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.
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.
This sounds heretic as fuck so I’m gonna roll with it