Deuteronomy
 

Hey Guys,
Praise the King!
Jesus is lord!
Amen
Let's discuss about this head banging
verse among the verses of the Bible.
You see one of the major problem in the
church is to rightly divide the word! between NT and OT

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

What does the verse actually mean??:confused:
with blessing
Ev. Steve

Women are not to go out of their way to look like a man on purpose and man are not to go out of their way to look like a woman.

It doesn't say not to look like the opposite sex, but not to wear clothing that is for the opposite sex - such as men wearing skirts and dresses, and women wearing... pants...

Before anyone says that was OT and no longer applies, do a trace of the word "abomination" (in the context of what is an abomination to God Himself), and show where any of those abominable things/sins are done away with. If they are not, neither is this commandment.

It means that cross-dressing is an abomination to the Lord,

I have to wonder though, does this commandment "bend" regarding one's culture? Does the meaning depend on the social standards one is born into? I mean, in Scotland, men wear kilts, which to us are skirts, but to them, it is what men wear. I really fail to see Scots in cultural sin, when they wear their kilts. Cultural sin is sin nevertheless.
Likewise, in our culture, there is nothing "wrong" with women wearing pants, but do women who wear pants disgust God in cultural sin?

God says for men to wear women's clothing is an abomination - and vice versa. He doesn't say it is an abomination IF it goes against the culture. Study out the history of pants (who wore pants - breeches - in the Bible?), especially in North America. Scotland is a pagan culture (I believe it is wrong for men to wear dresses or skirts or kilts - anything like that, regardless of where they are on earth) - so we shouldn't look to them as examples of how God's people are to live.

actually, i gotta be nitpicky on this one, a traditional kilt is actually a long piece of fabric wrapped around the waist and then over the shoulderand tucked in at the waist. kilts were used for identification of a clan or family, and also as covering likea blanket during storms and cold weather.. it's these modern kilts that are really nothing more than skirts. i'm scottish rooted. i want to get the kilt with the clan tartan my family belonged to. but now that i think of it, i don't because of what is written in this passage of scripture.. but now i wonder one thing..

is this passage the equivelant of effeminate in rom. 1?

from my studies i've found that effeminate reffers to a male prostitute [catamite] kept in pagan temples, but i am willing to admit i am wrong if someone could verify others

I'm not for women wearing pants but I can't make it a doctrine or rule because of the fact that it is old testament, and I don't stand on anything 100% unless it's out of Paul's books. Basically I believe God changes in the way He deals with people but not in His morals or principles. In this verse He wants there to be a distinction between what a woman wears and what a man wears. Pants first started coming out for women to wear during WW1 and especially during WW2 to enable them to take the place of the men in the workplace who were fighting. But the true position and duty of a women is to be as Peter says, "chaste, keepers at home." Also men were the only ones in the Bible who girded their loins to work or fight, which was a picture of pants. Basically I look at it this way, if a woman has to do something she can't do in a skirt she probably shouldn't do it. If that "something" requires her to be immodest in order to complete it, then I say save it for the husband to do.

Then how far can we push the women can't wear pants rule before it becomes legalism? They can't wear slacks either... I know you won't catch me in a slack... My wife you might... but that is considered a pant... and she's a janitor so she has to wear jeans, maybe she could wear dresses while cleaning up toilets... so where do we draw the line?

Where do you draw the line? The same place the Bible does. If it is just preference, then it doesn't matter. However, the passages states that those who disobey on this issue are an abomination to God. Trace out the word abomination - where it specifically states something is an abomination to God (not to others - such as shepherds being an abomination to the Egyptians or unclean foods being an abomination to the nation of Israel). Then see if ANY of those abominable things are now acceptable.

Is God now pleased with divorce? Is prostituting your daughters now acceptable? Is the occult now okay to practice? Is it permissable now to commit incest, sodomy, and other kinds of immorality? Does God now want you to pray to Him and offer spiritual sacrifices with a wicked heart? Is pride now considered a good thing? Does God now overlook the using of unjust weights?

Of course, the answer of all of these is no. God's moral nature has not changed - and if something was abominable to Him in the OT - it still is. Trace the word out and see what else He finds abominable.

again I don't believe we can make it a rule and say that those who don't skirts are wicked, sinful people. I look at it as a personal conviction. Peter said that a woman's attire should be modest. I think people try to make it harder than it actually is. I do not condemn or look down on those who wear pants because again it is just a PERSONAL conviction. Not to say it's not a good thing for people to practice. Another way that I look at it is pants outline a woman's figure very well and I also know that men are very VISUAL people.

