Four Customs, Four Message (ATTENTION PARENT)

Parents: Please Read Before Sharing This With Children- Rated PG.

People have always had ways of communicating without saying much at all. We shake hands, raise a hand when taking an oath, and remove our shoes before entering certain places. Most of us understand those gestures because we have grown up seeing them.

But what would you think if someone asked you to put your hand underneath his thigh before making a promise? Or if a man took off his sandal and handed it to another man to complete a transaction? And what about a widow who was instructed to remove a man's sandal in front of the town elders?

These are not made-up customs. We find them in Scripture, and each one tells us something about the people and the times in which they lived. We're also going to look at the rather less peaceful practice of throwing a shoe at someone. I suspect that one doesn't require quite as much explanation!

1. The Hand Under The Thigh: A Solemn Oath

Let's start with Abraham. He had a very particular request to make of the servant who managed his household, and he wanted a promise that would not be taken lightly.

(Genesis 24:2–9)

Abraham was getting old, and Isaac still needed a wife. Abraham did not want him marrying one of the daughters of the Canaanites among whom they lived. He wanted a wife from his own relatives. So he called his senior servant and gave him the responsibility of finding a wife for Isaac.

Before the servant left, however, Abraham required him to swear by

YHWH, the God of heaven and earth, that he would carry out the assignment. Then Abraham gave him an instruction that might have left the servant wondering what was coming next: he was to put his hand under Abraham's thigh.

Now, that is not something we see every day!

The Hebrew word used for thigh is yarek (יָרֵךְ). It can refer to the thigh, hip, or loins. The account tells us that the servant placed his hand beneath Abraham's thigh, but it does not describe their exact posture or the precise placement of his hand.

There is an interesting historical interpretation of this practice. Some researchers connect the gesture with the reproductive organs and the continuation of the family line. The thigh or loins could be associated with descendants, and that has led to the suggestion that the oath had a connection with the future of the family.

Consider Abraham's circumstances. God had promised him descendants, and the future of his family was very much on his mind. Isaac was the son through whom the family line would continue. It is understandable why some have connected the gesture with that subject. Still, Genesis does not tell us that this was the meaning, so we should not present the interpretation as though God had explained it in the text.

We find the same custom again, but this time it is Jacob making the request.

(Genesis 47:29–31)

Jacob knew that he was nearing death. He called Joseph to his side and asked him to make a promise concerning his burial. Jacob had spent many years in Egypt, but he did not want to be buried there. He wanted Joseph to carry him out of Egypt and bury him with his fathers.

Once again, the hand was placed beneath the thigh, and a solemn oath followed. Joseph promised to do what his father had asked.

There is something worth noticing here. Both Abraham and Jacob used this gesture when asking for a promise involving something deeply important to the family. We are not told every reason behind the custom, but the seriousness of the promises is unmistakable.

Imagine trying to explain this particular oath to someone today. "Before you promise me anything, please put your hand under my thigh." I think that would bring the conversation to a rather sudden halt!

2. Giving The Sandal: Relinquishing A Right

Now let's turn to Ruth and Boaz. This time, the sandal was connected with a legal matter involving family property and the right of redemption.

(Ruth 4:1–8)

Boaz wanted to redeem the property belonging to the household of Elimelech, Ruth's deceased father-in-law. There was, however, another relative who had a closer right to redeem it. That man had the first opportunity, so Boaz went to the town gate and brought the matter before him and the elders.

At first, the nearer relative was willing to redeem the property. But when Boaz explained that the matter also involved Ruth, the man reconsidered. He was concerned that taking on the responsibility might damage his own inheritance, so he declined and allowed Boaz to proceed.

Then something happened that might seem rather strange to us. The man removed his sandal and gave it to Boaz.

The writer actually stops to explain the custom in Ruth 4:7. In earlier times in Israel, this was how a transaction involving redemption or the transfer of a right was confirmed. The sandal was removed and handed to the other person as part of the public transaction.

