In short, feet might mean genitalia.
I really have no opinion on it, but it makes a lot of sense. The purpose of even describing the submissive act of washing feet aligns well with the old Greek teacher and pupil relationships to present Jesus as a stand up guy who will go down on anybody, men or women, regardless of their status. He took your sins and such.
The message is the same anyway, so I suppose it has been whitewashed a bit throughout the years.
The reason why I want to believe it is that it would also explain why he was so popular that contemporary writers would bother writing anything about him.
Unless I linked the wrong breakdown, he goes into examples in the Bible of when feet are euphemistically, and compares those to the descriptions of Jesus washing feet - that they had dissimilar language and don’t match. I don’t think you can gloss what he said as “people who study the Bible don’t agree on it” - he’s an academic, and academics couch their language. I thought it was clear that he was mildly entertaining the idea more out of amusement and to give some context as an educator.
Like, so ridiculous a suggestion that you would need substantial evidence for it be reasonable. The symbolism behind the act of service seems fairly clear - washing feet is placing yourself in submission to someone. Aligns with more explicit textual things: “turn the other cheek” etc.
There are claims that the translation of the bible is wrong on this though.
https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/01/24/weird-ot-euphemisms-uncovering-the-feet/#:~:text=A good example of this,part of a euphemistic expression.)
In short, feet might mean genitalia. I really have no opinion on it, but it makes a lot of sense. The purpose of even describing the submissive act of washing feet aligns well with the old Greek teacher and pupil relationships to present Jesus as a stand up guy who will go down on anybody, men or women, regardless of their status. He took your sins and such.
The message is the same anyway, so I suppose it has been whitewashed a bit throughout the years.
The reason why I want to believe it is that it would also explain why he was so popular that contemporary writers would bother writing anything about him.
This sounds heretic as fuck so I’m gonna roll with it
Dan McClellan has a good breakdown of why that is extremely unlikely.
He didn’t really break it down much, did he? Basically just spent 4 minutes saying that people who study the bible don’t agree on it.
Unless I linked the wrong breakdown, he goes into examples in the Bible of when feet are euphemistically, and compares those to the descriptions of Jesus washing feet - that they had dissimilar language and don’t match. I don’t think you can gloss what he said as “people who study the Bible don’t agree on it” - he’s an academic, and academics couch their language. I thought it was clear that he was mildly entertaining the idea more out of amusement and to give some context as an educator.
Like, so ridiculous a suggestion that you would need substantial evidence for it be reasonable. The symbolism behind the act of service seems fairly clear - washing feet is placing yourself in submission to someone. Aligns with more explicit textual things: “turn the other cheek” etc.
I was just hoping he’d explain more about the actual words and their translations.