Whatever Deuteronomy 22:5 is referring to is important. And yes, those women who wear what that passage is forbidding are doing wrong - the men who also disobey that verse are also doing wrong. God says they are an abomination to Him - that certainly makes it more important than personal preferences, don't you think? Unless you think it does not matter when people personally choose to be an abomination through their conduct and apparel.

Listen Jerry I'm not saying that it's okay to be an abomination towards God. Where in scripture does it say that it's an abomination to wear pants? Remember some people do it out of ignorance and we need to have grace in dealing with them. Also remember that Deuteronomy is a book of law and we are not under the law. Therefore I do not believe we can make a doctrine or "rule" out of it or force anybody to do it. I believe with the OT we can get good morals and principles but we can not convince anybody of doing it unless found in Paul's books dealing in the church age. I spoke with Sam Gipp about it and he said the same thing, IT'S A PERSONAL CONVICTION! I know Sam Gipp is not perfect but I do know that he is one of the best defenders of the Bible and is very knowledgeable in it.

The ceremonial and sacrificial laws are done away with - the Scriptures do not teach that God's moral laws are no longer applicable (in fact that would contradict many passages). Again, show me where ANY other passage that teaches certain things are an abomination to God and that these are done away with, then maybe this one is too - but if none of the other abominations are changed, then this one still applies too.

What does Deuteronomy 22:5 refer to? Women's clothing are skirts and dresses - and men's clothing is pants. If you are not convinced of that, then I encourage you to study out the history of pants (and skirts/dresses). Were they male or female garments at first, how did they change - is it acceptable to God for the opposite sex to be wearing them now? God has not changed - if something offended Him 3500 years ago, I believe it still does.

where do you get it that it's an abomination?

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Pretty clear that men wearing women's clothing and women wearing men's clothing is an abomination to God. What is not clear and will involve study and prayer is what constitutes the clothing of each gender.

After studying out the issue of pants - how it was men who wore them in the Bible, the history of pants in North America - I am firmly convinced pants are a man's garment and God doesn't want women wearing them (and vice versa - He doesn't want men wearing skirts and dresses either).

Hello Jerry. Let me ask you a question.

Looking at the various cultural elements in the world today, are we to look at this by where the person reading this verse lives?

In scotland, they have the kilt. In the middle east, flowing robes (by both genders).


I guess a simpler question would be:
Where is the line drawn that decides what belongs to what gender in respect to that persons location?

Thanks Jerry.

I see where your coming from. You have some good points that I want to take a look at a little more before I answer the matter further.thanks for the thoughts!

I already addressed the issue of the kilt. The Bible does not give cultural rules - but rules applicable to mankind in all cultures.

You suggested looking at the history of clothing to determine what is and isn't gender-specific clothing. That would seem to be an appeal to cultural authority. That's the problem -- this verse in Deut. doesn't actually tell us what exactly pertains to a man or woman.

As for pants: The only reference I find in the Bible about them (breeches) is a garment specifically designed for priests. They are not even said to be for men in general, but for priests. More often the Bible mentions robes, which I can say I have never put on except in a hospital.

The verse quite obviously teaches that cross-dressing is an abomination, but you have to admit that it does not mention pants or dresses.

This has to fall under the same kind of thing as what constitutes "long hair" -- the Bible doesn't specify, so we have to let the Holy Spirit do that work. We know that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, but the Bible does not tell us how many inches is long. Setting up a rule about it strikes me as the error of the Pharisees, who added their own traditions to the law in order to make sure people didn't transgress the law.

You're right, Brandon, the Bible does not specify (beyond breeches) what is male or female clothing - only that there is supposed to be a difference between them, and that to wear clothing pertaining to the opposite gender is an abomination to the Lord. The Bible teaches that men (yes, certain men, not necessarily all men) in the Bible wore breeches. Breeches are pants.

