Making stupid life choices & blaming them on Philippians 4:13

All the things I do are justified by my faith in Jesus, including, but not limited to: cooking meth in an elementary school's art room; sacrificing my neighbor's pet labradoodle to Dagon on their front lawn; and farting on homeless people.

No?

The passage doesn't mean that God is required to "bind in heaven" (Mt 18:18) my every action because I prayed a prayer to the baby Jesus at summer camp?! The Holy Spirit indwelling deep, way down, deep, way down, deep down in my soul is not a license to do/smell/lick wherever enters my head or field of vision?

Should my understanding of the passage be based on a reversed reading, placing the emphasis on the "He who gives me strength" at the end, instead of the ever-presently selfish "I" at the beginning? But then the passage becomes about God's will instead of my own will, especially when the question is asked, "what are the things God would strengthen me to do?"

Maybe those things are true, honorable, just, pure, pleasing, commendable, excellent, or worthy of praise. (Philippians 4:8)

Maybe those things are not based solely on our comfort. Maybe they exist best when we learn to be content, at peace, with whatever we have, whenever we have it, however it arrived (Philippians 4:10-12), even if, especially if, these things contain our personal distress (Philippians 4:14).

Maybe this verse isn't a blank check of blessing for every romantic relationship, church ministry, professional opportunity, or new situation I may think is a good idea. Crazy.

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

A concubine cut into pieces: Her severed remains FedEx-ed around the country (Judges 19:29)

Note: Yes, we are aware that Fed-Ex did not exist in the Iron Age. Really? That's your biggest problem with this card?

During the testing phase of this game someone came across this card and freaked out. The person was offended, indignant, opened a Bible, and then became horrified. "I think I'm more upset reading the Bible than your card."

The person was hurt by silence. That there is no condemnation in the text for what happened. No one says this is wrong.

This chapter of Judges is far, far worse than our 12 word summary, which only captures a moment in a dismal narrative of racism, betrayal, gang rape, and murder which occur long before this poor woman is dismembered. This passage is one every pastor, priest, and parent hide from fledgling follower of the faith, and every atheist apologist knows by heart in order to rail against the former. Both miss the point.

This is The Book of Judges: a book which, in part, records the moral decline of a nation. A book whose heroes become less heroic, less moral, as time marches on — compare Deborah, Ehud, and Gideon, to Samson, Jephthah and Abimelech. A book that repeats some version of the phrase, "in those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes," especially towards the end, as things get worse and worse. (c.f. Judges 17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25) So in truth, it should be no surprise that here, nearing the end of the book, we have this scene.

Not every tale in the Bible displays what is morally correct; some stories exist to condemn the horrific through silence, without commentary from the characters, the narrator, or God. The hearer/the reader knows that even if the foreboding words of missing kings was absent (19:1), no one who survives an encounter with this text needs an Aesopian moral at the end: an appearance of Moses, Jesus, or a South Park character, to tread upon the editorial stage and declare to the audience, "God thinks this is bad and you should too!"

In her book The Nakedness of the Fathers, the Jewish theologian/poet Alicia Suskin Ostriker places the judge Deborah in a modern-esque setting, leading a women's support group. While recounting stories from the Torah and this episode from the book of Judges and, Deborah explicates the silence:

"We are speaking of Jews not gentiles. Remember that among Jews these stories are not heroic but scandalous. A symptom of social chaos, when men forget to obey God as their Lord and King, and therefore fall into abominations.

For us it is tragic when women suffer."

No one in the story speaks up for the woman or comments on how she was abused. This is another biblical sign of how morally bankrupt the nation was, not an example of the misogynistic patriarchy. The writer knew this.

The condemnation is in the telling. The condemnation is in the silence.

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

http://www.bricktestament.com/judges/gang_rape_and_dismemberment/jg19_29a.html

Killing everyone who pisses against a wall (1 Samuel 25:22)

David: the "man after God's own heart."

