“Ruth’s sexy time with a drunken relative” (Ruth 3:4-10a) & “Not being a whore, but wearing one's uniform.” (Genesis 38:12-23)

[A two for one Card Talk]

I. Ruth

Sex sells. In some cases, sex also buys. At least that was Naomi’s thought in chapter 3 of Ruth. Apparently there are times when you have to pimp out your daughter-in-law to one of your relatives to survive.

Naomi had a plan, a sexy, sexy plan: To lockdown Boaz, Naomi told Ruth to wash, put on her nicest clothes, wait until Boaz was blackout drunk, “uncover his feet,” lay beside him, and allow Boaz to tell her what to do (3:1-5). Let’s address the text itself and see all the thinly veiled sexiness therein.

1. First, “feet” is a euphemism for genitals evident in other biblical passages (cf. Ex 4:25, Judges 3:24, 1 Sam 24:4, Isaiah 6:2 and Isaiah 7:20. We know some of those will hurt your head), and the image of “uncovering” someone is similarly linked to sexuality (cf. Gen 9, Lev 18, Deut 22:30 and 27:20). So at the very least, Naomi ordered Ruth to lift Boaz’s robes, leaving his naughty bits exposed, and then to allow him to take things from there. I wonder what Naomi thought a sleepy, drunk, half-naked man would tell the beautiful woman lying next to him to do in the middle of the night, especially if she’s the one who made him half-naked in the first place.

It is also noteworthy that the text indicates that time passes between Boaz’s uncovering and his awakening, leaving one to wonder what exactly woke him: a series of gentle caresses; a stiff, cold wind across the threshing-floor; a callous flick in the balls from a feminine hand tired of waiting for him to wake up?

2. In any event when he awoke, Ruth did not wait for his direction. Instead, she takes charge of the situation. After completing the majority of the steps, including “uncovering his feet” and lying beside him, when Boaz jerks awake, she tells him to spread his robe (and all that was under it) over her. Not only can one read the only sexual position approved by good fundamentalist Christians in foreign lands into this, but also the cleverness of Ruth using Boaz’s words against him.

In 2:12 Boaz tells Ruth that she would find a reward once covered by the wings/robe {kanaph} of YHWH. In 3:9 she uses the same word when ordering Boaz to action: “…spread therefore thy skirt {kanaph} over thine handmaid…”. In essence she said, “You said YHWH would cover me, how about you cover me, big boy?” Which is all the more poignant as Boaz, by law and social custom, had a legal obligation to do just that, but more on that below. For now notice how Ruth’s clever word play simultaneously allured and shamed him into doing what he was supposed to in the first place.

3. The location of this event is also telling. At least one prophet saw the threshing floor as a place of naughty behavior (cf. Hosea 9:1-2). Perhaps Hosea was thinking of Ruth and Boaz specifically.

4. And what about Boaz having her wait until morning to depart his side: what happened for the rest of the night? Did they talk about the barley harvest? Or the pitfalls of interracial marriages in the ancient Levant? Probably not. (We won’t say anything about Boaz sending her off with a skirt-full of grain, which a cynical person might see as a form of payment for services rendered.)

5. All of the above is suggestive enough, but the most compelling element is stated in Ruth 4:12, which contains these final words of blessing bestowed upon Boaz and Ruth by the elders of the city:

. . . and, through the children that the LORD will give you by this young woman, may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.

This comparison of Ruth to Tamar, which is often overlooked by our more prudish brethren, is the topic of the second Card Talk in this two for one.

II. Tamar

Genesis 38 tells the story of Tamar.  In summary, Tamar was married to Judah’s first son Er who pissed God off in some unspecified way and was smote, smitted, got smotten . . . was killed by God. At this point, Tamar was in the same position as Ruth for Hebrew law and custom dictated that when a women is left widowed, she was to be “redeemed” by a kinsman of her dead husband —a go’el. Some male relative was to marry her. (cf. Deut 25:5-6) In Ruth’s case, that was an unnamed relative who turned down the opportunity, and then Boaz, who was next in line. For Tamar, that duty fell to her brother-in-law, Onan.