I presented my convictions and conclusions on the issue - an application, if you will, of what I believe that verse is talking about. Whatever your conclusions, you certainly have to agree that God is not pleased when we do what that verse is telling us not to do. I am sorry if I came across as indicating in any way that my convictions/conclusions were the only way of applying that passage - I was just attempting to clarify what I believe that passage is stating and how it applies to the dress issue we face today. I am not a pharisee and do not teach if a woman is wearing pants that she is not right with God (which would be legalism if the Bible did not teach that). At the same time, I am standing for what I believe the passage to be teaching, even if others do not agree. Because of my convictions, I would not have my wife or daughters (if and when I ever get married and have children) wear pants - though I don't go around in public rebuking women I see in pants.

Brother, none of us are question the validity of this commandment against an abomination regarding today, we are simply in doubt as to what is the judge of woman's clothes or men's clothes.

I have no intention of breaking God's law, here, especially making an abomination, my barrier in understanding is how does a man know what a woman's clothes are if he is born into a society where the customs is different.

For those who do not have the law, they have their God-given conscience (Romans, everybody knows in their heart that murder is wrong, it's just that one's culture clouds one's conscience), but if you are born into a society where a certain dress is what men wear normally, how would you know that this is cross-dressing, an abomination under the sun?

That's why I believe it is important to study out the history of a garment. Not what a particular culture says about clothing though.

I still say, because I am not convicted any other way, that as long as men are not putting on makeup to look like a woman and as long as women are not flattening their chest to get a man figure, then they are not doing anything wrong.

(Good discussion btw...)

Hey jerry I searched out the different abominations that God had in the OT. I believe they all exist except one. The food diet that was set up for the Jews. Now you can say that this was meant only for the Jews, but in Duet. 22:5 He is also only speaking to the Jews on what to do and not do.

Lev 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey,
Lev 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Lev 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind,
Lev 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
Lev 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier-eagle,
Lev 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Lev 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.


Now in Acts 10 we see that God gave Peter meat to eat that was considered unclean because it says all manner of the fowls of the air. That includes the unlcean as well as the clean. I believe this was one of God's ways where he started showing Peter that we are no longer under the law. The food diet was a moral or principle to God in the OT, but I believe He has changed His viewpoint on it.

Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

We all eat fish today, does that mean we are all abominable towards the Lord according to the following passage?

Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
Lev 11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.
Lev 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

My question is if in these abominations God changed His viewpoint, then did He change His viewpoint of a woman wearing a man's clothing as an abomination, because He included this abomination with all the other morals and principles that they didn't do back in the day, but we have accepted them today?

Brother, I certainly agree with you that when people do what the verse describes, it is an abomination. And I did not intend to call you a Pharisee -- if my words came across that way, I'm sorry.

Thanks for your clarification.

In regards to eating unclean foods, God very clearly states several times that this was an abomination to them - not to God.

Leviticus 11:10-13 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

Leviticus 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:41-42 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten. Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

A couple of verses don't specify who is in view - but the overall passage does various times.

Great Point, Jerry!

good point! thanks!

Just a challenge
 

I society we have Both
Men and women wear
pant! It doesn't take
you to have PhD to
Know there is cross
dressing there!!
What about that??
(Don't intend to change topic; Just challenge!!):p

For consideration: what is the universal symbols for men and women on bathroom doors around the world? Man with round head (indicating short hair) and pants, and woman with different/longer hair and a skirt or dress.

That's a non sequitur. Men and women both wear socks, shoes, wristwatches, etc.

I Accept the Challenge
 

I Accept the Challenge Diligent,
but another question;
What differentiate today on
what pertains to man or woman

Stay blessed all
Ev. Steve:p

Ok guys I need some opinions. I have found in scripture where God said not to eat the unclean animals. If someone did, the Bible says his soul will be cut off from the rest of the people. Obviously, according to the following passage God did not leave it up to the people to make the decision if they wanted to eat it or not.

Lev 20:25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

So my point is, God did not say that it was an abomination to your body. What I mean is, I don't think God is saying that it's unhealthy for you, or else he wouldn't have said the word "soul". There soul according to God would be affected if they ate of the abominable beast.

I'm sorry but I have to say that at the time it was an abomination unto the Lord to eat of those animals. If He said that the eating of those animals was an abomination, whether to your body or not, it was still an abomination. His viewpoint on this abomination is no longer continuing.

I'm quite interested with the "history of pants". Can anybody send me some information on this? It's important to know history to deal with certain issues.

But for the moment, I had been an "anti-pants-on-women" and I had been reading books written by "anti-pants" good Christians. I am quite convinced with the principles of distinction and modesty.

