The Christmas Lamb

We know the Christmas story. At least we think we do. Unfortunately, a lot of what we think we know isn’t actually in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t tell us, for instance, that there were three wise men. It only says there were at least three gifts. It doesn’t tell us that Mary rode on a donkey. It never mentions an innkeeper. When we think about the actual physical location of Jesus’s birth, it’s easy to picture some sort of barn-like structure behind an inn because that’s the way it’s usually portrayed on Christmas cards and in pageants and movies, but maybe our mental image needs to be tweaked.

Over the years I’ve heard various speculations about the structure that sheltered Jesus during his entry into the world. I learned that the word often translated as “inn” (“There was no room for them in the inn”) can also be translated as lodging place or guest room. One theory is that Mary and Joseph were staying in the home of extended family members, but that because the house was full, they stayed on the lower level, where animals were housed at night.

I think that’s an interesting theory, but a few years ago I stumbled on another one that I found even more interesting. It was evidently first proposed by Alfred Edersheim in a book called The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah. Edersheim says that it was settled Jewish thought that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. I think most of us are familiar with that belief, based on Micah 5:2. What we may be less familiar with is the related belief, based on Micah 4:8, that the messiah would be revealed from a place called Migdal Eder, also known as the “tower of the flock.”  Edersheim proposes that Jesus was actually born in the tower. Others believe that he was born nearby, perhaps in a cave.

So what exactly was this tower of the flock?  It was an ancient structure originally built as a lookout tower to protect the city from enemies. The Old Testament has many references to similar towers. These watchtowers became known as towers of the flock because shepherds used them to spot predators. The shepherds could also bring the ewes inside the towers to give birth, or they could bring them to nearby caves prepared for the purpose.

image.jpg

The Migdal Eder theory really starts to get interesting when we learn that the shepherds and sheep that grazed near and used the tower in Bethlehem weren’t just any shepherds and sheep. Edersheim says this: "This Migdal Edar was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks that pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but it lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage from the Mishnah (Shekelim 7:4) leads to the conclusion that the flocks which pastured there were destined for Temple sacrifices."

Sheep destined for sacrifice needed to be tended carefully, because only lambs without flaws were acceptable. Some writers have said that when lambs were born, they were wrapped, or swaddled, in order to protect them from injury. Other writers say they can’t find evidence that occurred. Whether or not lambs were commonly swaddled at birth, they were bound in strips of cloth before they were sacrificed. If Jesus was born in or near Migdal Eder, perhaps he was wrapped in the swaddling bands used for the lambs being prepared to be offered as payment for sin.

I don’t know whether Jesus was born in the tower of the flock, a nearby cave, something like a modern barn, the bottom floor of a private home, or somewhere else entirely. I do really like the Migdal Eder theory, though, for two main reasons.

The first is that it answers the question of how the shepherds knew where to find Jesus, since the angels evidently didn’t give any more information other than that he was in Bethlehem, in a manger, and swaddled. Actually, the original language may not have said “a manger” at all, but “the manger.” Some have pointed out that in the original text, the Greek word “ho” (Strong’s G3588) is used, which is the definite article and should have been translated as “the” instead of “a.”  Perhaps when they heard the baby was in the manger, the shepherds knew exactly where to go.

The second reason I like the theory is simply that it makes complete logical sense for Jesus to be born where the sacrificial lambs were born. 1 Corinthians 5:7 tells us that “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” 1 Peter 1:18-19 says thatGod paid a ransom to save you . . . . And it was not paid with mere gold or silver, which lose their value. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God.” It wasn’t an accident that Jesus was crucified at Passover. It wasn’t without significance that during his last meal, Jesus took a cup of wine and said “This is my blood . . . poured out as a sacrifice.” (Mark 14:23)

Arranging for Jesus to be born in or near the tower of the flock seems to me like something God would do. Wherever he was born, he was born for us, to pay the debt we couldn’t pay. Thank you, God, for your amazing plan. Thank you for the precious Christmas lamb.

 

 

Chemical Sensitivity Isn't Rare

In my last post, I talked about the long process of writing and publishing my book, and said I could see the finish line, and thought I’d be able to crawl across it soon.  I still see it, but the crawling continues to be slow. 

The process has been so slow, in fact, that at some level I’m surprised that the need for the book still exists.  When I started writing, I would have assumed that by the end of 2019, we’d be more widely aware that the vast majority of chemicals in everyday products aren’t regulated or tested for safety and that we’re all being affected.  I would have predicted a broader understanding that a growing number of us have bodies that react strongly and obviously to chemical exposures, and that we can be the warning sign for people whose bodies react more slowly or in less conspicuous ways.  I would have presumed that people in power would have taken more steps to protect us.

Unfortunately, I don’t see the progress I would have expected.  In fact, in many ways, the toxicity issue appears to be getting worse.  The number of people whose bodies have become so overwhelmed that they developed Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is proof of that.

