Really?
Then David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house, and wash your feet.” And Uriah went out of the king’s house, and a present from the king was sent out after him. 2 Samuel 11:8 NASB
Wash your feet – You’ve been on the front lines. The commander-in-chief sends a message that he wants to speak with you personally. But he’s far away, safely at home in the city. That means travel, in this particular time, probably at least a day or two. Walking. When you arrive, you are taken to the king’s palace to be presented to him. What normal protocol would you expect? Does it strike you as a bit odd that the king needs to instruct you to wash your feet? Would that not have been the normal process before meeting the king? And why would a king need to give you these precise instructions?
Let’s consider Ruth 3:4. “It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; then he will tell you what you shall do.” The same root, ragal, is behind the instance in Naomi’s and David’s instructions, but it seems fairly clear that Naomi is not talking about feet. She uses the term euphemistically for penis. Do you suppose David is doing the same thing? “Go home and have sex with your wife,” is David’s desire, but he uses a euphemism so that his instructions aren’t so obvious. If this is not the case, then explain why a king gives such a pedestrian suggestion? Or maybe it’s just a way of saying, “Take some time off. Don’t return to the front right away” as Uriah might have expected. Maybe.
Examining the story of Bathsheba and David raises a lot of questions—about personal motivations, linguistic oddities, hidden agendas and disguised divine engineering. The story tells us how things appear, but like all Hebrew stories, it expects the reader to fill in a lot of the details. So it provides subtle clues, linguistic hints and emotional gaps—precisely the things necessary for us to become active participants in the story. And then we discover that the story is about more than Bathsheba and David. It is about us.
When did you find yourself so physically or psychologically exhausted that you just wanted to get away? When were your usual defenses down at the moment a particularly potent temptation arrived? What have you done in your past that opened the door for another lethal act? When did you decide to take “fate” in your own hands and manipulate the circumstances for your own gain? When did you make sure you could be seen so that someone else would be drawn to you? When did you try to cover your tracks by providing an opportunity to another? When did you become a master manipulator? When did you lie with your body? And where was God when all of this was happening?
When did “and it happened” describe you?
Topical Index: wash your feet, ragal, Ruth 3:4, 2 Samuel 11:8
And it happened:
“David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her…”
Then, when David got this message:
“The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, “I am pregnant.””
He needed to cover it up:
“Go down to your house, and wash your feet.”
But:
“Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house with all the servants of his lord, and did not go down to his house.”
If you do not succeed, try again. But even when made drunk:
“…and in the evening he went out to lie on his bed with his lord’s servants, but he did not go down to his house.”
Third time lucky:
“…in the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah.”
A man after YHWH’s own heart?
Looks like there is a LOT more to the story than we usually think, doesn’t it?
Yes, especially: “What is [then] expected of man, but to…???”
All those questions! To me, in my life, they all added up to one thing; I was looking for love in all the wrong places when it happened. I did my level best after the fact of that looking to make love so, too. I kept on trying to gild that pile of love substitute and turn those sow’s ears into purses and I threw all my pearls before the swine and ate their husks instead – all, all in the name of love. But no fire from heaven ever came and consumed my sacrifice and made my love true. I did my level best and tried to do righteousness with all my heart soul and strength, and almost died. Still no fire. I was at the very end when I finally gave up trying to follow my fickle heart around, and decided instead to give that heart to YHVH and follow HIS heart instead.
David followed his own heart time and again, that is true, but every time he repented and started over and quit trying to justify his heart’s maneuverings. It was NOT that he never strayed; it was what he did WHEN he strayed that gave him his name: “man after God’s own heart”. May we all repent and become willing to quit justifying and start over again. “Not my will, but Thine.” David knew where his personal pride trash can was, and how to use it. I guess he had lots of practice.
I find no evidence for feet being a euphemism for a sex organ.
If the rabbis has any notion of this, they would have clicked their tongues in their commentaries. These are the guys who imagine that Adam had sex with all the animals attempting to find a help-meet. Their ‘evil-inclination’ often runs wild, and when it does they discuss it to no end.
Concerning Ruth, they envisage no impropriety. Lying at the feet was a common occurrence for servants, male and female. Had she lain by his side, there would have been impropriety. In fact they suggest that Boaz thought we was being grabbed by the foot by a demon.
Men slept in their clothes, and covered their feet with their cloak. The one lying at the feet warms the feet, and is covered/cared for, by the works of the master. Lying at the feet, is a similar symbol to the footstool (making yourself a servant).
