Shoe
( naal, so called from fastening on the foot, everywhere so rendered, except once [Isa 11:15], dryshod but in Deu 33:25 , minal, which probably means a bolt, as elsewhere [lock, Neh 3:3; Neh 3:6; Neh 3:13-15; Son 5:5]; ), properly a sandal. It does not seem probable that the foot coverings of the Hebrews differed much from those used in Egypt, excepting, perhaps, that from the greater roughness of their country they were usually of more substantial make and materials. The Egyptian sandals varied slightly in form: those worn by the upper classes, and by women, were usually pointed and turned up at the end like our skates and many of the Eastern slippers at the present day. They were made of a sort of woven or interlaced work of palm leaves and papyrus stalks or other similar materials, and sometimes of leather; and were frequently lined with cloth on which the figure of a captive was painted, that humiliating position being, considered suited to the enemies of their country, whom they hated and despised. It is not likely that the Jews adopted this practice; but the idea which it expressed, of treading their enemies under their feet, was familiar to them (Jos 10:24). Those of the middle classes who were in the habit of wearing sandals often preferred walking barefooted. Shoes, or low boots, are sometimes found at Thebes; but these are believed by Sir J.G. Wilkinson to have been of late date and to have belonged to Greeks, since no persons are represented in the paintings as wearing them except foreigners. They were of leather, generally of a green color, laced in front by thongs, which passed through small loops on either side, and were principally used, as in Greece and Etruria, by women (Wilkinson, 3, 374- 367). The Assyrian monuments represent shoes of a similar character, but worn by natives, especially princes.
The use of shoes was by no means universal among the Greeks and Romans. The Homeric heroes are represented without shoes when armed for battle. Socrates, Phocioni, and Cato frequently went barefoot. The Roman slaves had no shoes. The covering of the feet was removed before reclining at meals. People in grief (as, for instance, at funerals) frequently went barefooted. The Roman shoes may be divided into those in which the mere sole of a shoe was attached to the sole of the foot by ties or bands, or by a covering for the toes or the instep (solea, crepida, soccus), and those which ascended higher and higher, according as they covered the ankles, the calf, or the whole of the leg. To calceamenta of the; latter kind, i.e. to shoes and boots as distinguished from, sandals and slippers, the term calceus was applied in its proper and restricted sense. There were also other varieties of the calceus, according to its adaptation to, particular professions or modes of life. Thus the caliga, was principally worn by soldiers, the pero by laborers and rustics, and the cothurnus by tragedians, hunters, and horsemen. The calcei probably did not much differ from our shoes, and are exemplified in a painting at Herculaneum, which represents a female wearing bracelets, a wreath of ivy, and a panther’s skin, while she is in the attitude of dancing and playing on the cymbals. On the other hand, a marble foot in the British Museum exhibits the form of a man’s shoe. Both the sole and the upper leather are thick and strong. The toes are uncovered, and a thong passes between the great and the second toe as a sandal. The form and color of the calceus indicated rank and office. Roman senators wore high shoes, like buskins, fastened in front with four black thongs, and adorned with a small crescent. Among the calcei worn by senators, those called mullei, from their resemblance to the scales of the red mullet, were particularly admired, as Well as others called alutoe, because the leather was softened by the use of alum. See Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiq. s.v.