A number of studies over the years have looked at the prevalence of MCS.  The last one, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 2018 , found that over a quarter of the U.S. population (25.9%) reported being chemically sensitive, and 12.8% had been medically diagnosed with MCS. The author, Dr. Anne Steinemann, noted that “prevalence of diagnosed MCS has increased over 300%, and self-reported chemical sensitivity over 200%, in the past decade.”

Here are more quotes from the study:

·        Multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) is a medical condition characterized by adverse health effects from exposure to common chemicals and pollutants, from products such as pesticides, new carpet and paint, renovation materials, diesel exhaust, cleaning supplies, perfume, scented laundry products, and air fresheners.

·        MCS can cause a range of acute, chronic, multiorgan, and disabling health effects, such as headaches, dizziness, cognitive impairment, breathing difficulties, heart palpitations, nausea, mucous membrane irritation, and asthma attacks.

·        When exposed to fragranced consumer products, 86.2% of those with MCS experience one or more types of health problems, including respiratory difficulties (50.3%), migraine headaches (46.9%), mucosal symptoms (46.9%), skin problems (37.9%), and asthma attcks (31.7%).

·        Specific exposures triggering health problems include air fresheners and deodorizers (67.6%), scented laundry products coming from a dryer vent (57.9%), being in a room recently cleaned with scented products (67.6%), being near someone wearing a fragranced product (65.5%), and in general fragranced consumer products (73.1%).

·        For 76.0% of people with MCS, the severity of these health problems was potentially disabling according to the criterion of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), asked by the question: “Do any of these health problems substantially limit one or more major life activities, such as seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, or working, for you personally?”

·        58.6% of individuals with MCS are unable to use public restrooms that have an air freshener, deodorizer, or scented product; 55.2% are unable to wash their hands in a public place if the soap is fragranced; 63.4% enter a business but then want to leave as quickly as possible due to a fragranced product; and 70.3% have been prevented from going someplace because of the presence of a fragranced product that would make them sick.

·        While researchers continue to investigate which chemicals or mixtures of chemicals in fragranced consumer products could be associated with adverse effects, a practical step in the meantime would be to reduce exposure to the products.

Yep.  Seems like common sense, doesn’t it?  Synthetic fragrances and other everyday chemicals can make healthy people sick and sick people sicker.  They’re a completely unnecessary barrier that keeps an ever-increasing number of people from accessing basic services and attending church and other public gatherings. Things aren’t going to improve unless we decide to improve them. Let’s turn this around.

 

 

Things Change and Things Stay the Same

The fact that you’re reading this means you already know that my blog has moved.  I think I’ll say it anyway, though.  Look.  My blog has moved.  You get pictures and bigger print now.  Exciting, huh?

I moved the blog to correspond with the upcoming publication of the book I’ve been writing and trying to get published for forever and a half.  I think, I hope, I pray that it will actually see the light of day soon.  This has definitely been a marathon and not a sprint, but I can see the finish line and hope I can manage to crawl across it.

While moving and reformatting old blog posts, I paused to read the first one I ever wrote, from May of 2012, more than seven years ago.  In the post, I laid out the reasons for and against starting a blog.  Interestingly, they all still apply.  I still struggle with chronic illness and the fear that I won’t be functional enough to keep the commitments I make for myself.  I still have a hard time deciding how to divide my time and limited energy, and I still spend much of it improving my living environment.  I continue to wonder if my efforts to educate will make enough of a difference to counteract the emotional toll it takes to think about these issues on a consistent basis. 

On the other hand, I also still believe that educating about toxicity issues and advocating for the chemically ill is something I’ve been called to do.  I persist in believing that it matters.  I think it matters a lot. 

When my husband died and I was forced to figure out the logistics of my newly single MCS life, I gave myself permission to back off from working on the book and posting to the blog.  It wasn’t easy to move to a new city, turn a garage into an apartment that was MCS-safe enough for me to live in, make sense of my new financial picture, and figure out how to buy groceries and do all the other things that Dan did for us when he was alive.

Honestly, though, my hiatus was caused by more than just logistical challenges and time management issues.   When Dan died, much of my motivation for working on the book and blog died with him, in part because he was such a strong supporter of my efforts.  I didn’t want to do it without him.  I didn’t want to do much of anything without him.  It felt too hard to run this race without someone on the sidelines cheering me on.

Dan isn’t here to cheer me on anymore, but God still is.  And you’re here.  Thank you for being here.  Whether you’ve been with me on this journey for years, or are newly on board, I’m truly grateful that you care enough about this issue to visit this site and read this post. 

Together we can increase our understanding of toxicity issues and spread the news that seemingly small decisions about products we use can have big consequences.  Maybe we can help ourselves and others to avoid cancer and heart disease and MCS and headaches and fatigue and irritability and depression and a myriad of other symptoms and conditions that limit us.  Maybe we can help the church regain strength.  Maybe we can make a difference.  We have to try.