In the interpretation of the SOD, a metaphor must be the same, everywhere it exists. If washing the feet meant to go have sex, then Abraham suggested it to the three visitors at Mamre, Joseph’s brothers had sex before dinner, not to mention that Jesus had sex with his disciples.
Hearing is a metaphor for being draw to a voice without understanding
Seeing is understanding
Walking is the life.
hands – works
The feet are where your life meets the world/earth.
Wearing sandals is a symbol of being in the world but not of it. You a elevated just a bot above it.
Removing sandals on holy ground is done because God makes things holy. The furniture of the temple isn’t holy except it is made holy BY God. Jesus makes this point when speaking of oaths. The ground is made holy by the presence of God, and he makes your life holy by the contact of your feet to it.
Washing the feet is a way to remove the attachments of the world from your life. In the secular it says,’forget about work and relax’. In the symbol, it means: Be holy. If your life/feet is holy your whole body is holy, said Jesus to Peter.
Incidentally, his name Uriah means: the light of God, or the Holiness of God.
Not to mention Mary washing Yeshua’s feet
Bob, You said: “I find no evidence for feet being a euphemism for a sex organ”. Ever hear of Google? Just a quick overview of the many results have nearly a 10:1 positive ratio of the use sexual euphemisms in Biblical Hebrew versus a Christian prudish view Scriptural content. To paraphrase a famous Jew “you don’t need to be a Biblical linguist to know which way the wind blows.”
Let me clarify… I typically research these things through the Talmud and/or Rashi. Modern impositions are not much interest to me. So, no; modern Christian prudishness has no influence on me. And working from memory for casual chats, as opposed to doing a thorough search of the sources I do use.. I may be in error.
I acknowledge there there is a lot of modern speculation on the point. The more weighty evidence, in my mind is that of the consistency of usage in scripture. I cannot fathom that Jesus had sex with his disciples at the last supper.
So permit me to rephrase: I do not find evidence that I place any weight in…” Thanks 😉
But no one is claiming the ALL uses of “feet” are sexual euphemisms. You seem to have missed the point of an idiom here. Please take another look at the rabbinical material on the use of the idiom in Ruth. And the Mosaic law, for that matter. What do you suppose “uncovering” means in these cases? Taking his shoes off?
One’s hermeneutic controls the exegesis. In the hermeneutic I use, a metaphor must always be the same meaning, so feet must always represent your walk/life. I don’t have the freedom you do. If they slept in their clothes, with their cloak covering their feet, then the servant obtains the benefit of the cloak and the master the warmed feet by te body of the servant. Uncovering is simply removing the cloak to warm the feet.
Even in English, metaphors don’t always have the same meaning. The meaning depends on the context, which, by the way, is certainly true in the Bible. Does “sacrifice” always mean the same thing in every text? Does “uncovering the nakedness” always mean the same thing? Does “vineyard” in “They made me caretaker of the vineyards,But I have not taken care of my own vineyard” always mean a piece of land planted with grapes? “My beloved is to me a cluster of henna blossoms,” must mean that every time we read about blossoms we are to interpret the text as talking about a lover, right?
I hope you see that your hermeneutic is far to restricted, and probably you didn’t mean what you said anyway.
Actually it is intentionally restrictive. It is an intentional experiment using methods used by NT authors with rules which are impossible to live by in order to ensure that there is not human invention.
I do not have the luxury of free-for-all interpretation. The facts that you get rid of leaven from a home before Passover, and the kingdom of heaven is leaven tell me that leaven is NOT sin, but teaching. One does not get rid of his sin before the cross, but gets rid of the Old teaching in preparation for the new teaching of Peace, the New Jerusalem.
The impossibly strict rules force you to use a symbol in one way. The presumption is that there is only one author to the SOD, and it is God, and he uses symbols the same way everywhere.
Maybe the experiment wont work out. If not, I’m am just one more voice on the Christian version of Mars hill. But if it does, then exegesis is more like solving the crossword puzzle than a bunch of Greeks arguing to show who is more clever.
I don’t need to persuade anyone at this point; merely share my observations using a hermeneutic that most aren’t even aware of. And I am really grateful that some intelligent and polite people can bang against it.
In this hermeneutic, you can’t just pick a meaning and say it is the same everywhere, it must BE the same everywhere in order to say that is the meaning. It is an observation. The rules for literal interpretation do not aplpy to the SOD. You can start with the Rules of Rabbi Eliezer and the methods or PARDES, and only use those which you see NT authors use. Then you make the assumption that the Hebrew language has meaning in the strokes of the letters, which form the meaning of the letters, which then combine to form the meaning of words; A two-letter combination, when reversed reverses the metaphor. Then reverse engineer 8000 Hebrew words so that you can build back the dictionary using those rules. I am still in the building back stage. It is merely an attempt to prove what the rabbis believe about the language.
