Much can be derived from the event in John 19:23 when Christ was crucified and the solider took his clothes.
The tunic (χιτὼν) is an inner garment that people wore, whereas garments (ἱμάτια) refer to the rest of the clothes mostly on top of that.
Before they crucified Him, they covered Him in a purple garment for mockery and Pilate was hoping the crown of thorns and robe mockery were enough that he would let Jesus go.
Jesus was not crucified with the purple garment according to Mark and Matthew, they dressed Him back in his own clothes to crucify Him
The NT and OT (LXX) never use the word χλαμύδα (G5511) outside of Matthew 27, according to Liddel Scott, the word generally refers to a short mantle horsemen use, though it notes generals and even kings wear them (in ancient times sometimes kings would join the march in battle).
Perhaps, the one-piece tunic is Christ's priestly attire (later I show Ephraim takes the garments as representing the clothes of not just king but priest). Evidently, Josephus was not fluent in Hebrew, or there was an error in transmission since the he calls the מְעִיל mi'il a meer, getting the final letter wrong. Perhaps, he heard the word from someone with Rhotacism.
John 19:23's mention of a tunic that is woven maybe an allusion to Exodus 36:35 LXX (v 34 in some)
It appears again in the story of Joseph, who is a type of Christ (envied, betrayed and left for dead, only to 'rise' again):
As can be seen, the verse as cited by John does not use the word for tunic (χιτὼν), but instead uses the same word for garment(s) ἱμάτιά both times.
διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον--Psalm 21:19 LXX (Psalm 22:19 MT)
The Hebrew Masoretic Text however, uses two separate words בְגָדַי and לְבוּשִׁי:
They part my garments (בְגָדַי v'gaday) among them, and for my vesture (לְבוּשִׁי l'vushi) do they cast lots.--Psalm 22:18(19)
יְחַלְּקוּ בְגָדַי לָהֶם; וְעַל-לְבוּשִׁי, יַפִּילוּ גוֹרָל--Psalm 22:19 (Masoretic text)
The word לְבוּשִׁי l'vushi seems to only be used once in the Torah with reference to Judah (possibly royal garments):
Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine;
he washeth his garments (לְבֻשׁוֹ l'vusho) in wine, and his vesture in the blood of
grapes;--Genesis 49:11
If we look a related word lavash לָבַשׁ
And Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the
linen garments (בִּגְדֵי big'dey), which he put on (lavash לָבַשׁ) when he went into the holy place, and
shall leave them there.--Leviticus 16:23
The word lavash לָבַשׁ is used several times in Psalms poetically eg. "Clothed with glory" "Clothed with shame" "clothed with righteousness" etc
Going back to Psalm 22, the word for vesture בְגָדַי v'gaday is used several times in the Torah, in addition to the above referenced Lev 16:23, even for the priests. Here it is used to describe the clothing overall of the priest. The item Josephus refers to as "meer" is mi'il.
And you shall make holy garments (בִגְדֵי) for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty....These are the garments (הַבְּגָדִים ) that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a
robe (וּמְעִיל), a coat (וּכְתֹנֶת) of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy
garments (בִגְדֵי) for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests--Exodus 28:2,4
The LXX reads:
And thou shalt make holy apparel (στολὴν ) for Aaron thy brother, for honour and glory....And these are the garments (στολαί) which they shall make: the breast-plate, and
the shoulder-piece, and the full-length robe (ποδήρη), and the tunic (χιτῶνα) with a
fringe, and the tire, and the girdle; and they shall make holy garments (στολὰς) for Aaron and his sons to minister to me as priests.--Exodus 28:2, 4 (Brenton's LXX translation)
καὶ ποιήσεις στολὴν ἁγίαν Ααρων τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν... καὶ αὗται αἱ στολαί ἃς ποιήσουσιν τὸ περιστήθιον καὶ τὴν ἐπωμίδα καὶ
τὸν ποδήρη καὶ χιτῶνα κοσυμβωτὸν καὶ κίδαριν καὶ ζώνην καὶ ποιήσουσιν
στολὰς ἁγίας Ααρων καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἱερατεύειν μοι--Exodus 28:2, 4 (LXX)
Symbolism of torn veil/tunic
Back to John 19:23, the high priest tore his tunics presumably top to bottom (otherwise would look silly) in outrage and protestation (compare Acts 14:14 where Paul and Barnabas tear their garments in anger), symbolizing the loss of priesthood. The temple veil was itself torn top to bottom, symbolizing the protest/outrage and mourning (eg Genesis 37:34, modern Judaism is called קריעה keri'ah) of the Holy Spirit and the It's departing the temple as It's house and the impending end of the Temple.
