Christmas, then please, at least be consistent and do not eat your “Magic Prosperity Legumes” on the first day of the month honoring the pagan god Janus. Better yet, just understand that neither celebrating Christmas nor eating black-eyed peas on New Year’s Day means that you are ignorantly participating in some pagan festival.

Meanwhile, this Southern Apostolic preacher had a wonderful Christmas visiting family in Texas and has already made plans to eat some black-eyed peas with Chow Chow (my daughter made for me as a Christmas gift) and cornbread on New Year’s Day! 😋😋😋

Die Hard Dispensationalists Never Die Part 2 - Hunting Paper Tigers

A friend of mine reached out to me that, apparently, I am once again the “flavor of the week” for Mike Wiltcher “review” (I use this term lightly) of my book Then Comes the End. I certainly do not mind any reviews or critiques of my work, so long as they are academically honest. Wiltcher’s so-called “review” is neither academic nor honest. I went and looked at his post and saw that along with his “review,” he posted the following meme:

 

I commented publicly on Wiltcher’s post: “Hey Mike Wiltcher I certainly don’t mind any reviews of my book, but the meme you’re using is totally off base and accusatory. I am by no means 'anti-Semitic' or believe in Platonism in the least. This is not simply another example of 'broad brush' arguments, it’s academically dishonest. So, I would just ask that you find a new meme and update your post with that meme. Thanks”

Wiltcher then responded with the typical, “I never said YOU were anti-Semitic …” — which is not at all what I charged him with — and he accused me of “showing a great inability to understand plain English.” Well, I can assure Wiltcher that I understand plain English, and he understands context. Furthermore, he understands the implications of the meme that he used in his posting, which is why he has now doubled down (out of the “goodness” of his heart) with an even more derogatory meme.

 

Wiltcher can claim that he never said “I” was [fill in the blank], but he sure did make the statement, “This phrase shows that Elder Jason is laboring from the Gonostic [sic] inspired concept that ALL humanity will be SPIRITUAL and NO ONE will have a physical body” — a point I NEVER make in my book. Again, Wiltcher’s so-called “review” is neither academic nor honest. I strongly affirm the physical, bodily resurrection of the dead. As a matter of fact, on page 11 footnote 25 of my book, I state, “The essential view of eschatology should be a belief in the literal return of Christ and the bodily resurrection of the dead at the Parousia.” So, to infer or even specifically state that I am "laboring from Gnosticism" and deny the bodily resurrection is borderline libel.

Wiltcher’s ramblings are indicative of what I have come to expect from dispensational Apostolics in falsely labeling a doctrine as something else as a fear tactic rather than offering an academic response. I saw in a sample of his publication of the Hayes-Wiltcher Debate on Millennialism that Wiltcher lists both Postmillennialism and Amillennialism under the one heading of Nunc-Millennialism so that he can lump Preterists (like Gary DeMar) and Amillennialists all in the same boat — again so academically dishonest — when neither Full nor Partial Preterist ascribe to Amillennialism. I investigate this common misconception on pages 123–126 of my book. This is similar to how liberal politicians attack those who affirm traditional marriage as “homophobes.” “Antisemitism,” “Platonism,” “Preterist,” these are all theological buzz words dispensational Apostolics use to draw suspicion to anything not dispensational-premillennialism. As a friend commented to me, “You don’t need substantive arguments if you can label someone with a hate crime and create a meme.” It is really kind of sad, because I have read non-Apostolics who are more academically honest in their reviews of Oneness Pentecostalism than some of our own brethren are when it comes to eschatology.

I think the most absurd comment Wiltcher made, though, is that the many (over 800) footnotes in my book are “cherry picking of whom [I] quoted.” Understand, the Work Cited for my book is just over 15 pages long! Likewise, my book is an expansion of my MDiv thesis, which was reviewed by two UGST professors — one of whom has three doctorates, and the other is a recognized Johannine scholar even among non-Apostolics and a published author (T&T Clark) — and the Academic Dean who is a scholar in linguistics. If my dissertation were even remotely guilty of “cherry picking” sources, these three well-respected Apostolic scholars who have called my feet to the carpet in my thesis defense. My thesis was reviewed and approved without any requirements for additions.

It is just dumbfounding to me, reading through Wiltcher’s “review,” of how much he ignores in trying to answer arguments from my book. In trying to answer who will populate the Millennial earth, Wiltcher appeals to Joel 2 and mentions people born in the Millennium, and these are both points that I already responded to in my book. If anyone is “cherry picking” here, it’s Wiltcher in what he “reviews” and what he ignores. So, to the reading audience, I recommend that you simply take Wiltcher’s “review” with a grain of salt. His memes, false assumptions, and false associations make him look more like Elmer Fudd hunting a paper tiger.

  

To my dispensational-premillennial Apostolic brothers who have reached out to me with honest, critical reviews (YES, I have received a few), I simply say THANK YOU for disagreeing without being derogatory. And finally, to my non-dispensational, Amillennial-leaning Apostolic brothers who have reached out in support of my book (I just received another new message while composing this blog!), again, I say THANK YOU. As I noted in my 2023 UGST Symposium presentation, there is a seismic shift in dispensationalism and eschatology, not only among Oneness Pentecostals but throughout all Pentecostal denominations. I think a big part of this from a Oneness Pentecostal view is that we have new generations of Apostolics who were not spoon-fed dispensationalism through the old Search for Truth Home Bible Studies and are less worried about fitting in with the evangelicals and fundamentalists and more concerned about being Acts 2:38-centric. Finally, as I mention in my book, my position is not necessarily a rejection of Premillennialism (although, I would only accept historical Premillennialism like G. E. Ladd), but more of an affirmation of Amillennialism as a valid interpretation of Revelation 20 that expresses the fewest exegetical difficulties and conforms more closely to Apostolic Pentecostal soteriology, pneumatology, and eschatology.