However Onan, just like the unnamed “redeemer” in Ruth chapter 4, did not want his children being the heirs to his dead relative instead of himself as the custom required— all land, wealth and notoriety gained for/by the children, would be attributed to the lineage of the dead. But, unlike the unnamed character in Ruth, Onan still wanted to get his freak on. So he had sex with Tamar, but then pulled out to “spill his seed in the dust.” Of course God killed him too. (Gen 38:9. Of course we have a Canon Card about this verse too.)

Judah had a third son named Shelah who should have married Tamar, but fearing that she was a bad luck charm for his boys, Judah told Tamar that Shelah was too young to marry, and sent her back to her father’s house, with promises that he (Judah) would give her notice when Shelah came of age.

Years pass and Tamar has not been contacted by Judah about marrying Shelah. Hearing that Judah is travelling on business, she disguises herself and sits at the entrance to a town on the way to Judah’s destination. It just so happens that Judah’s wife had recently died and he was horny. Seeing the disguised Tamar, Judah assumes she is a prostitute, and kicks his old-school, mack-daddy, Hebrew-vibe at her, saying, “let me come into you,” promising her a young goat as payment (Gen 38:16-17).

Tamar, being a very clever woman, pretends she required collateral until she gets the goat: She takes his seal, its cord, and the staff in his hand. He handed them over, gave her what he had, and then she left. Later Judah sent a friend with the goat and to get his swag back, but the friend couldn’t find her. When he asked the townspeople, “where is the prostitute?” they looked at him like he was crazy: they didn’t have any prostitutes. What kind of a village did he think this was? When Judah hears this, he decides to cut his losses and drop the matter lest people mock him for getting rolled by a woman who wasn’t even a professional prostitute.

About three months pass and Judah receives word through the rumor mill: “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the whore; moreover she is pregnant as a result of whoredom.” To which Judah says, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.” (Gen 38:24) But Tamar had planned for this:

As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “It was the owner of these who made me pregnant.” And she said, “Take note, please, whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.” Then Judah acknowledged them and said, “She is more in the right than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not lie with her again. (vs. 25-26)

{Drop the Biblical mic}

Why does the writer of Ruth include a comparison between these two women from the mouth the religious/social leaders of the community? Because it gives a picture of all they shared and had to overcome.

a. Both are introduced as barren women with dead husbands

b. Both are at the mercy of a patriarchal system of being “redeemed” by a go’el

c. Both are initially denied the appropriate protection of that system by men who were concerned about the inheritance of their own children (Onan & unnamed man)

d. Both are further effected by the indifference of another male relative who could and should have stepped in sooner (Judah & Boaz)

e. Both used their intellectual prowess and sexuality to get that which they were already entitled.

There is no shame in Ruth or Tamar’s game. Nor should there be. They did what they had to do and were praised for it in the end. Doesn’t seem like God is condemning them, so why should we?

Perhaps, instead, we should focus on the selfish attitudes of the men in the stories who did not live up to their moral, social, and spiritual obligations.

Perhaps Good Christians (and the rest of the world) should spend some time addressing systems of oppression, especially systems were ostensibly constructed to protect our fellow persons, which are not working.

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

Ezekiel: Dysfunction You Can Trust (?)

We have multiple cards based in the book of Ezekiel, including "Bread Freshly Baked with Human Dung (4:12)," "Turning Fine Gold and Silver Jewelry into Gilded Dildos (16:17)," and of course "Lusting After Lovers with Donkey Genitals and Horse Emission (23:20)" [We've gotten multiple emails asking for assurances that the latter was included in the game].

One of our Ezekiel cards garners more silence than laughter when played by some brave soul: "God-sanctioned Gang Rape. (Ezekiel chapter 23)"

Go read the chapter. Then take a walk. Hug a puppy. Kiss your children. Practice watercolors. And then come back. We'll be here to talk when you're done.

---

We are not equipped to psychoanalyze the prophet Ezekiel, certainly not in a more thoughtful manner than the countless biblical scholars and psychologists who have gone before. The metaphors, images, and symbols employed by this prophetic voice offend the senses of most readers to the point of utter confusion and revulsion. This has led to lay and learned speculation about Ezekiel's relationship with the significant female figures in his upbringing and later life, an absentee father figure (God notwithstanding), the use of hallucinogens, alien-abductions, and attributing to him various mental maladies, including manic-depression, an anti-social personality disorder, and/or pathological aggression towards women.

