Some recent interpreters of Hobbes have deployed techniques of game theory in the service of showing that cooperation in the Hobbesian state of nature is possible. I argue against this strategy in two ways. First, I show that Hobbes did not intend the state of nature as a starting point of the theory from which the possibility of exit must be explained, but rather as a rhetorically useful depiction of the consequences of wrongful understandings of men's civil and religious duties. Secondly, I show that the game theoretic techniques of these interpreters can be used in a new way to demonstrate both the inherent tendency toward civil war in existing Christian states, and the superior stability of the Hobbesian political order.