..also his tunic (χιτῶνα). But the tunic (χιτὼν) was seamless, woven in one piece from top (ἄνωθεν) to bottom,--John 19:23
And the high priest tore (διαρήξας) his tunics (χιτῶνας) and said, “What further witnesses do we need?--Mark 14:63
And behold, the curtain (καταπέτασμα) of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom (ἄνωθεν). And the earth shook, and the rocks were split.--Matthew 27:51
Symbolic of the end of the Old Testament Levitical priesthood
St Ephraim the Syrian commenting on the priest tearing his tunics states:
"the high priest rent his garments (lit. sinus) and the priesthood fled from him, and left him naked and was spread over our Saviour."--St Ephraim the Syrian, Hymns on the Resurrection
Tying the priest tearing his tunics/robes and the tear of the veil:
The curtain was torn. [This was] to
show that [the Lord] had taken the kingdom away from them and had given
it to others who would bear fruit. An alternative interpretation is: By
the analogy of the torn curtain, the temple would be destroyed because
his Spirit had gone away from it. Since the high priest had wrongfully
torn his robe, the Spirit tore the curtain to proclaim the audacity of
the pride [of the Jews], by means of an action on the level of created
beings. Because [the high priest] had torn his priesthood and had cast
it from him, [the Spirit] also split the curtain apart. Or
[alternatively], just as the temple in which Judas had thrown down the
gold was dissolved and rejected, so too [the Lord] pulled down and rent
asunder the curtain of the door through which [Judas] had entered. Or,
[it was] because they had stripped him of his garments that he rent the
curtain in two. For the heart of the rock was burst asunder, but their
own hearts did not repent.--St Ephraim the Syrian, Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron quoted here
Following in one stream of the Syriac tradition largely dependent on St Ephraim, the Church of the East ("Nestorian") bishop, Ishodad of Merv (in modern day Turkmenistan) writes:
The veil of the temple was rent which was a type that was annulled; first, because it could not bear the suffering of the archetype; second, to shew that the Divine Shekinah had withdrawn from it and the grace of the Holy Spirit--Ishodad of Merv, Commentary on the Diatessaron
St Ephraim says the mockery intended for Christ was reversed and suggests the clothing symbolize that of priests and kings (obviously the soldiers took it as mocking a king):
In the robes of mockery that they gave him, in those He mocked them: for He took the raiment of glory, of priest and kings.--St Ephraim, Nisibene Hymns, Hymn 58
Seamless Weave Top to Bottom
The priest's garment was to be woven in Exodus 36:25 (LXX), as I mentioned elsewhere here. God in the Torah seems to prefer weaving to sowing as in Genesis 3 where man sowed, God weaved a tunic.
St Thomas Aquinas' Golden Chain, derived from several commentators (mostly church fathers) from top to bottom symbolizes the Church:
The garment without seam denotes the body of Christ, which was woven
from above; for the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin, and the power of
the Highest overshadowed her. This holy body of Christ then is
indivisible: for though it be distributed for every one to partake of,
and to sanctify the soul and body of each one individually, yet it
subsists in all wholly and indivisibly. The world consisting of four
elements, the garments of Christ must be understood to represent the
visible creation, which the devils divide amongst themselves, as often
as they deliver to death the word of God which dwells in us, and by
worldly allurements bring us over to their side.--St Thomas Aquinas. Aurea Catena quoting Theophylact, On John 19:23
Theophylact of Ochrid (11th/12th Century Greek bishop) seems to have derived this interpretation from the church father, St Cyril of Alexandria (perhaps earlier):
And it can do no harm also to add, that if any man choose, by way of
speculation, to look upon the coat that was woven from the top
throughout, and seamless, as an illustration of Christ's
holy Body, because It came into being without any connection or
intercourse of man with woman, but woven into its proper shape by the
effective working of the Spirit from above, this view is worthy our
acceptance. For such speculations as do no damage to the elements of the
faith, but are rather fertile of profit, it would surely be ill-advised
for us to reject; nay, we ought rather to commend them, as the fruit of
an excellent disposition of mind.--St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Gospel according to John, Book XII, on John 19:23b
St Augustine said the being woven through symbolizes the oneness and universality of the Church by appealing to the world olos--which itself is part of the word Catholic.