Any, one, or none of these may be the case, but what would it matter? As one author/speaker elegantly penned, "God Uses Cracked Pots:" We're all broken. It's through those fissures that the living water flows through us and waters a thirsty ground. Or something like that. Something a lot less violent, disturbing, and unbearable compared to the gore laced spectacles with which Ezekiel confronts the people of Israel.

Or is that the point?

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament scholar Dr. Leslie C. Allen presented a perspective on Ezekiel's personal dilemma that is haunting: "It took language this outrageous to break the spell of the Temple."

Imagine talking to a people so convinced of their moral and social superiority, despite acts of oppressive avarice against those in poverty; a people who believe they are immune to God's punishment because they are His favorite nation — He has placed His house, His Ark, His Law, in His city, among His people; a people you love and desire to rescue from their impending doom, but God has already told you that this is impossible, they will not listen to you: What do you do? How do you get through to them?

By any means necessary. Through offense. Scandal. Shock and awe. Anything to prevent a valley of dried bones.

Perhaps the words of Abraham J. Heschel on prophetic speech corresponds with Dr. Allen's thought: "[the prophet's] images must not shine, they must burn."

Perhaps a prophet's occupational hazard has a corresponding benefit compared to the pastor/priest:

The prophet often screams from outside the congregation: warning, chiding, loving, from afar. This is so unlike the pastor/priest embedded in the congregation — and the social cliques, and the church board, and hierarchical structures of review — who weekly worries about which words might give offense, what edification will not be received well. Illustrations must be pruned, and picked and ripened so very, very carefully.

The prophet's only concern is that the orchard is on fire.

Perhaps a little Ezekiel is still needed in the world.

But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we're going to hell anyway.

---

A vagina or two (Judges 5:30) or Why We Love Biblical Irony

The Song of Deborah (Judges 5) is one of the oldest writings of the Bible. It records how YHWH, the Divine Warrior, fights through and alongside His appointed champions against the forces of the Canaanites.

The poem is divided into three sections, each focused on the actions of a woman: Deborah— the prophet/judges; Jael—the wife of Heber the Kenite; and the mother of Sisera, the Canaanite general whose forces are oppressing the children of Israel. By the end of the poem, Deborah has led YHWH’s forces to victory over their Canaanites foes, and Jael has hammered a tent peg into the fleeing head of Sisera. Sisera’s mother is left waiting, wondering where her son is.

Standing upon her palace parapet she asks her handmaidens where her boy is, why has he not returned home? She comforts herself by assuming that he is collecting war prizes for his men, and presents for her, his loving mother:

“Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why tarry the hoofbeats of his chariots? … Are they not finding and dividing the spoil?—A girl or two for every man; spoil of dyed stuffs for Sisera, spoil of dyed stuffs embroidered, two pieces of dyed work embroidered for my neck as spoil?” (Judges 5:28b-30, NRSV)

“A girl or two for every man.” A רַחַם (racham) or two for every man.

But רַחַם (racham ) doesn’t mean “girl” (or “damsel” as in other translations). Though it has a variety of meanings, in this context at best it means “womb” and at worst “vagina.” We say “at worst” not because there is anything wrong with vaginas, but because the modern equivalent could be saying “pussy.” Roll those around the tongue:

“A womb or two for every man.”

“A vagina or two for every man.”

“A pussy or two for every man.”

Some argue that this is an example of metonymy, where a part represents the whole— like how one would say “The White House” or “Parliament” to represent the totality of government, or “wheels” to refer to a car; However, even if this were the case, the context is clear: Sisera’s mother is comforting herself with the hope that her son is bringing back not women, but objects of sexual conquest and gratification.

Beyond the fact that this portrays a male author of the text (we are doubting a woman would comfort herself with thoughts of female sexual subjugation at the hands of her bouncing baby boy, and every member of his army taking whichever two women they could find), it also portrays the Bible’s sense of irony.