This was not a gift of footwear, and Boaz was not suddenly in need of another sandal. The exchange had a recognized meaning. The nearer relative was giving up his opportunity, and the sandal exchange confirmed that he had relinquished his right.

The elders and the people at the gate witnessed what had taken place. Boaz could now proceed with the redemption.

There is an important distinction here. Ruth's account concerns the transfer of a redemption opportunity. It is not the same situation as the family responsibility described in Deuteronomy 25. The two passages both involve a sandal, but we must not combine their meanings simply because the same object appears in each account.

3. When A Man Refused His Family Responsibility

This next custom is considerably less pleasant for the man involved. It concerned a family responsibility established in the Law, and refusing that responsibility could bring public disgrace.

(Deuteronomy 25:5–10)

The passage describes a situation in which brothers lived together as part of the same family, and one of them died without having a son. In that circumstance, the surviving brother was expected to marry the widow and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law.

Why was this so important?

In Israel, the family name and inheritance were closely connected. A man's death without a son meant that his household could lose its continuing place in the family line. The arrangement provided a way for his name to continue. The first son born from the marriage would be established in the name of the deceased brother, so that his name would not be blotted out of Israel.

This responsibility is called יִבּוּם (yibbum), from the Hebrew root יבם (Y-B-M). The Hebrew noun יָבָם (yavam) refers to a husband's brother, specifically the brother who has the responsibility of marrying his deceased brother's childless widow. The widow is called יְבָמָה (yevamah). This Hebrew terminology is found in the biblical discussion of this responsibility, particularly Genesis 38:8 and Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

Now, the surviving brother might not want to marry the widow. What happened then?

The Law provided a public procedure. The widow was to go to the elders at the town gate and explain that her husband's brother was refusing to preserve his brother's name in Israel. The elders would summon the man and speak with him. If he continued to refuse, the widow was instructed to approach him in their presence, remove his sandal from his foot, and spit in his face.

Yes, the widow did the removing. She took the sandal off his foot in front of the elders. This was not a voluntary exchange such as the one in Ruth. It was part of a public act identifying his refusal to fulfill his brother's family responsibility.

The Law also gave his household a name: beit chalutz hana'al  (בֵּית חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל), meaning "the house of the one whose sandal was removed." His refusal would be remembered through that designation.

Notice that the Law did not force the man to marry the widow. It did, however, make his refusal a matter of public record and attach disgrace to his household.

The difference between Ruth and Deuteronomy is easy to miss if we read too quickly. In Ruth, the nearer relative willingly gave up his opportunity and handed his sandal to Boaz. In Deuteronomy, the widow removed the sandal of a man who refused his family duty. One was a recognized transaction; the other was a public act of disgrace.

Same type of footwear, but I don't think either man would have described the experience in quite the same way!

4. Throwing The Shoe: An Expression Of Contempt

Now we come to a custom that can take an argument from heated words to airborne footwear in a hurry!

In several Arab and Middle Eastern cultural settings, the bottom of a shoe is associated with dirt and is considered disrespectful when displayed toward another person. The sole is the part that touches the ground, so showing it to someone can be insulting. Throwing a shoe toward someone is an especially forceful expression of contempt.

A well-known example occurred in Baghdad in December 2008. During a press conference, Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi removed his shoes and threw them toward United States President George W. Bush. Both shoes missed, but there was no mistaking the intended insult.

The incident brought international attention to the cultural meaning of the gesture. Of course, customs vary among communities, so we should not assume that every person in every Middle Eastern country interprets every shoe gesture in exactly the same way.

There are also two passages in the Bible that mention casting a shoe.

(Psalm 60:8; Psalm 108:9)

Both passages mention Edom in connection with casting a shoe over it. The expression appears in a declaration of authority and dominion over Edom. We should not confuse that biblical image with the modern practice of throwing a shoe at someone as an insult. The passages are not describing a heated argument or someone losing his temper and sending footwear flying!