We don't have the time to fully deconstruct the character of David: shepherd turned solider turned mercenary turned king turned sad-old-man; singer/songwriter, murderer/adulterer, protector of strangers and killer of multiple close friends [we've got a card for that too!]. He's a complicated man.

So when in 1 Samuel 25:22 he vows to kill "everyone who pisses against a wall" — i.e. all the boys/men (unless there are some girls/women who have perfected a particular method of squatting and spraying for effect) — one shouldn't be too surprised; he is as he should always be remembered, how he is often forgotten: a hotheaded, former country bumpkin, with an army at his back. David is a military strategist and fine ruler of men, but he is also a product of a disproportionate-revenge tribal culture, who acts like a spoiled brat at times. We should not be surprised he wants to kill all the males in a household (family and servants) because he encountered another selfish hothead named Nabal.

In context David gave protection to Nabal's men while they were taking care of Nabal's flocks in the field — David didn't harm them (as he had the power to), nor let harm come to them from the outside (which he could have) — and now expects to be rewarded by Nabal for the aid given. But Nabal tells David where he can stick his good deeds, arousing David's mighty spear.

David forgets that rewards are not guaranteed for doing good deeds. Besides, wouldn't "a man after God's own heart" believe in altruism and doing good because that's simply what the LORD requires?

Oh David, you cared for those weaker than you, so they would not be harmed by those stronger. But when rebuffed for you kindness your gut response is to harm those same men you protected (all "wall-pissers"); you would slaughter them, acting worse than the invaders you sought to deter days before?

Thankfully there's a woman in the story; someone who doesn't piss against a wall is needed to drain the ocean of testosterone fueled stupidity on which the story floats.

Perhaps it helps that she's beautiful.

Or perhaps it's the fact that she's clearly smarter than the males, not weighed down by the extra appendage.

A woman after God's own heart brings peace to the squabbling children arguing over whose is bigger.

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

Noah's Awkward Sexual Encounter with his Son. (Genesis 9:22)

Oh, the arguments over this card! At every testing of the game something came up: a footnote in a study bible, a blog entry from a renowned preacher, a comment remembered from a Bible college, an indelible image seared into brain tissue one Sunday morning by an overzealous youth pastor trying to connect with the congregation by spicing up the sermon. And then there is the shock, horror, and confusion of those who had never, no never ever, heard this debate before:

Should the phrase "saw the nakedness of his father" be understood as a sexual euphemism — that Ham committed some sexual act with/to his blackout-drunk father — or does the literal reading hold true — Ham looked at his father's naked body and called his brothers in to observe their father's shame?

Clearly we have chosen the former interpretation. ["But you guys chose that because it fits with your game better: Perverts!"] {You don't know us! Shut it!}

As others have argued both sides of this controversy from critical analysis of the format, analysis of the Hebrew language, and analysis of the cultural milieu of the text, we will only comment from a point of biblical comparison and answer the second most asked question about this text: if Ham was the one who did something wrong, why was his son, Canaan, cursed? (Especially since Canaan wasn't even born yet. [What?] Re-read Genesis 7:6-7 Noah, Mrs. Noah, Noah's sons, and Noah's daughter-in-laws. Nothing is mentioned about Noah's grandkids.)

A few chapters later we encounter another family saved in the nick of time by the hand of God, when everything around them is destroyed — when the land, people, fluffy bunnies, and cute little duckling are wiped off the face of the local map; however, keeping His word, God does not use water. He uses fire.

---

Lot and his daughters 

In Genesis chapter 19 we are presented with the story of Lot, visiting angels, unwise sexual advances and promises, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the ending of the story most Sunday school teachers aware of its existence, close the Bible on after declaring that homosexuality is wrong, God will kill you for it, or turn you into salt you look at it ["allelu, alleluia! Let's go eat some cake and sing about Jesus loving all the little children of the world in rainbow colors! Except the Canaanites. Screw their children."].

We will present this closing scene in its entirety:

Now Lot went up out of Zoar and settled in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; so he lived in a cave with his two daughters. And the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father." So they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.

On the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Look, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father." So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger rose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.

Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. The firstborn bore a son, and named him Moab; he is the ancestor of the Moabites to this day. The younger also bore a son and named him Ben-ammi; he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this day. (Genesis 19:30-38, NRSV)

Here are the parallels between the stories of our two families in Genesis:

• Both live among "sinful" people who are destroyed by the hand of God

• Both are rescued as the remnant of (apparently) "righteous" people

• Both fathers get blackout drunk after the destruction

• Both fathers have something happen to them from the hands of their children while they are incapacitated (we argue that it is sexual in both stories)

Completing the pattern

• Both stories go out of their way to name the descendants of the evil-doing children, who become the "bad guys" of the Hebrew narrative during the Exodus from Egypt and entry into The Promised Land.

---

Form Follows Function

Check the Ancient Near East map in your study Bible and then read through the biblical narrative: Who were the evil, nasty, no good, very bad people who needed to be utterly wiped out, so their land could be passed through and/or inhabited? The Cannanites (Ham's descendants), the Moabites (Unnamed daughter of Lot #1's descendants), and the Edomites (Unnamed daughter of Lot #2' descendants). So what does this have to do with sexual encounters?

These are tales of etiology: stories of origins, reasons, explanations. When the young Hebrews ask,

"why do we hate those people who look pretty much like us, sound pretty much like us, but only dress, eat and worship slightly differently than us, but live not that far away?" 

the answer comes back from the text:

"Well my little one, a long time ago, the ancestors of those people did some nasty sexual things that I'll explain when you're older (because I'm afraid you might do them to me); they are people of, because they did things that you just don't do ever. Ever! So don't play with them."

In the Ancient Near East having some form of a sexual encounter with the patriarch of your family — your own father, who you are taking advantage of when he cannot defend himself — is beyond distasteful, beyond taboo. It is absolutely horrific. It is an abomination.It also serves as a great reason for why "we" would attempt the wholesale slaughter of "them" in the name of the Lord: that sort of evil trickles down from generation to generation, it's in the blood. Besides, they're living in the land we want.

This, combined with other arguments, lead us to say we don't know what Ham did, but it was freak nasty, not merely a look-see, inappropriate pointing, and calling of his brothers to gape with him. There was bad-touching involved.

But what do we know: we made this game, and you definitely think we're going to hell now.

Side note: Leviticus 18:7, which employs the same Hebrew phrase for "uncovered...nakedness," is used by the various sides in this debate. Alternately it has been used to argue that Ham had sexual relations of some kind with Noah, that he merely looked at his father's body, AND that Ham slept with Noah's wife (Yes, that would be his mother). But the question remains, which of those things would warrant the cursing of his descendant? 

Levitical sex ban (Leviticus 18)

We assume many of you have seen 76 Things Banned in Leviticus which has made the internet rounds quite successfully. The creator has received some of the same criticism we have: someone just out to make fun of the Bible or to push a specific anti-Christian agenda.

While we can't speak for his/her intention, the creator does being the list with the following statement: "Unless you've never done any of them (and 54 to 56 are particularly tricky), perhaps it's time to lay off quoting 18:22 for a while?" This seems like a fair request: asking for the reader to check his/her own eyes for logs and sawdust before bringing an ocular inspection on another. (c.f. Matthew 7:1-6, there will be a Card Talk about that one later)

Our game has a card specifically about chapter 18 of Leviticus, with all its sexual austerity, so allow us to combine the efforts of "76 Things Banned" and A Game for Good Christians in this Card Talk.

From chapter 18 of Leviticus, "76 Things Banned" scandalously lists the following:

25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)

26. Having sex with your father's wife (18:8)

27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)

28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)

31. Having sex with your uncle's wife (18:14)

32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)

33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (18:17)

35. Marrying your wife's sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)

37. Having sex with your neighbour's wife (18:20)

38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)

39. Having sex with a man "as one does with a woman" (18:22)

40. Having sex with an animal (18:23)

I've got to ask: how much of a problem do you have with this list?

