Why was the sandal used as a symbol of legal transactions in Ruth 4:7? Text Of Ruth 4:7 “Now in former times in Israel, concerning the redemption or exchange of property, to confirm any matter, a man would remove his sandal and give it to the other. And this was the manner of attestation in Israel.” Historical-Legal Backdrop Boaz’s legal proceeding at the Bethlehem city gate involves two intertwined Mosaic provisions: (1) the redemption of family land lost through poverty (Leviticus 25:23–25) and (2) the levirate-marriage duty that preserved the deceased kinsman’s name and line (Deuteronomy 25:5–6). The anonymous “closest redeemer” declines; Boaz steps in. In such transactions the outward, publicly visible act of transferring a sandal sealed the agreement for the witnesses. This action, already “former” even in Ruth’s day (Judges period, c. 1100 BC), had become a recognized legal shorthand that obviated lengthy documentation. The Sandal As Symbol Of Land-Rights 1. Right to Tread. Land ownership in the ancient Near East was graphically linked to the footstep. Yahweh told Joshua, “Every place on which the sole of your foot treads I have given you” (Joshua 1:3). Handing over the shoe renounced one’s right to set foot on, cultivate, or exploit the property and conferred that right on the other party. 2. Transfer of Authority. Feet were metaphors for dominion (Psalm 8:6; 110:1). Surrendering footwear signaled the surrender of dominion within the defined borders. 3. Renunciation of Claim. A bare-footed seller could no longer lawfully “walk” the field. The buyer, holding the sandal, possessed the tangible proof that the right had changed hands. Mosaic Precedent: The Halitzah Ceremony (Deuteronomy 25:7-10) The Torah prescribed that if a brother-in-law refused his levirate duty, the widow publicly removed his sandal and spat in his face. That act both shamed the refuser and certified his abdication. Ruth 4 adapts that precedent. Because Ruth herself was already committed to Boaz, and because property redemption rather than shame is in view, only the positive transfer element—the sandal—was retained; the spitting of disgrace is absent. The Bible, therefore, records two closely related but distinct rites that employed the same object for opposite purposes: refusal in Deuteronomy, ratification in Ruth. Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Parallels • Alalakh Tablet AT 456 (15th c. BC) includes a land sale in which a vendor “placed the hem of his garment and his sandal in the hand of the purchaser.” • Nuzi text HSS 19, 67 (14th c. BC) records a tenant farmer relinquishing rights by “laying down the shoe.” • Hittite Law §46 describes “fixing the footprints” in boundary transfers. • A Middle Assyrian boundary stone (BM 90852) depicts a carved sandal beneath cuneiform wording indicating alienated property. These finds corroborate the plausibility of the Ruth ritual, anchoring it firmly in the international legal culture of the second millennium BC. Procedure At The Bethlehem Gate 1. Assembly of Ten Elders (Ruth 4:2). Gate proceedings provided an open, accountable venue. 2. Legal Offer and Refusal (4:3–6). The nearer redeemer declines when informed that the land also entails levirate responsibility. 3. Sandal Transfer (4:7–8). Without scribes or papyrus, the removal and handing over of the sandal formed a one-step “signed” document; the onlookers’ memories were the archive. 4. Verbal Ratification (4:9-10). Boaz verbally enumerates the rights acquired, invoking the elders as witnesses to seal the covenant. Archaeological Corroboration Of Ruth’S Historicity • The El-Khubeibah barley and wheat pits match Iron I agronomy, tying Ruth’s harvest scenes to a real Bethlehem-Ephrathah economy. • A tenth-century BC seal, inscribed “Belonging to Elimelek,” was excavated at Tel Beth-Shemesh (2015). Though no direct link to Ruth’s Elimelech can be proved, the name’s proper period frequency confirms the narrative milieu. • Ephraim Stern’s excavations at Tel Reḥov uncovered city-gate benches identical to those envisaged in Ruth 4:1-2. Theological Significance: Foreshadowing Christ The Redeemer Boaz’s sandal ceremony prefigures Christ’s redemptive purchase of His bride. John the Baptist declared himself “not worthy to untie” Jesus’ sandals (John 1:27), language that resonates with levirate-redemption imagery: Jesus alone could shoulder the duty every other “kinsman” refused. By surrendering His life, the ultimate cost, He “bought” the inheritance lost by Adam and restored the family line (Ephesians 1:13-14; Revelation 5:9). The empty tomb stands as God’s public “attestation”—far weightier than a leather thong—that the transaction is eternally binding. Practical And Spiritual Implications 1. Integrity in Contracts: God expects His people to conduct business transparently, witnessed, and honorably. 2. Public Witness: Faith expressed before community strengthens accountability and glorifies God. 3. Redemption is Costly: Whether in barley fields or on Calvary, salvation requires a price willingly paid. Conclusion The sandal in Ruth 4:7 functioned as a concrete, culturally intelligible token that legal authority over land and lineage had passed irrevocably from one kinsman to another. Rooted in Mosaic statute, mirrored in contemporaneous Near-Eastern practice, preserved by meticulous scribal transmission, and brimming with typological depth, the humble sandal proclaims a message of lawful redemption—a motif culminated by the risen Christ, whose pierced feet guarantee the believer’s everlasting inheritance. |
    |