My ONLY frustration was, I can never find "pants" in the Bible. Upon close study, "breeches" rather seem to be a priestly undergarment. The most important thing to notice is that where Deut. 22:5 was mentioned, the male's garment was a SKIRT.
Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Deuteronomy 22:30 A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

The Bible nowhere states it was an abomination to God - in fact, Leviticus 11 indicates it was an abomination to the Israelites themselves. We may not completely understand why, but let's not stray from what it actually says. You certainly cannot believe God accepts cross-dressing now.

Find one passage where God stated something was an abomination to Him - and then show where He changed His mind. If He did that anywhere else, then I am wrong in my conclusions and will change them - when shown from the Bible.

Does God now approve of divorce (in the context of Deuteronomy 24:4) and prostituting our daughters - or are these things still abominable? I don't need an NT passage to tell me they are still abominable in His sight.

What about incest and bestiality? Still abominable.

What about pride, rebellion (frowardness in heart), and being a false witness. Still abominable.

What about idolatry and the occult? Still abominable.

Is justifying the wicked and condemning the just still abominable?

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?

Still abominable.

Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.

Still abominable.

There are others - consider these verses:

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

These verses describe types of sins that we are to put away/repent of when we come to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. How do we know what is abominable - unless the Bible clearly tells us. Considering that the word "abomination" is only used a few times in the NT, that means we must also look to the OT to see what offends God and what is an abomination to Him - and that ALSO means those things are still an abomination to Him.

1) It is merely opinion or conjecture that breeches mean underwear - based on the description in the Bible and in Strong's, I fully believe these are referring to pants. Webster's 1828 Dictionary - which was written 200 years ago (therefore a lot closer in time to the KJV) indicates that breeches are pants.

2) Look up the definition of the word skirt as used in the Bible, including here. It means the end of a garment - it is not referring to a skirt, like women wear today. The OT talks about the skirt of Saul's robe, and the skirt of someone's coat - that certainly indicates it is using the word as an adjective, not as an article of apparel.

In other words, the passage above is indicating not to expose or be immoral with your father's wife. Webster's 1828 Dictionary says this on "skirt": To spread the skirt over, in Scripture, to take under one's care and protection.

The "skirt" is referring to his wife - someone who is directly under his care and protection - and is not saying he wore a skirt:

Deuteronomy 27:20 Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Here are more of my personal thoughts on the matter:

I believe the OT was written for our learning, for our admonition, and for our ensamples/examples. The difference between "abomination to God" and "abomination to you" (Israel) is very important.

While I believe Deut. 22:5 basically is against man wearing the woman's garment, or the woman wearing the man's garment, I don't have to go there to teach the NT Christian. Even if I go there, there are no "pants" in Deut 22:5 and that "skirt" pertaineth to the man at that time (Deut. 22:30).

Violating the rule in Deut 22:5 was an "abomination to the Lord thy God", and in the light of Romans 1, the principle (example) is still true. On the issue of dress, I point my church members to 1 Timothy 2 rather than to Deut 22:5. I observed that there is more to dress in 1 Timothy 2 than Deuteronomy 22.