So, if someone makes you angry enough to throw a shoe at them, at least make sure it's one you don't particularly care for. You might win the argument, but you could lose a perfectly good shoe!

Other Customs We Still Recognize

The hand and footwear customs are not the only actions that help us understand the people of biblical times. There are several others worth looking at, especially because some are still familiar today.

Raising The Hand: An Oath Or An Act Of Worship?

(Genesis 14:22; Psalm 63:4; 1 Timothy 2:8; Matthew 5:34–37; James 5:12)

Abraham also described raising his hand to YHWH when making a solemn declaration. In Genesis 14:22, he said that he had lifted his hand to YHWH, the Most High God. The gesture accompanied his oath.

We still recognize a similar to yet totally different from the action of someone raising a hand while taking an oath in court. But there is another reason we raise our hands, and it has nothing to do with swearing an oath.

When we lift our hands in prayer and worship, we are expressing praise and devotion to God. Psalm 63:4 speaks of lifting hands in God's name, and 1 Timothy 2:8 speaks of praying with holy hands lifted up.

Jesus Christ taught us not to make oaths, but to let our yes be yes and our no be no (Matthew 5:34–37). James gives the same instruction in James 5:12. So, raising our hands in prayer is not making an oath to God. It is an expression of worship.

The gesture may look similar, but the purpose is quite different. Abraham was making a solemn declaration. We lift our hands to God in praise.

Removing The Sandals: Respect For Holy Ground

(Exodus 3:5; Joshua 5:15)

Moses was tending sheep when he saw a bush burning without being consumed. He approached to see what was happening, and God called to him from the bush. Moses was told not to come any closer and was instructed to remove his sandals because the ground where he stood was holy.

Think about that moment. Moses had been going about his ordinary work in the wilderness. Then, suddenly, he was standing in the presence of God, receiving instructions that would change the course of his life. Before anything else, he was told to remove his sandals (Exodus 3:5).

Joshua received a similar instruction when he encountered the commander of YHWH's army. He was told to remove his sandals because the place where he stood was holy (Joshua 5:15).

The practice of removing footwear before entering certain sacred places is still familiar today. People entering mosques remove their shoes before entering the prayer area. Other religious communities also have customs involving the removal of footwear in designated sacred spaces. The reasons are not identical in every tradition, but the practice remains recognizable.

Tearing The Clothing: When Grief Could No Longer Be Held Inside

(Genesis 37:29, 34; Job 1:20; 2 Samuel 1:11–12)

Jacob's sons returned from the field carrying Joseph's garment. It was the very garment Jacob had given his beloved son, but now it was covered in blood. They presented it to their father and asked him to identify it. Jacob recognized it, and his mind went straight to the terrible conclusion that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal.

The grief that followed was overwhelming. Jacob tore his clothing, put on sackcloth, and mourned for many days. His sons and daughters tried to comfort him, but he would not be comforted. He said that he would go down to the grave mourning for Joseph (Genesis 37:34–35). That was not a passing sadness. Jacob believed he had lost his son, and he could not find comfort.

Job's grief came in a terrible succession of messages. One messenger after another arrived with news of disaster. His livestock had been taken, his servants had been killed, and then came the report that all ten of his children had died when the house they were in collapsed.

Job rose, tore his robe, shaved his head, and fell to the ground. But what happened next is remarkable. He worshiped God. In the midst of that crushing loss, Job acknowledged YHWH and blessed His name (Job 1:20–21). His grief was real, and so was his worship.

David's response to the deaths of Saul and Jonathan was also expressed through torn clothing. When the messenger brought the news, David took hold of his garments and tore them. His men did the same. They mourned, wept, and fasted until evening, not only for Saul and Jonathan, but also for the people of Israel who had fallen by the sword (2 Samuel 1:11–12).