Certain scriptural usages connected with shoes deserve especial notice. In transferring a possession or domain it was customary to deliver a sandal (Rth 4:7), as in our Middle Ages a glove. Hence the action of throwing down a shoe upon a region or territory was a symbol of occupancy. So Psa 60:10, Upon the land of Edom do I cast my sandal, i.e. I possess, occupy it, claim it as my own. In Ruth, as above, the delivering of a sandal signified that the next of kin transferred to another a sacred obligation, and he was hence called sandal loosed. A sandal thong (Gen 14:23), or even sandals themselves (Amo 2:6; Amo 8:6), are put for any thing worthless or of little value; which is perfectly intelligible to those who have witnessed the extemporaneous manner in which a man will shape two pieces of hide and fasten them with thongs to the soles of his feet, thus fabricating in a few minutes a pair of sandals which would be dear at a penny. It was undoubtedly the custom to take off the sandals on holy ground, in the act of worship, and in the presence of a superior. Hence the command to take the sandals from the feet under such circumstances (Exo 3:5; Jos 5:15). This is still the well known custom of the East Oriental taking off his shoe in cases in which a European would remove his hat (see Hackett. Illustrations of Script. p. 66). The shoes of the modern Orientals are, however, made to slip off easily, which was not the case with sandals, that required to be unbound with some trouble. This operation was usually performed by servants; and hence the act of unloosing the sandals of another became a familiar symbol of servitude (Mar 1:7; Luk 3:16; Joh 1:27; Act 13:25). So, also, when a man’s sandals had been removed, they were usually left in charge of a servant. In some of the Egyptian paintings servants are represented with their master’s sandals on their arm: it thus became another conventional mark of a servile condition to bear the sandals of another (Mat 3:11). The terms ordinarily applied to the removal of the shoe (, Deu 25:10; Isa 20:2; and , Rth 4:7) imply that the thongs were either so numerous or so broad as almost to cover the top of the foot. It is worthy of observation, however, that the term used for putting off the shoes on sacred occasions is peculiar (), and conveys the notion of violence and haste. See Byneous, De Calceis Hebrceorumn (Dord. 1715); Kitto, Pict. Bible, note at Rth 4:8. SEE SANDAL.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Shoe
Of various forms, from the mere sandal (q.v.) to the complete covering of the foot. The word so rendered (A.V.) in Deut. 33:25, _min’al_, “a bar,” is derived from a root meaning “to bolt” or “shut fast,” and hence a fastness or fortress. The verse has accordingly been rendered “iron and brass shall be thy fortress,” or, as in the Revised Version, “thy bars [marg., “shoes”] shall be iron and brass.”
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Shoe
SHOE.See Sandal.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Shoe
SHOE.See Dress, 6, where also reference is made to the custom, widely prevalent in antiquity, of removing the shoes before entering a temple, or other sacred precinct, in order to save the latter from ceremonial defilement. (For the original motive see RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2 453.)
The shoe played a part, further, in certain symbolical actions in Hebrew law. Thus in Rth 4:7 we are informed that it was an ancient custom in Israel, on completing a purchase, for the seller to draw off his shoe and hand it to the buyer, as a symbol of the transference of the property sold. A parallel symbolism is disclosed by the frequent occurrence, in early Babylonian deeds of sale dealing with house property, of the phrase, the pestle [of the mortar] has been transferred (Meissner, Aus dem attbab. Recht, 6). In times when writing was the accomplishment of the few, such a symbolic act in the presence of witnesses was doubtless held equivalent to the later formal deeds (Jer 32:9 ff.).
The same passage of Ruth and Deu 25:9 ff. shows that this symbolism, somewhat differently performed, with another still more expressive, was also adopted in the case of one renouncing his right to his deceased brothers wife (See Marriage, 4).
In the expression upon [or over] Edom will I cast my shoe (Psa 60:8; Psa 108:9) many authorities find a reference to an extension of this shoe symbolism, the actual taking possession of the property being symbolized by throwing a shoe over or upon it. Others, however, rendering as RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] unto Edom, see in the words an assertion of Edoms servitude, it being the part of a slave to carry his masters shoes. The context and the singular shoe (not shoes) favour the former interpretation.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Shoe
[SANDAL]
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Shoe
Taken off on holy ground
Exo 3:5; Jos 5:15; Act 7:33
Put off in mourning
Eze 24:17
Shoes of the children of Israel did not wax old
Deu 29:5
Loosed in token of refusal to observe the Levirate marriage
Deu 25:9; Rth 4:7-8
Poor sold for a pair of
Amo 2:6; Amo 8:6
Made of iron
Deu 33:25
Made of badgers’ skins
Eze 16:10
Latchet of
Gen 14:23; Isa 5:27; Mar 1:7
Loosing of, a humble service
Luk 3:16
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Shoe
Shoe. See Sandal.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Shoe
denotes “a sole bound under the foot” (hupo, “under,” deo, “to bind;” cp. hupodeo, “to bind under”), “a sandal,” always translated “shoes,” e.g., Mat 3:11; Mat 10:10; Mar 1:7.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Shoe
Deu 33:25 (b) This is a type of the blessed preparation given by GOD to enable His children to traverse difficult roads without discomfort. He fits our feet for the road.
Son 7:1 (c) This indicates that the natural walk represented by natural feet is not beautiful nor acceptable to GOD unless affected and covered by those graces which He supplies for the work. It must be linked with the death of CHRIST, for shoes, whether of wood or leather, can only be such after the death of that from which they are made.
Mat 3:11 (c) These are literal shoes, but symbolical of the Spirit of humility in doing the least and lowliest things for another.