Whence, also, after here saying, "woven from the top," he added, "throughout." And this also, if referred to its meaning, implies that no one is excluded from a share thereof, who is discovered to belong to the whole: from which whole, as the Greek language indicates, the Church derives her name of Catholic.--St Augustine, Tractate 118
St Jerome when addressing the pope, uses the seamless garment to refer to Church unity:
Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, "woven from the top throughout," (John 19:23) since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, (Song of Songs 2:15) and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover "the sealed fountain" and "the garden inclosed," (Song of Songs 4:12) I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ.--St Jerome, Letter 15 (to Pope Damasus)
However, Jesus' top-down woven tunic remained untorn, the lack of tearing perhaps symbolic of Jesus' acceptance of His execution in the same sense as a lamb led to slaughter.
Sheep before the Shearers
St Ephraim the Syrian, in fact, interprets the passage as fulfilling the prophecy of "a sheep before the shearers":
The sheep in its shame strips off its garment and cloak and gives all of it to its shearers, like the lamb who divided His garments for his crucifiers. --St Ephraim the Syrian, Hymn 11
Interestingly, John does not provide the other tearings, perhaps evidence his intent was to fill in the gap of the other Gospel narratives. In addition, Hebrews speaks of Christ's flesh as being a "veil" (Hebrews 10:20).
Represent the Deity of Christ, the human body and the gospel going out
St Ephraim had more to say on the topic of the tunic and garments:
"The tunic which was not rent signifies his divinity, which is neither rent nor divided: and the robe that is divided into four parts signifies the division of his body and is a type of his gospel which [goes] to the four quarters"--St Ephraim's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron
St John Chrysostom says the clothes can represent Christ's simplicity and poverty and his tunic, as St Ephraim said, his Divinity:
The soldiers parted the garments, but not the coat. See the prophecies in every instance fulfilled by their wickednesses; for this also had been predicted of old; yet there were three crucified, but the matters of the prophecies were fulfilled in Him. For why did they not this in the case of the others, but in His case only? Consider too, I pray you, the exactness of the prophecy. For the Prophet says not only, that they "parted," but that they "did not part." The rest therefore they divided, the coat they divided not, but committed the matter to a decision by lot. And the,
"Woven from the top" (John 19:23) is not put without a purpose; but some say that a figurative assertion is declared by it, that the Crucified was not simply man, but had also the
Divinity from above. Others say that the Evangelist describes the very form of the coat. For since in Palestine they put together two strips of cloth and so weave their garments, John, to show that the coat was of this kind, says,
"Woven from the top"; and to me he seems to say this, alluding to the
poorness of the garments, and that as in all other things, so in dress also, He followed a
simple fashion.--St John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St John,
Homily 85
St Thomas Aquinas quoting St John Chrysostom adds:
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor (2 Cor 8:9)--St Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapter 19, Lecture 4
To this it might be asked, why, if Jesus' clothes were so plain and humble did the soldiers cast lots for them? Were they really of little value? Might it symbolize the that the gentiles seek the simplicity of Christ? Or was this an extended part of their mockery? Pretending His cheap clothes were valuable?
St Cyril of Alexandria, in addition, compares the division yet unity to the gospel throughout the world, and the passover lamb,
And if it behoves us also to declare another thought which strikes us with regard to the partition of the garments----a thought which can do no harm, and may possibly do good to those who hear it----I will speak as follows: Their division of the Saviour's garments into four parts, and retention of the coat in its undivided state, is perhaps symbolical of the mysterious providence whereby the four quarters of the world were destined to be saved. For the four quarters of the world divided, as it were, among themselves the garment of the Word, that is, His Body which yet remained indivisible. For though the Only-begotten be cut into small pieces, so far as individual needs are concerned, and sanctify the soul of every man, together with his body, by His Flesh; yet is He, being One, altogether subsistent in the whole Church in indivisible entirety; for, as Saint Paul says, Christ cannot be divided. That such is the meaning of the mystery concerning Him, the Law dimly shadows forth. For the Law represented the taking of a lamb at the fitting time, and the taking, not of one lamb for every man, but of one for every house, according to the number of the household; for every man (if his household were too small) was to join with his neighbour that was next unto his house. And so the command was, that many should have a part in one lamb; but, in order that it might not appear, therefore, to be physically divided, by the flesh being dissevered from the bones, and taken from house to house, the Law laid down the further injunction: In one house shall it be eaten: ye shall not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house. For observe how, as I said just now, the Law took care that many who might be in one household should have a part in one lamb, but most carefully also took great precautions that it should not appear physically divided, but should be found in its completeness and entirety as one in all who partook of it, being, at the same time, divisible and indivisible. We must entertain some such view with regard to Christ's garments, for they were divided into four portions, but the coat remained undivided.--St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Gospel according to John, Book XII, on John 19:23