In biblical times, tearing one's clothing was a deliberate outward expression of sorrow, distress, or emotional anguish. The person took hold of the garment and tore the fabric. It was a way of making grief visible to those around them.

This practice is still found in Jewish mourning tradition under the name keriah (קְרִיעָה), meaning "tearing." In traditional Jewish mourning, close relatives may tear an outer garment or wear a black ribbon that is torn as part of the observance. The details vary among Jewish communities.

There is something deeply human about this custom. Jacob, Job, and David were facing very different circumstances, but each experienced grief that could not be hidden. Their torn garments showed what words alone could not express.

Sharing A Meal: Making Peace And Confirming An Agreement

(Genesis 26:26–31; Genesis 31:43–54)

A meal could be more than a meal in biblical times. It could be part of an agreement, a time of reconciliation, or a way of showing that a dispute had been settled.

Isaac and Abimelech had experienced disagreements, including disputes over wells. Eventually, Abimelech came to Isaac seeking an agreement of peace. Isaac received him, prepared a meal, and they ate together. The following morning, they made an oath and went their separate ways (Genesis 26:26–31).

Jacob and Laban also reached an agreement after years of tension. They set up a heap of stones as a witness to the boundary between them. Jacob offered a sacrifice, and his relatives gathered to share a meal. They spent the night there before parting (Genesis 31:43–54).

Sharing food in connection with an agreement was a recognizable way of marking the occasion. We still do something similar today. People gather for dinner after making peace, families celebrate important agreements over a meal, and business arrangements are sometimes followed by a dinner together.

There is a reason people often say that good food brings people together. It certainly makes a peaceful agreement a more pleasant occasion!

Saying She Was His Sister: A Dangerous Situation

Here is a situation we find in the lives of both Abraham and Isaac. When they entered foreign territory, they feared that a ruler might kill them in order to take their beautiful wives. Both men said that their wives were their sisters.

What Scripture Records

The first account takes place when a famine drove Abraham into Egypt.

(Genesis 12:10–20)

Before they entered Egypt, Abraham told Sarah that he knew she was a beautiful woman. He feared that when the Egyptians saw her, they would kill him and allow her to live. He asked her to say that she was his sister so that he might be treated well and his life might be spared.

The Egyptians noticed Sarah's beauty, and she was taken into Pharaoh's household. Pharaoh treated Abraham well because of Sarah, and Abraham received livestock and servants. But YHWH brought serious troubles upon Pharaoh and his household. Pharaoh discovered that Sarah was Abraham's wife, confronted Abraham, and sent him away with Sarah and everything he had acquired.

Years later, Abraham used the same explanation in Gerar.

(Genesis 20:1–18)

Abraham again said that Sarah was his sister, and Abimelech, king of Gerar, sent for her and took her.

God came to Abimelech in a dream and told him that Sarah was a married woman. Abimelech protested that he had acted with a clear conscience because Abraham and Sarah had presented themselves as brother and sister. God acknowledged in the dream that Abimelech had acted with integrity and had been prevented from sinning against Him.

Abraham then explained that Sarah really was his half sister, sharing the same father but not the same mother. However, she was also his wife. He admitted that he had thought there was no fear of God in that place and that he might be killed because of her.

Abimelech returned Sarah to Abraham, gave him livestock and servants, and allowed him to settle in the land. Abraham prayed, and God healed Abimelech's household.

Then a similar situation occurred with Isaac.

(Genesis 26:6–11)

Isaac was living in Gerar. He was afraid that the men of the place might kill him because of Rebekah's beauty, so he told the people that she was his sister.

Abimelech eventually looked out of a window and saw Isaac showing affection toward Rebekah. He realized that she was Isaac's wife, called Isaac in, and confronted him. Abimelech pointed out that one of the men might have taken Rebekah as his wife, bringing guilt upon the people. He then warned everyone that anyone who harmed Isaac or Rebekah would face death.