It is not expected that you can do this with any other language. But the rabbis tell us it can be done with Hebrew,
When used to exegete: The SOD always speaks of Christ, in agreement with the rabbis that the SOD IS Meshiach.
Oh, and IF there are four layers as the Jews believe in Pardes and the Catholics believe in the Quadriga,then your literal interpretation MAY be correct AND the SOD be correct even though they differ from one another. The literal is tough to prove, as evidenced by teh history of he church for 2000 years, the SOD is difficult to discern, but is its own proof because of those impossible rules.
Last comment here. Of course you know that PaRDeS is a rabbinic development and NOT a hermeneutic demanded by the text itself, right? It may be useful for understanding how the rabbis and the authors of the apostolic material viewed their work and the meanings of the Tanakh, but it is not DEMANDED by the Tanakh itself. It is a TECHNIQUE, one of many, used to help determine what the text may say. So, while I appreciate that you seem to have limited yourself to this particular technique, you must admit that it isn’t the ONLY way to read the text. Right?
Agree. It admits there are at least 4 ways to read and the literal-historical is the P for Pashat in Pardes. The theory is that Jesus taught how to read the scripture while in the temple when he was 12, and his disciples learned it as well. Disbelieving Jews then twisted it, as evidenced in the challenge of the 7 men and one woman.
I see it as a twisted remnant of Jesus’s hermeneutic, which is why I only use those parts which I see practiced by the NT authors, and apply more rigorous rules than those required by the rabbis.
Also as an intentional experiment, I could hardly hope to impose it on the whole of Christendom 😉
I’m afraid you haven’t looked very deeply. I have BOTH Jewish and Christian commentaries on Ruth, Deuteronomy and Isaiah that recognize the euphemism and it is pretty commonly acknowledged. You might not LIKE the allusion, but Hebrew is very adept at using idiomatic terms for sexual organs. Your analysis of Ruth is typical conservative jargon, but even the rabbis recognize the possible allusion and therefore amend the text so that Boaz is “studying Torah” in the middle of the night. There isn’t much reason for them to do this unless they knew there was a problem.
I think you haven’t investigated very thoroughly. The idiomatic expression is commonly recognized by both rabbis and Christian commentators. I have several works that cite it, including Jewish commentaries on Ruth. In fact, the rabbinic material on Ruth deliberately alters the text to suggest that Boaz was “studying Torah” in the night. There is NO reason for them to do this unless they recognized the problem with the suggestive text. Do more homework, please. Hebrew is adept at providing idioms for sexual organs and sexual activity.
If I recall, that text says he thought he was grabbed by a demon.
If you think they were being prudish, see their discussions concerning Adam trying to find a help-meet.
Yup, got it. But prudish is not the issue here. It is the use of the idiom that matters. Song of Songs is filled with these sorts of things
In 2 Ki 18:27 and Isa 36:12: Did the water they were drinking came out of their feet?
I fail to see what Ruth did to be improper: Sex is not marriage. Was it not an offering she brought to Boaz, which he then accepted?
I do not think it was about “washing”. The metaphor has to do with feet and must be see in context.
I enjoyed your metaphor about feet and the earth. Amen.
It seems to be invariably the woman taking final initiative and making the offering:
Eve with the apple; Rebecca vailing herself; Tamar; Esther; Judith; etc.
I almost forgot the topical: Bathsheba!
The point of an idiom is that it is taken from ORDINARY usage and applied in unique ways according to context. Of course, feet are feet in most cases, but there are verses where “feet” clearly does NOT mean the things you walk with.
I think Uriah suspected something was up with David and Bathsheba. Because he was a soldier, he was not one to be pushed around, even by his King. Also, palace tongues may have been wagging. Uriah seems to be the only upright person in this whole story.
Agreed. He is the only righteous one of the lot, and he dies for it.
I am not so sure.
With a “new” (not yet pregnant) wife, he was not supposed to go to war.
Maybe Bathsheba had reason to look for another man?
All these may explain the mitigation / grace shown to David for putting Uriah in harms way.
Uriah may even have welcomed death for being a failure as a husband… or am I now going too far in analyzing this?
“Go down to your house and wash your feet (penis)”?