1 Timothy 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

The following words are all related to women clothing, and more, Christian behavior:
1. "holy" (v.8)..."in like manner also" - holy clothing, not unholy clothing with unholy slogans, unholy advetisements, unholy patterns, or unholy cuts (clothing should promote holiness, not unholy or unwholesome thoughts)
2. "modest apparel" (v.9) - I remember looking at one webster's pocket dictionary i had, and "modest" means "shy and humble".
"shy" - that means not "bold" clothing (just like those "bold" stars, who were "bold" enough to show more and more skin and wear less and less clothing)
"humble" - Overdressing or underdressing to "show off" is never right for a Christian woman; pride of life (1 John 2:16), as well as lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes, is the reason behind these fashion shows, beauty contests, and "modeling".
3. "shamefacedness" (v.9) - it goes with "modest", and I believe that women clothe themselves with a "sense of shame"
4. "sobriety" (v.9) - as some young people say, "She's wild" - that's not sobriety; a person may be fully clothed, but looks "wild"; there are "wild" clothing around; Christians should dress "sober".
5. "not...costly" (v.9) - well, that is also what is meant by "modest"; that goes with 1 Tim. 6, "Godliness with contentment"; I don't think it's immodest, even if you're fully clothed, but it's a "costly array".
6. "that which becometh women" (v.10) - I don't have to go to Deut 22:5 to teach that women should wear "that which becometh women", not that which "pertaineth to a man". Some points in the OT law are changed in the NT (ex. Sabbath, pork eating, etc.); some points are retained such as here. So we get our authority on this matter from the NT (especially from Paul, THE apostle of the Gentiles) rather than selected portions of the OT. The OT, however, supplies us with a lot of "ensamples" that amplifies our "learning" for our "admonition".
7. "professing godliness" - clothing should profess godliness and not worldliness or "worldly lusts" (Tit. 2:12); it's unfortunate that some women wear "modest" clothing but profess "pride" rather than "godliness". Some dress may be long enough, but looks like professing that which is not "soberly, righteously, and godly".
8. "with good works" - this is the MOST important clothing. What's inside, goes out. Wearing modest clothing means nothing without "good works" clothing.
9. "silence" (v.11) - this should reflect in clothing, and this is again "modest"
10. "subjection" (v.11) - I believe that most women who follow certain standards of dress have exercised this, while those who disregard all principles of modesty lacks this. Rebellion is the root of problems with clothing on women. Women who "learn subjection" have no problems what is allowed or forbidden of them to wear.
(On this point, I lack the historical facts on women clothing. If anyone can provide me some information, I would appreciate.)

Sometimes, I make statements like this: "Clothing is for the sight of men (people); the heart is for the sight of God." Some argue that God looks on the "heart" and not on "outward appearance"; while others argue that external dress is important to the Lord ("dressing for the Lord"). My answer is, in the sight of God, all things are "naked". I think bodily clothing was made to cover man's shame from the sight of human beings; spiritual clothing (Christ's righteousness) clothes us from spiritual nakedness in the sight of God. Outward dress is a testimony to man; HEART MOTIVES are a testimony to God. So what a person wears outside reflects what's inside; being a blessing and a good example to people is the external reflection of the internal motive to honor God. The rule of thumb on what to wear is adapted from 1 Sam. 16:7: God looks on the HEART, but man looks at the OUTWARD APPEARANCE.

Finally, I believe it's best to ground the church on BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES over man-made rules or standards. The general guidelines above guides me in setting rules and standards for my church; but I find it best to teach them the principle behind every "man-made" rule that I make. If I require a certain dress code for women in church, they find no problem with it. I just see to it that the "weightier matters of the law" prevail over "traditions of men" or my personal convictions. The most important thing is that my church members understand why we chose to follow a certain standard.

To others, this is also merely an opinion. We can run all the references on "skirt" in the Bible and see what the Bible says. It's important that we observe the difference between what the Bible means and what the Bible exactly says. Here are some problems we have to deal with:
1. The Bible says no "pants" and says "skirts".
2. If "skirt" in the OT does not mean the "skirt" of 1828, then "breeches" in the OT is not the "breeches" of 1828.

Context - in the OT, the references to skirt are not to a garment, but to the edge of a garment - even Webster's gives that as one of his definitions - and the context of the OT shows that no man was wearing a skirt (as we see today). If I skirt around a lake (ie. go around the edge of it), am I wearing a skirt? Of course not. If I refer to the edge (skirt) of my jacket, am I wearing a skirt? No. If I say, don't uncover the skirt (edge) of my bed, does that mean I am sleeping in a skirt? No. I showed a parallel passage that shows the skirt in Deuteronomy 22 is referring to his wife, not himself - not uncovering her nakedness (whereas if he was literally wearing a skirt, it would be his nakedness the passage would be concerned with).

That's a good point. "Skirts of his garment" - end of the garment. Thanks for that! (Sincerely)

But still, "skirt" is worn by BOTH male and female. There are men's "skirt" and women's "skirt" in the Bible.
Male
Psalms 133:2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
Female
Lamentations 1:9 Her filthiness is in her skirts; she remembereth not her last end; therefore she came down wonderfully: she had no comforter. O LORD, behold my affliction: for the enemy hath magnified himself.

The following questions come to mind:
1. If "skirt" means end of the garment, do these passages mean men's "end of the garment" and women's "end of the garment"?
2. Since "father's skirt" (in Deut) refers to "wife" and he wore no skirt, does it mean then that since "her skirts" in Lam. 1:9 refers to a nation (and a country wears no "skirt"), therefore, no woman wears any skirt?