SHOE REMOVALS IN THE BIBLE: PART 1

This is one of the strangest repeated actions, to our way of thinking, that occurs in the Bible. And it actually represents four entirely different types of situation. The most noted one will be discussed here.

On Holy Ground – Exodus 3:5 // Acts 7:33; Joshua 5:15

Moses is given the command, “Take off your sandals for this is holy ground” as he approached the burning bush. Also, the commander of the Lord's army tells Joshua the same thing right before the Battle of Jericho. But the question to ask is, “Why does God want them to take off their sandals?” And here it turns out that scholars are not exactly in full agreement:

    Cole: “There are two possible origins of this mark of reverence. First, it may be a sign of acceptance of a servant's position, for a slave usually went barefoot (Lk. 15:22). Secondly, it may be a relic of very early days when men laid aside all covering and pretense to approach their god. Hence the Israelite priest always wore a linen kilt for modesty's sake (cf. Ex. 20:26).”

    Hamilton: “Apart from a sign of respect and humility, such a command may be dictated by the following factors: (a) in the presence of God there is neither dirt nor possibility of injury, and so sandals are unnecessary: (b) sandals, being made of animal skins, are impure in regard to the sacred and thus not to be worn into a sacred precinct.”

    Propp: “The simplest explanation for this restriction is that one should not track dirt into God's house. Perhaps shoes were not in general worn indoors, both for reasons of cleanliness and, suggests Morgenstein, to avoid bad luck. Moreover, ancient Egyptians removed their shoes before social superiors, and there is evidence that bare feet symbolized humility and mortification in Israel (2 Sam 15:30; Isa 20:2; Ezek 24:17,23). Thus it would be presumptuous to appear before Yahweh shod. Milgrom further suggests that leather sandals, made from dead animals, bear minor ritual impurity and contaminate holy ground.”

At the risk of being contrary, I would like to suggest an entirely different reason for this command being given to Moses and Joshua. And it starts with the concept of holiness. Woudstra says, “Holiness in the OT has its basis and origin in God. Things, places, and people can be called holy only insofar as they have been set aside for God or claimed by him.” Thus, Oswalt notes, “The dirt on the soles of Moses' shoes was ordinary dirt, whereas God's presence in the bush made the dirt immediately around it of a different quality.” And Niehouse states, “God is holy and imparts holiness where and for as long as he appears. For example, Yahweh warns Moses that he is on 'holy ground'. As long as Yahweh is there the ground is holy because his presence sanctifies it.”

Note that all the above explanations for God's command center around the possibility that Moses or Joshua will somehow contaminate the holy ground or not show proper reverence in the presence of the Divine by keeping their shoes on. But if God's presence turns ordinary dirt into holy ground, why in the world can't it do the same thing to the dirt on the bottom of their sandals? And taking this concept a step further, consider carefully the exact wording in Genesis 3:5 and Joshua 5:15. 

Although it is not always reflected in our English translations, Propp notes that some important early manuscripts of the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 have both “shoe” and “foot” in the singular, not the plural. And since this is the more difficult reading, it is likely to be the correct one. Similarly, Boling and Wright point out that the Hebrew text of Joshua 5:15 clearly states that one sandal should be taken off of one foot. The commentators above assume that the meaning applies to both feet in a “distributive” way. Thus, we could translate it as “Take off your footware.” But what if we take the singular nouns literally instead?

First, is it really likely that God's presence can turn ordinary dirt into holy ground and yet that same holy ground is contaminated if it contacts ordinary dirt on a shoe? By extension, why isn't it entirely more likely that an ordinary man who is marked out for special duties by God could become His holy representative by contact of his bare foot with God's holy ground? And if so, then all it would take is for Moses or Joshua to remove one shoe, as the preferred texts indicate, in order for that holiness to be communicated to him. On the other hand, removal of only one shoe would do nothing whatsoever to prevent contamination of holy ground by the other shoe if that were really the intent of the command.

After all, the regulations in the Book of Leviticus indicate that the following categories of items can be shifted to an adjacent category in both directions through appropriate or inappropriate actions:

Holy <---------------> Profane <----------------> Impure

Stephen, in the New Testament, recites this incident in Moses' life as part of his speech before being stoned to death. William Neil sees a subtle dig there at those present who a little earlier had accused Stephen of speaking against the Jerusalem temple (Acts 6:13) since the story of Moses and the burning bush demonstrates that “not only the Temple was a 'holy 'place [but] wherever God chose to reveal himself was holy ground.” F.F. Bruce adds, “Here, then, we have a central principle of the gospel: that no place on earth possesses an innate sanctity of its own.” Fitzmyer similarly notes that “Moses does not build there a shrine or a temple, and this has a bearing on Stephen's argument to come.” (see Acts 7:44-50)