A Doxology (Jude 1:24-25)

We present this Canon Card with limited comment or commercial interruption:

Him who is able to keep you from falling and to make you stand without blemish in the presence of His glory with rejoicing; the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, worthy of glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever.

[And all the people said]

Amen.

An “amen” which reveals an ugly truth:

How we love being forgiven, but don’t love holiness.

Forgive our lack of trademark humor and sarcasm.

And besides what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.

Boy-molesting, Coat-stealing, Lying-ass Bitch (Genesis 39)

This card is about Potiphar’s Wife and her treatment of young Joseph in Genesis chapter 39. But let’s call a spade a spade; you (or someone you love) is currently hung up on the fact that we used the word “bitch” in this game. We’ve heard the complaints.

For the record, we don’t like that word. It is an ugly, offensive word. We changed this card multiple times while creating this game. We talked of cutting this card out of the game altogether. The Bible has enough accusations of propping up the patriarchy and unrelenting misogyny without our help. We discussed it, seriously, for quite some time, until late one night we came to unflinching decision, and said in near unison, “no, she was a bitch.”

So now we have to defend that.

As an insult the word “bitch” supposedly has its roots in a comparison between a female dog in heat and a promiscuous or sexually aggressive woman. Some of the more modern usages describes a female (or male) who goes out of her way to harm, disparage, or interfere with the life of another, especially if that other person does not deserve the pain (for an insightful article on this topic, click here).

Are there other usages to this word? Yes. Do we condemn the word on those grounds, in those instances? Yes. But by the definitions above, in the biblical situation, Potiphar’s wife was ontologically a “bitch” regardless of how one would finesse the story.

This card isn’t “slut shaming” or supporting “rape culture,” it’s the exact opposite. Look at the facts:

A married woman, in a position of power (racially, culturally, financially, socially), sexually harassed her slave— Joseph— for months, maybe years. After he kindly declined her advances, she physically assaulted him in order to force a sexual encounter. And after Joseph literally ran out of the room, leaving her clutching the clothes she ripped off his fleeing body, she falsely accused him of attempting to rape her. As a result he was thrown into prison when his only crime was saying, “you’re married, this is wrong. Thank you, but no thank you” or at the very least, “I’m just not that into you.”

That, by definition, is a bitch move.

Despite all of this, Potiphar’s wife stands as an example of an evil that extends beyond gender, to systems of power in general.

Perhaps the real question is how often are you like her, using your position of authority to oppress those beneath you? How often will you not take “no” for an answer in a way that harms others?

Perhaps those offended by the use of this word should be more offended by the answer to those questions in their own lives. Lord knows those beneath you are.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.

Not Being Your Brother's Keeper (Genesis 4:9)

We’ve heard the story: Cain killed his brother Abel. But the massive amounts of details missing from the story have made for centuries of diverse interpretations. What’s missing you ask?

Answer the following:

• Why did Cain and Abel feel the need to present offerings to God in the first place?

• How did God communicate his level of pleasure with the offerings received?

• What exactly happened between Cain and Abel that led to the killing?    [Note: The majority of English translations do no justice to the lacuna (the missing information) present in the Hebrew of 4:8. It alternately reads, Cain spoke to his brother Abel. [full stop] And when they were in the field . . .”   andCain said to his brother Abel, ‘ . . .’[speech missing]. And when they were in the field …”  Many translations have placed the words “let’s go into the field/wilderness” into Cain’s mouth, but this is not present in the Hebrew text. Compare translations].

• What happened to Abel’s body? [Note: The text never says Cain buried him. God’s words about Abel’s blood crying out from the ground {min-ha’adamah} could mean Cain buried him or left his body where he was slain.]

• Who did Cain think would kill him? His parents? [Note: That would suck for them.]

• (And a favorite of Sunday School teachers everywhere) Where did Cain’s wife come from?

But let’s put aside these questions and their various interpretations for a moment; 

Let’s also put aside notions that this text is about the struggle between stable subsistence farmers and nomadic herdsman, as neither the text nor the Hebrew Bible as a whole seem to actually actively value one profession over the other;

Put aside preachers and commentators who often go too far in psychoanalyzing Cain’s character to determine the content of his offering;

And put aside trite homilies about caring for our biological and adopted family, as if we were unaware that this was a moral requirement on our lives.

Instead we would like to highlight the four saddest and often overlooked features of this story:

1. This all began with an act of worship

Before his younger brother tagged along with the best crops, won God’s affection, and was subsequently slain, Cain commenced an unsolicited act of worship. Nothing in the tale or recorded history of the time says that there was a concept of sacrificial offerings to God. While scholars may debate the writing of the text showing a later editor’s hand, it is worth noting that said editors were silent in regards to Cain’s motive for the act, suggesting that worship is engrained in the human soul, is part of being made in the image of God. The best of actions from the best of intentions can be warped into something evil. Including depression, hatred, and murder.

2. Adam and Eve are still alive.

Imagine being those parents. Your youngest child is dead at the hands of your oldest. You blame yourself. How you raised them. Where you raised them. This would never have happened in Eden.

