Thompson sees this verse as the witness statement required by the covenant/treaty pattern, with Jacob as the witness. However, Jacob is much more than a witness; he becomes a righteous accuser, with Yahweh as his witness and justification.
Culture: Jacob removes his garments and shakes them out before his listeners. This is a very visible and symbolic gesture. However, even though it shares symbolic associations with the New Testament’s practice of shaking the dust from the feet, it is very different. In Luke we find: And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them” (Luke 9:5).
By New Testament times, the symbol of shaking dust off the feet had become intertwined with the purity laws. The simple case of dust-avoidance dealt with “foreign” dust as opposed to the dust of Israel. Rabbinic texts specifically note that the dust of foreign nations is defiling. While it is probable that the basic understanding was simply the insider/outsider boundaries, the explanations suggested that the foreign dust might come from foreign “high places” or perhaps from sepulchers (which were defiling because they were associated with the dead). As Malina and Rohrbaugh point out: “Purity rules that distinguish between inside and outside are replications of rules that distinguish ingroup from outgroup, thus keeping the boundaries between groups ever before the awareness of those observing the purity rules.” The idea that the dust of foreign lands may be polluting reinforces the boundaries between Israel and these other countries. Therefore, when the dust is shaken from the shoes, the one performing the action is declaring that the location is “foreign.” When applied to a household, as in Matthew 10:14, it indicates that the household is to be treated as Gentiles. The action symbolically removes the location from inside Yahweh’s protection to a status of being outside Yahweh’s covenant land. It is particularly important that it is the dust of the feet that is shaken:
The Mediterranean world traditionally thought in terms of what anthropologists have called “zones of interaction” with the world around. Three such zones make up the human person, and all appear repeatedly in the Gospels: (1) The zone of emotion-infused thought includes will, intellect, judgment, personality, and feeling all rolled together. It is the activity of the eyes and heart (sight, insight, understanding, choosing, loving, thinking, valuing, etc.). (2) The zone of self-expressive speech includes communication, particularly that which is self-revealing. It is listening and responding. It is the activity of the mouth, ears, tongue, lips, throat, and teeth (speaking, hearing, singing, swearing, cursing, listening, eloquence, silence, crying, etc.). (3) The zone of purposeful action is the zone of external behavior or interaction with the environment. It is the activity of the hands, feet, fingers, and legs (walking, sitting, standing, touching, accomplishing, etc.).
When one shakes the dust from the feet it represents an intentional act of separation. The person represents the insider, or the one who is part of the covenant. When that person shakes the dust form the feet, that intentional action declares that the dust of the city is polluting, and therefore must be foreign, and not of the covenant.
While this interpretation details the cultural symbolism and meaning behind the New Testament action of shaking dust from the feet, it does not explain Jacob. Jacob is not condemning his people and declaring them to be outside of Yahweh’s covenant. He is, in fact calling for repentance and a return to Yahweh. Nevertheless, it is a very similar action and also very clearly indicates a boundary (between a clean Jacob and a sinful people).
In a world where there were few paved roads, and even fewer laundromats, clothing accumulated dust as it was worn. The commonplace action of shaking dust was simply a means quickly “cleaning” the garment. Note the commonplace way in which shaking the dust from a garment is mentioned in this passage describing Francis of Assisi:
Now, as we have said before, St. Francis did all in his power to conceal the sacred, holy stigmata, for after he received them he kept always his hands and feet covered; yet could he not hinder that many times several of the brethren contrived to see and touch them, and especially the wound of the side, which with the greatest diligence he sought to conceal. Thus a brother who waited on him, having one day persuaded him to take off his tunic in his presence that he might shake the dust out of it, clearly saw the wound in the side.
When Jacob shakes his garment, the symbolism moves from the unusual to the commonplace, from damning to cleansing. Jacob’s people still have the possibility of repentance, but Jacob is signaling his separation from their sins. He has cleaned his garment, and therefore himself, of their state.
Two things occur as he shakes his garment. The first is that the garment itself moves. That is not, however, the most important part of the action. More important is that the dust visibly rises around the garment. When we shake out a rug, we can see that there is dust rising from the rug. It is that visible cloud of dust where none was before that creates the social symbolism. This visible cloud also appears to be important in the New Testament’s shaking off the dust of the feet. In Jacob’s case, this is not foreign dust, but dust of the community. The cloud becomes the symbolic evidence that Jacob has removed himself from the “pollution” of the community. As he said, he “shook your iniquities from my soul.”
Jacob’s gesture of purification affirms his own important position in the community. The same action from someone of lesser stature would provoke only amusement, but Jacob is an important and visible member of the community, engaged in delivering a major public discourse, with his actions sanctioned by the political ruler. Jacob had the social-ecclesiastical-political right to make such a gesture. In fact, he was probably the only person besides Nephi who could have made this statement. It also confirms that, even though Nephi also ordained his brother Joseph to the same functions, Jacob is the ranking ecclesiastical officer.
This episode also confirms internal discord, since otherwise there would be no need for the community’s religious leader to perform a public act of condemnation against some (many?) of his people. The fact that Nephi has recommended this discourse underscores the political motives behind this religious explanation. Nephi and Jacob intend this speech to head off dissension before it escalates into more serious problems. As far as we know, these pressures for social fission were kept under control during Nephi’s lifetime, but they continue to be an important social problem among the Nephites, becoming more important in the book of Jacob. Eventually, the fission does occur during the time of Mosiah1 (Omni 1:12–13).