Putting on Christ
St Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century contrasted with dividing garments after Solomon died, Christ's tunic represents unity and "putting of Christ":
This sacrament of unity, this bond of a concord inseparably cohering, is set forth where in the Gospel the coat of the Lord Jesus Christ is not at all divided nor cut, but is received as an entire garment, and is possessed as an uninjured and undivided robe by those who cast lots concerning Christ's garment, who should rather put on Christ. Holy Scripture speaks, saying, "But of the coat, because it was not sewed, but woven from the top throughout, they said one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots whose it shall be." (John 19:23-24) That coat bore with it an unity that came down from the top, that is, that came from heaven and the Father, which was not to be at all rent by the receiver and the possessor, but without separation we obtain a whole and substantial entireness. He cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ. On the other hand, again, when at Solomon's death his kingdom and people were divided, Abijah the prophet, meeting Jeroboam the king in the field, divided his garment into twelve sections, saying, "Take you ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and I will give ten sceptres unto you; and two sceptres shall be unto him for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen to place my name there." (1 Kings 11:31) As the twelve tribes of Israel were divided, the prophet Abijah rent his garment. But because Christ's people cannot be rent, His robe, woven and united throughout, is not divided by those who possess it; undivided, united, connected, it shows the coherent concord of our people who put on Christ. By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church. --St Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1
Fulfilling the Sermon on the Plain
It is noteworthy, that in the Sermon on the Plain Christ said:
To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one
who takes away your cloak (ἱμάτιον) do not withhold your tunic (χιτῶνα) either.--Luke 6:29
Clearly, Christ fulfilled His own instructions giving away both garment/cloak and tunic.
Symbolic of Kenosis and Theosis
On another level, the stripping of Christ may symbolize the incarnation itself, the kenosis, where taking form of a slave/servant he humbles Himself to death rather than demanding the treatment deserving of the Son of God. The Fathers sometimes spoke of the incarnation as Christ's putting on garments/robes. St Ephraim on the nativity said:
39.The two things You sought, in Your Birth have been done for us.—
Our visible body You have put on; Your invisible might we have put on:—
our body has become Your clothing; Your Spirit has become our robe. / R., Blessed be He Who has been adorned and has adorned us!--St Ephraim the Syrian, Hymns on the Nativity, Hymn 15
If this is applicable, then garments would seem to refer to humanity especially human nature with the body, and the robe is the Spirit, which would be fairly close to the Greek emphasis on theosis, partaking of the divine nature.
Jesus' Garments Heal:
a woman who had suffered from bleeding for twelve years. She had spent all her money on physicians, but no one was able to heal her. She came up behind Jesus and touched the fringe of His cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped.--Luke 8:43-44
And whithersoever he entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they
laid the sick in the streets, and besought him that they might touch if
it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were
made whole.--Mark 6:56
And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind [him], and touched the hem of his garment:--Matthew 9:20
The very garments that the soldiers divided among themselves healed people, and per Jewish law, the garments fringes are symbolic of God's laws (Numbers 15:38) which Jesus's fulfilled and observed. Later, in Acts the Apostles' (Acts 19:12) garments were sought for healing, too.
Ezekiel 44: Garments transmit Holiness
They are to wear...linen undergarments around their waists. .... When
they go out into the outer court where the people are, they are to take
off the clothes (בִּגְדֵיהֶם ) they have been ministering in and are to leave them in
the sacred rooms, and put on other clothes (בְּגָדִים), so that the people are not
consecrated through contact with their garments (בְּבִגְדֵיהֶם).--Ezekiel 44:19-20
Note Ezekiel 44 was understood as messianic by some Church Fathers. Ezekiel 44:2 for instance is taken to be about the incarnation and the virgin birth.
The priest's clothes themselves are sacred and are not to be for the common people according to this verse since it will cause the laity to become consecrated. Perhaps, the soldiers taking the garments of Christ symbolize Christ dedicating to God even the gentiles. Perhaps, Christ wearing the military cloak symbolizes the future conquest of Christ over the Roman Empire with the conversion of Emperor Constantine the Great.
Jesus' Coat and Joseph's Coat
Others have pointed out the similarities between Joseph being betrayed and almost killed by his brothers only to later save them and the whole "world" from famine, and Christ saving man by His suffering.