You hear the parallel between your conversation with God and your boy’s. You also hear the questions asked, as if omniscience were not at play. But you also hear your boy’s reply, absent of the deference and shame you brought before your creator.

Like both your boys, you now understand death. And on that note . . .

3. Cain had no way of knowing Abel would die

Think about it: Adam and Eve were the first exposed to the concept of “death,” whose meaning is debated by everyone who has ever read this text. Was God speaking of physical death, spiritual death, or both when he gave them the warning in Eden?

In any event, as the narrative progresses no one had ever physically died before Cain killed Abel. Often we speak of this as the first murder: it is also the first death recorded in the Bible. How was Cain to know that his actions would lead to his brother ceasing to exist in the land of the living?

This is made more poignant by the text’s repetition of their relationship: seven times it repeats that Abel is Cain’s brother. A thought clawing through Cain’s mind as he stands over the life-less body whose shared blood is upon his hands. When God asks, “where is your brother?” Cain’s reply can be read another way:

I don’t know where he is. Am I the guard, the savior, of my brother’s life?

Cain honestly had no idea what he had done.

4. Cain thinks he must avoid God from now on

In Genesis 4:14 Cain makes a bad situation worse. Like his parents he acts on something God never said [Note: God never said they couldn’t touch the fruit].

Cain’s curse was two-fold: 1) the ground which received his brother’s blood from his hand was cursed to him, and 2) and he will be a restless wanderer on the earth. He travels to the a “land of Nod”— the land of “wandering”—, but he also flees the presences of the Lord: something God never asked for.

Unlike his parents, Cain was not kicked out of the area. The curse upon his father was made worse indeed, but Cain was not asked to leave God’s presence.  And as God wrapped his parents in clothing, Cain fails to realize that his mark is one of protection. His curse, the restless wandering, did not mean he had to travel away from God forever. That was Cain’s choice.

Perhaps we do not do the work we have been given to do as parents, as siblings of all humanity.

Perhaps we make impulsive decisions we can’t take back, that have unimagined consequences beyond our immediate ability to process.

But we do not have to wander too far afield. May we not choose to stay away too long.

And we may be going to Hell for making this game, but we know that’s true.

Throwing your son's freshly circumcised foreskin at your husband's penis to win an argument with God (Exodus 4:24-26)

And on the way, at a place where they spent the night, YHWH met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his “feet” with it, and said, “Truly you are a ḥatan damim to me!” So he let him alone. It was then she said, “A ḥatan damim by circumcision.”  (Exodus 4:24-26, our translation)

Exodus 4:24-26  is widely considered one of the most enigmatic and difficult to interpret passages of Scripture in the Hebrew Bible. So of course we decided to tackle it. Among the myriad issues and confusions with interpreting this text, let’s focus on four: 

1. Who? (Pronoun confusion) ~ There are no antecedents for the male pronouns in this passage. It is not always clear who “he” or “him” refers to the five times they appear in this text. At times it could be Moses, Moses’ son, or YHWH. Because of this . . .

2. Who is going to die? ~ Is Moses the target of divine wrath or is it his son?

3. What’s the deal with the sudden circumcision and airborne foreskin?

4. What does ḥatan damim mean? ~ These are the Hebrew words most translations render as “bridegroom of blood” or “bloody husband” in verses 25  and 26. But what does that even mean?

I. On Antecedents and Death Sentences

YHWH met him and tried to kill him

The two most popular (and logical) readings are “YHWH met Moses and tried to kill Moses” and “YHWH metMoses and tried to kill Gershon [Moses’ first born son, the one who got circumcised].” Thus our second pair of pronouns— So he let him alone— should most likely be understood as, “so YHWH let [whoever He was going to kill] alone.” Again, we will argue below that the Gershon was the one in imminent danger. But before we turn to the nature of Zipporah’s saving actions, let’s talk about “feet.”

As we’ve discussed elsewhere “feet” is a recognized euphemism for genitals in the Bible (cf. Ex 4:25, Judges 3:24, 1 Sam 24:4, Isaiah 6:2, and Isaiah 7:20). While it is arguable that this passage is referring to literal feet, given that the context is circumcision, a euphemistic usage seems to stand a little straighter. Regardless, whether walking feet, penis “feet” (you’re welcome for that image), or metaphorical feet, the question remains of what Zipporah did with the foreskin. The text says Zipporah “touched his feet with it.” Whose? Our options: Moses’ “feet,” Gershon’s “feet,” or YHWH’s “feet” [and no, that last one is not original to us, though we kind of wish it was]. We believe Moses’ and here’s why.

II. On All Manner of Bloody Things

In some manner YHWH arrives at the door: as a sudden illness, as a physical manifestation, as the pre-incarnate Jesus who is really pissed off at Moses [again, we didn’t come up with that one], or an ambulatory burning bush, we have no idea, but the divine presence threatens death to this family. Zipporah, Midian priestess that she is (see Exodus 2), somehow knows that circumcision will save her family. So she hastily performs the ceremony on her son (ouch). Many reasons have been suggested for why Gershon was not circumcised in the first place, but we will forego those for now to get to the heart of the matter. This tale of Moses’ brush with death is tied to the verses which precede it, and another rite of blood concerning first born sons later in Exodus— the institution of Passover and the tenth plague upon Egypt.

