Possibly, although we'd have to consider the demographics of the crowd as well. If He was speaking to a predominately Jewish crowd He would more than likely have intended the words to be understood in a Platonic/Franternal sense. If He was speaking to a mixed crowd, it is quite possible that the phrase may be read as being a double entendre. But then again the words have been passed down through the generations. Traditionally it is held that Luke the Evangelist wrote that Gospel account. Luke was a disciple of Paul of Tarsus who claimed to have seen a vision of Christ on the Road to Damascus. If we are to assume that Paul was given the entire story and related it to Luke we've got it going through two hands already. Pass that down for 1000 years, as the language continues to change, and pass through a language barrier. It's like an enormous game of telephone. Then we have to consider the power that the Catholic Church had over the texts. Only the Priests could read and interpret the text. The people were not allowed to read their bibles until the Protestant reformation created the second schism of the Church by factioning all of the Western Christians. But even to this day, the Priests and Pastors are still looked to as the authority on Biblical matters, so we've had centuries of programming that we must shake off before we can understand the true message. Then we take the passages that those behind the pulpit use to discourage us from true understanding, because the tell us that we must not "lean on our own understanding". That passage is easy to take out of context, but we must take heart and know that our understanding is not our own, because "God is still speaking."(UCC Motto) We recieve understanding from Godde, and to fail to utilize that is an insult to Them.
"I can’t believe that God designed a human being with a mind we’re not supposed to use." - *insert Philosopher here*
Man will never be truly free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.