By this passage I understand the Psalmist to mean, that God would thoroughly cast off Edom, and cease to aid him in war or peace. This interpretation is consistent with the whole tenor of the Psalm.
The receiving of a shoe was an evidence and symbol of asserting or accepting dominion or ownership; the giving back a shoe, the symbol of rejecting or resigning it.
Among the Jews, the brother of a childless man was bound to marry his widow: or, at least, he "had the refusal of her," and the lady could not marry again till her husband's brother had formally rejected her. The ceremony by which this rejection was performed took place in open court, and is mentioned in Deut. xxv. If the brother publicly refused her, "she loosed his shoe from off his foot, and spat in his face;" or, as great Hebraists translate it, "spat before his face." His giving up the shoe was a symbol that he abandoned all dominion over her; and her spitting before him was a defiance, and an assertion of independence. This construction is in accordance with the opinions of Michaelis, as stated in his Laws of Moses, vol. ii. p. 31.
This practice is still further illustrated by the story of Ruth. Her nearest kinsman refused to marry her, and to redeem her inheritance: he was publicly called on so to do by Boaz, and as publicly refused. And the Bible adds, "as it was the custom in Israel concerning changing, that a man plucked off his shoe and delivered it to his neighbour," the kinsman plucked off his shoe and delivered it to Boaz as a public renunciation of Ruth, of all dominion over her, and of his right of pre-marriage.
These ceremonies were evidently not unknown to the early Christians. When the Emperor Wladimir made proposals of marriage to the daughter of Raguald, she refused him, saying, "That she would not take off her shoe to the son of a slave."
There is a passage in Gregory of Tours (c. 20.) where, speaking of espousals, he says, "The bridegroom having given a ring to the fiancée, presents her with a shoe."
From Michelet's Life of Luther we learn, that the great reformer was at the wedding of Jean Luffte. After supper, he conducted the bride to bed, and told the bridegroom that, according to common custom, he ought to be master in his own house when his wife was not there: and for a symbol, he took off the husband's shoe, and put it upon the head of the bed—"afin qu'il prit ainsi la domination et gouvernement."
I would suggest for the consideration of your correspondents that the throwing a shoe after a bride was a symbol of renunciation of dominion and authority over her by her father or guardian; and the receipt of the shoe by the bridegroom, even if accidental, was an omen that that authority was transferred to him.
John Thrupp.
Surbiton.