Other than the heated words which will arise from #39, the issue of preferences for #36, and the inappropriate jokes associated with #40 and certain parts of the United States, who is really arguing that the rest are puritanical, sexually repressed laws? More importantly, why the hell are people listening to/agreeing with those people?

Are you really that anxious to sleep with your mother or granddaughter? Do you really want to take spiritual advice and/or biblical interpretation from the person who is?

A conversation about the passage's argued patriarchal slant is a fine point of debate,* but for the love of YHWH, let's shut up about how sexually oppressive Levitical sex laws are.

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

*Note on Levitical sex laws and patriarchy ~ The form of patriarchy called for in this passage of Scripture is for the express purpose of protecting women from being sexually subjugated by the men in the community. While this is not a "complementarian system", removing all traces of "women as property" claims (though other passages in the Bible do address that), it does express the idea that males in Hebrew society cannot merely claim any woman they want as their sexual property; furthermore, this is not, as some have argued, only based on the notion that the women are the property of another man. This rationale is clearly flawed, because in each of the hypothetical situations/relationships, the male in question could in fact be the patriarch over any of these classes of women, in the event a father, brother, uncle, (etc.) died. The prohibition is absolute, not conditional on who "owns" the woman.

The Pain and Pleasure of a God Who Hovers

[Talk for a future card]

We currently don’t have any cards that address Passover. Due to recent events in our lives and in the world (death, destruction, desperation) we are beginning to rethink this. The question of God’s presence in the face of human suffering is throughout the narrative. Allow us to localize it further.

“For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.” (Exodus 12:23)

You know the story: through his proxy Moses, God has upped the plague ante in his battle with Pharaoh. The first born of every household will die at the hands of another divine proxy, The Destroyer (מַּשְׁחִיתהַ), if those inside do not have the symbolic blood affixed to their posts and lintel. The Destroyer will “pass” by if the blood is there.

But notice: “pass” is said twice in this verse, and they are not the same Hebrew word.

First “the LORD will pass{עָבַר `abar } through to smite the Egyptians” (and any Israelite who does not have the blood appropriately splattered)— the LORD, and The Destroyer, will deal death throughout the land. But on the houses with the blood, “the LORD will pass {פָּסַח pacach} over the door” and keep The Destroyer (and Himself) at bay. These two words do not share the same meaning.

The first pass {עָבַר `abar } means to transverse from one location to another— to pass over, through, under something; however the second pass{פָּסַח pacach} might be better translated as “to hover.”

Consider two other passages, in different contexts, where the word is used.

1 Kings 18:21:

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said,” How long will you hover {פָּסַח -pacach} between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people answered him not a word.

For centuries commentators have shown that Elijah is conjuring an image of a bird between two branches; while some have argued that the bird is “hopping” between the branches, the image of the bird hovering is more appropriate to the people’s context: a bird cannot keep up that type of exertion indefinitely, it must choose where it will land, as the people were being demanded for a choice.

Isaiah 31:5:

As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and hovering {פָּסַח -pacach} over he will preserve it.

Again, a prophet uses this word with images of birds in flight. A simple fly over, a quick passing over is not enough to secure the borders of God’s people. The LORD takes up residence over Jerusalem to stop all intruding forces.

The word means to hover over, to remain above something, not merely to pass by.

The image of God hovering over us, protecting us, sparing us from evil, is a great comfort. Until we return to the Exodus passage, where we see the angelic/demon weapon of God’s will, heavily panting beside the Almighty’s wings, waiting to be unleashed.

Until we turn on the news and see the swirling mass of devastation in the Philippines.

Until we walk outside and a thousand disasters unimagined descend, or creep within our comfortably closed doors.

Were the Egyptian infants any more worthy of death than those in Tacloban or Newtown?

We will admit the context is different, but the image is plain: God hovers overhead as death and life hangs in the balance. An image we find a balm and a burden, depending on the time of day, or season of news cycles.

But what do we know: we made this game and are aware that sometimes this world feels like it is all the Hell that we need.

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.