Unlike the two accounts involving Sarah, Rebekah was not taken. Abimelech discovered the truth and issued a warning to protect the couple.

What We Can Understand From These Accounts

Abraham's statement about Sarah was partly true because she was his half sister, but it left out the important fact that she was also his wife. Isaac's statement about Rebekah was different. Scripture identifies Rebekah as his wife, not his sister.

We can see that Abraham feared being killed because of Sarah's beauty. In Egypt, Sarah was taken into Pharaoh's household. In Gerar, Abimelech took her after being told she was Abraham's sister. Isaac feared a similar outcome, but Abimelech discovered the truth before Rebekah was taken.

The accounts do not tell us that either woman agreed to become the ruler's wife. They tell us that Sarah was taken into the households of Pharaoh and Abimelech, and that God intervened to protect her. They also tell us that Abimelech recognized the danger to Rebekah and acted to prevent anyone from taking her.

A Point Worth Considering

A ruler's power did not make every action right. The fact that a man sat on a throne did not give him moral ownership of another man's wife. Nor does Scripture present a woman's beauty as permission for a man to take her.

These accounts reveal the danger that Abraham and Isaac feared, and they show God's intervention in protecting their wives. They also leave us with an important distinction: what a powerful person is able to do is not necessarily what that person has the right to do.

Beauty is not permission, and power is not righteousness.

A Little More Understanding Of The World Behind The Scriptures

These customs give us a glimpse into everyday life in biblical times. They also remind us that a gesture cannot always be understood simply by looking at the action itself. We need to know what it meant in that particular setting.

The hand beneath the thigh was connected with a solemn promise. The sandal exchange in Ruth confirmed the giving up of a redemption opportunity, while the removal of the sandal in Deuteronomy marked a man's refusal to fulfill his family responsibility. Throwing a shoe in certain cultural settings communicated contempt. Raising hands in prayer expressed worship, and tearing clothing made grief visible.

We should be careful to not assign meanings that Scripture does not give us. The biblical accounts tell us what happened, and historical customs can help us understand the setting. But an interesting historical explanation should never be presented as though it were a direct statement from God's Word.

And now, when we come across one of these actions while reading Scripture, we have a little more understanding of what the people were doing and why it mattered.

Who knew there was so much to learn from a hand, a garment, and a few sandals, or even kings? The next time you read one of these accounts, you may find yourself looking at the details a little differently!

✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️

Prayer

Holy Father, I praise You for Your wisdom and for the way Your Word gives me understanding, not only through what people said, but also through the customs and actions recorded in Scripture. Thank You for preserving these accounts so that I can learn more about the people, their lives, and the world in which they lived.

Father, help me to read Your Word carefully and to recognize the difference between what Scripture actually says and what people may interpret from it. Give me discernment to handle Your Word accurately, never adding to it or taking away from its meaning. Help me share these teachings in a way that brings understanding and encourages others to look more closely at the Scriptures for themselves.

Thank You for showing us that human power does not make something right, that beauty is never permission to take what belongs to another, and that Your protection and righteousness stand above the customs and authority of men.

I pray that everyone who reads this teaching come away with a greater appreciation for Your Word and a deeper desire to understand it; that what I share honors You and points others toward Your truth.

In the name of Jesus Christ, I pray. Amen.

✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️

Don't take my word for it. Like the Bereans in Acts 17:11, search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so. Open your Bible, study God's Word for yourself, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. Don't simply accept my conclusions. If what I've written agrees with Scripture, hold fast to it. If it doesn't, let God's Word be your final authority.

✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️

If you liked this message, please leave a positive comment. (All comments are monitored for spam and bots). I would love to hear from you! You don't even have to register or sign in! Just click Comment at the bottom of any message. (comments are monitored only against spam)

© AMKCH 2026

images done by duck.ai at my direction. If any of these people looks like you or someone you know, that is purely coincidental. They are not.

✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️

.