In Exodus 4:21-23 YHWH told Moses to return to Egypt, perform miracles, and tell Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son…let my son go that he may worship Me. But you refused to let him go; now I will kill your firstborn son.” In Exodus chapter twelve YHWH makes good on His promise; every household which does not have the blood of the lamb on its doorposts and lintel will lose their first born son.

The parallels between chapter four and twelve are apparent and create a simple chiasm:

                      Warning of death for first born sons (Exodus 4:21-23)

                                            Rite involving blood and lives are spared (Exodus 4:24 -26)

                                            Rite involving blood and lives are spared (Exodus 12:1-28)

                     Death of first born sons (Exodus 12:29-32)

A closer look at the Hebrew employed in these passages support this reading:

But Zipporah took [laqach] a flint knife and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched [naga’ ] his feet with it, and said, “Truly you are a bridegroom of blood [damim] to me!” So he let him alone. It was then she said, “A bridegroom of blood [damim] by circumcision.” (Exodus 4:25)

Then Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go, select [laqach] lambs for your families, and slaughter the Passover lamb. Take [laqach] a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood [dam] that is in the basin, and touch [naga’ ]the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood [dam] in the basin. None of you shall go outside the door of your house until morning. For the Lord will pass through to strike down the Egyptians; when he sees the blood [dam] on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over that door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you down.” (Exodus 12:21-23)

And in both, once the blood is applied (naga’), the fury of YHWH passes and the first born son is spared (c.f. Exodus 4:26 & Exodus 12:23). This is why we affirm that it was Gershon, the first born son, whose life hung in the balance, and that Zipporah threw the severed foreskin at Moses’ “feet.” It wouldn’t make sense for her to throw the foreskin back at Gershon and then yell at Moses, nor would it make sense (as some have argued) for her to yell at her son [“You almost got your father killed by YHWH, for something that was completely not your fault! Stupid kid, you should have circumcised yourself when you were 8 days old! Didn’t you read Genesis 17?!”] In both passages the blood serves as protection to keep YHWH and “the destroyer” (ham-maŝaḥît ) at bay. [With all this talk about blood, first born sons, and being rescued, better Christians than us would attempt to make New Testaments connections to Jesus’ crucifixion and posit an atonement theory. We’re not those Christians today.] This yelling brings us to the final question: what does ḥatan damim mean? Strap in for an Ancient Near East linguistic throw down!

ḥatan

The linguistic stem is ḥ-t-n. In Arabic, like Hebrew, this stem is related to words surrounding circumcision, people related by marriage (e.g. groom, in-laws), and protection. For example, the Arabic word for “father-in-law” literally means “a circumciser.” In other words, the bride’s father performed the circumcision on his soon to be son-in-law. The Hebrew word for father-in-law (ḥōtēn) reflects the same. This pattern for ḥ-t-n words being related to marriage relationships, protection, and circumcision is also seen in Aramaic, Akkadian, Syriac, and Ugaritic. Put another way: to be a “son-in-law,” to be a “bridegroom,” is to be “circumcised.”

damim

The root dam simply means “blood” all over the Hebrew Bible, but sometimes carries an association with “guilt.” The first usage of the word in the Bible, is also the earliest example of the guilt association; when Cain killed his brother Abel (we have a Card Talk about that sad event),  YHWH says that Abel’s blood (dam) screams from the ground. Whenever the Bible speaks of the shedding of innocent blood this word is used, which is why most modern translations render dam and damim as “bloodguilt” or “guilty of bloodshed” (consider Deuteronomy 19:10).  It can be read into Zipporah’s words as well.

The Bible is nothing if it is not punny and that’s nothing to laugh at (see what we did there?). The number of Biblical passages that operate on multiple linguistic levels is myriad. Zipporah’s pissed off, mother-bear response is no different. On the surface, it makes no sense for Zipporah to use the word ḥatan for Moses as they are already married. It is not the word for “husband,” it denotes the state before marriage as most translations attest. She uses this word, with its meanings of circumcision and marriage relationships, because it conjures the linguistics of the act that she just performed, circumcision. In addition it is a smack in Moses’ face for acting like an unseasoned boy rather than a man, a husband— consider all his whining in the preceding chapter when God wants Him to go back to Egypt. Furthermore, why the sheol wasn’t Gershon already circumcised?

She employs damim not only because of the literal blood which has been shed and spread around the room, but also because Moses is guilty. Her family was about to meet the same fate as Pharaoh’s in Exodus 12 because Moses hadn’t done his job. Zipporah took the flint knife, circumcised her son, and threw the foreskin at Moses’ junk.

“Are you kidding me?! Some groom you turned out to be! Look at this blood and look at your guilt because of this circumcision!”

Perhaps we all have work to do that is being hindered by work we have left undone.

Perhaps that work is right in front of us and someone else needs to give us an abrupt reminder.

But what do we know? We made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.