I must be missing something. I’m a bit lost regarding the significance of this possible interpretation. Even back when I was a “Christian” I knew what David was up to, regardless of whether the word was being used euphemisically or not. I expect Uriah knew he was being invited by the king to take a break and enjoy being with his wife, and that having sex could be an option for him. No need for any suggestions by the king to wash anything, were there? Just permission to go home for a while. In fact, the suggestion might provoke a question or two and even suspicion.
Anyways, this discussion does cause me a question or two, like, did Uriah know something was up, being that the king was encouraging this rendezvou. Did he need Uriah to return to report about the war when he had Joab to do that business. Was Uriah at least suspicious? He certainly must have known that David had his women, even if mostly for political reasons, and maybe that something had gone on between the king and his wife, Bathsheba. Why is David encouraging him to be with his wife? As a reward? Strange he would encourage him to wash his feet. And he certainly knew his wife reasonably well, and also that they had a bath on their roof. Maybe he suspected her as making herself available by her bathing “ritual” and that she may also have missed his “feet”. Maybe he considered that she had been unfaithful and possibly even with King David. After all, they certainly had conversations before and he knew what kind of woman she could be under certain circumstances. And maybe that is another reason why he wouldn’t go in and sleep with his wife, if he was sharp enough to surmise that he might be getting set up, even for a cover up. What did he know? What did he possibly suspect?
And then there’s the curious matter of the fact the David tried to be coy about the set up, but when it came to the cover up, he wasn’t even that covert. He actually told Joab, out rightly, to make sure that Uriah was killed. He didn’t just tell Uriah what to do but why, at least part of why. Wouldn’t Joab wonder what was going on? Could he be so trusted not to tell anyone else what David had done and then ask others what they thought as to why? Why would David be so overt about his intentions? First he welcomes Uriah back for a break and then he sets him up for the kill.
Oh what craziness can take place when a man is so concerned about making sure that another man washes his “feet” before going into his own home.
And what was up with Naomi actually encouraging Ruth to uncover Boaz’ “feet”? And by the way, I also understood back when still a “Christian” what she and Ruth were up to with all of that, too. Uncover his “feet”?! To use an old exclamation….MY FEET, IT WAS ALL ABOUT UNCOVERING HIS FEET! There certainly was a lot of common human nature in all these characters! It’s always made me wonder why YHWH could seem to be so permissive sometimes. But then again, I’ve since realized…..look at what He’s got to work with. In one sense, it’s all so disappointing. But in another sense, isn’t He amazing?! So good and so amazing!
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT! “Feet” can, of course, mean feat, but in some contexts the idiom can mean something else. David’s statement is just odd enough so that we as readers suspect it might mean something else. Not “penis” but rather an suggestion to go have sex with your wife. But this, of course, isn’t the way Hebrew expresses itself. It is very circumspect (see Song of Songs) and therefore it leaves a lot to the reader’s imagination.
Now my observation. The point of this Today’s Word was to get readers to start thinking about the entirely HUMAN motivations and manipulations that are suggested in this story. Somehow we seem to have gotten sidetracked by this discussion of the penis. Maybe that says more about US than anything else.
I understand and agree, context is important.
Do you mean feet and not “feat” in your above comment?
Maybe the misplaced focus off from the matter of motivations and manipulations and onto the euphemistic meaning and it’s “parts” that you have suggested IS more about us than anything.
Anyways, it did get me thinking about Uriah’s motivations, and David’s and Bathsheba’s motivations and manipulations, as well as Naomi’s and Ruth’s manipulations (not what they were trying to accomplish, but why they went about it the way they did). Doing this works well in popping idolatrous bubbles about all these Biblical characters. Hopefully it doesn’t lead to becoming more lax concerning the judgments of YHWH.
“Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” [Rom 2:4]
Please look at Judges 3:24 where the Hebrew literally is “covering his feet,” but quite clearly, this is NOT what Eglon is doing or what his servants think he is doing. Again, the context determines the meaning, not the words.
Also, side note. Uriah is a Hittite. Apparently Bathsheba is not. How to do think that “mix” affected the motivations of the people in the story? What do you know about the relationship between Hittites and Judahites?
This TW, is the craziest I have ever read. It reminds me of Col 2:4. It adds nothing to my walk or journey with the Messiah. While I am not a scholar like Skip or Bob, I tend to agree with Bob. Peace
So apparently the test of whether or not Scripture is worthy of investigation is determined by adding to your walk, correct? In that case, why not just eliminate all those verses that don’t affect you? 🙂