By the time his mother says these words at the end of the poem, we know Sisera is not bringing back a vagina or two to rape and torture, and then possibly leave dead when he grows bored with them, this after killing their men and children.

No.

By the time his mother says these words at the end of the poem, we know Sisera lies dead because two women— not “wombs,” not “vaginas”— rose up against him, killed his men and their children, and then drove a phallus-like tent peg through his head.

Perhaps God has a sense of humor and more highly attuned sense of feminism than some give credit for, and inspires biblical writers with same.

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

Special shit digging tools (Deuteronomy 23:12-13)

Thus saith the LORD:

You shall have a designated area outside the camp to which you shall go. With your utensils you shall have a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole with it and then cover up your excrement. (Deuteronomy 23:12-13, New Revised Standard Version)

More than a picture of Hebrew sanitation practices on the battlefield, this passage provides a stunning insight into the mind of the Hebrew warrior, the crux of which is contained in the following verse:

Because the LORD your God travels along with your camp, to save you and to hand over your enemies to you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you. (Deuteronomy 23:14, NRSV)

Simplified: Thus saith the Lord: “I don’t want to step in your shit.” No, really. Literally and metaphorically, God doesn’t want to step in our shit.

God was the head of the Hebrew army and no REMF. Throughout the Hebrew Bible the Divine Warrior rose from His southern stronghold to lead His people into battle: consider Exodus 15 , Deuteronomy 33 , Judges 5 , Psalm 68, and Habakkuk 3. This is why the people were admonished so often to not fear in battle: when they were told that YHWH will be with them, upholding them with a victorious right hand, that the enemy will cease to exist, that those who dare wage war against them will no longer be found on the earth (Isaiah 41:10-13 ), it was because God, literally, was on the battlefield kicking butts and taking names.

Now picture the average commanding officer striding through a war camp, inspecting the troops, and stepping a dusty open-toed sandal into a freshly minted, still steaming, lentil bean and corn strewn turd. That’s not going to end well for anyone. Not at all. And that was a mere mortal descending into defecation. Imagine it being God. But of course this verse is about more than avoiding the angelic scraping of scared sandals. As with most things in Deuteronomy this is about holiness. And as always, context is important.

Chapter 23 of Deuteronomy begins discussing people who were excluded from the holy assembly for ritual and cultic impurity: vs. 1 those with crushed testicles and severed penises [yes we have a card for this]; vs 2 certain types of bastards and their descendants; vs 3-8 addresses the Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomites because screw those Canaanites (however, you might also consider this perspective on that and/or this one as well.

From here the text moves to talk about waging war, describing how soldiers should act prior to battle: When you are encamped against your enemies you shall guard against any impropriety (vs 9). After covering what to do when a solider has had a wet dream (vs 10, and yes this is a card too), the fecal matter of the armed forces is next, because there is clearly a concern for what happens below the bellybutton, both front and back. The common link throughout these situations is holiness: in the socio-political assembly, in the Temple, and in the war camp, there are ways that the sacredness of the location is established and maintained. The rest of the chapter delineates social holiness: how to treat runaway slaves with grace and hospitality; rules against the exploitation of the daughters and sons of Israel as Temple prostitutes; prohibitions against loan sharking and usury within the community; and of course, fulfilling the vow to the Lord your God (vs 15-23). In other words, in all the places one would encounter God, holiness is expected.

Returning to our passage we see the potential arrival of God into the war camp: The Divine walking among the people, just like in Eden before the first couple stepped in a huge pile of their own making. This is significant. In the words of the renowned scholar the Gerhard Von Rad:

Israel knew that in these it was standing especially close and unprotected in Yahweh's field of operation. Therefore everything that was displeasing to Yahweh must be eliminated with more than usual care, that is to say, the camp must be ‘holy’. (Deuteronomy, 1966)

The Hebrews had an understanding of God walking in their midst.

Perhaps we should likewise take this mindset to heart.

Perhaps it’s not crazy to live life with the image of God walking beside us, through our days, decisions, and even defecations.

Perhaps we would be more careful to live lives of holiness in light of God having to watch where He steps.

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

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.