John 19:23 describes Christ as wearing garments (ἱμάτια) and a tunic (χιτὼν). The Septuagint of Genesis 37:23 describes Joseph's coat as χιτῶνα (though the Masoretic uses כתנתו )
And it came to pass, when Joseph came to his brethren, that they stripped Joseph of his many-coloured coat (χιτῶνα) that was upon him.--Genesis 37:23 Brenton Translation of LXX
ἐγένετο δὲ ἡνίκα ἦλθεν Ιωσηφ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐξέδυσαν τὸν Ιωσηφ τὸν χιτῶνα τὸν ποικίλον τὸν περὶ αὐτὸν--Genesis 37:23 LXX
Like Jesus, Joseph was betrayed by his own people, had his persecutors strip him and take his χιτὼν (coat/tunic), brother Joseph and Jesus were betrayed for money, later to be revealed as saviors. Joseph's coat was dipped in blood of a goat, while Christ's was covered in his own blood. Both instances are examples of God using for good what men intended for evil.
Also, interesting is the fact that Psalm 22 uses the metaphor of being attacked by animals to describe Christ's passion, Genesis 37:33 the father assume Joseph was killed by wild animals.
Seamless Garment and the sown garments of Adam and Eve in Eden
The garment is described in John 19 as
.....But the tunic was seamless (ἄραφος), woven in one piece from top to bottom,--John 19:23
ἦν δὲ ὁ χιτὼν ἄραφος, ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν ὑφαντὸς δι' ὅλου·--John 19:23 Greek
The word ἄραφος arafos is only used once in the NT and LXX, however, literally it means non-sown, the word sow ῥάπτω (G4476) is used 3 times in the NT all referring to the "eye of the needle." The LXX the word sow in various forms several times, most notably by Genesis 3:7
And the eyes of both were opened, and they perceived that they were
naked, and they sewed (ἔρραψαν) fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons to
go round them.--Genesis 3:7 Brenton translation of LXX
καὶ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῶν δύο καὶ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι γυμνοὶ ἦσαν καὶ ἔρραψαν φύλλα συκῆς καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς περιζώματα
Out of shame, Adam and Eve sew themselves aprons (or loincloths) to hide their naked bodies, later to be given tunic skins by God instead.
καὶ ἐποίησεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ Αδαμ καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ χιτῶνας δερματίνους καὶ ἐνέδυσεν αὐτούς --Genesis 3:21 LXX
And the Lord God made leather tunics (χιτῶνας) for Adam and for his wife and clothed them.--Genesis 3:21 LXX
This is contrasted with Christ with an unsown tunic (underwear) that he was stripped of and made naked.
John's emphasis on "seamless" might be another one of the many oblique references to Eden by John and other gospel writers.
Other allusions in John might include: The swords of the cherub and the solider, the trees in the garden and the trees on Golgotha (crosses) that caused both death and eternal life, Adam is cursed to work among thorns, Christ wear a crown of thorns. The bride of Adam comes from his side, just as the Christ came forth from the side of Christ on the Cross. Both address a mother as "woman" the first being Eve the second Mary. Both Adam and Christ "sleep." The gospels at the mention of Christ's death mention the torn temple veil and the priests torn garment, the Temple itself like the Garden was the meeting place of heaven and earth, even more so Christ's body (Christ Himself calls His body the temple in John 2), Adam functioned as a gardener and priest before being banished from His temple, the gospels even have Jesus visiting a garden the eve of His death and speaking of the "fruit of the vine." Then again when he is buried it's in a nearby garden tomb. St Ephraim says the temple was enraged at the actions done to its archetype. The new Adam was crucified on the 6th day, the first Adam was created on the 6th day. Adam was cursed to make bread, Christ in a blessing made Himself bread.
The minor detail to show prophecy fulfilled, and this written to show ruthlessness of execution
The soldiers, then, divided our Saviour's garments among themselves, and this is indicative of their brutal ferocity and inhuman disposition. For it is the custom of executioners to be unmoved by the misery of condemned criminals, and to obey orders sometimes with unnecessary harshness, and to show a masculine indifference to the fate of the sufferers, and to divide their garments among themselves, as though the lot fell upon them by some sufficient and lawful reason. They divided, then, the dissevered garments into four portions, but kept the one coat whole and uncut. For they did not choose to tear it in pieces, and make it altogether useless, and so they decided it by casting lots. For Christ could not lie, Who thus spake by the voice of the Psalmist: They divided My raiment among them, and upon My vesture did they cast lots. All these things were foretold for our profit, that we might know, by comparing the prophecies with the events, what He is of Whom it was foretold that He should come for our sake in our likeness, and of Whom it was expected that He should die for the salvation of all men. For no man of sense can suppose that the Saviour Himself, like the foolish Jews, would strain out the gnat, that is, foretell a trifling detail concerning His sufferings, as in this mention of the partition of His raiment, and, as it were, swallow the camel, that is, think of no account the great lengths to which the impious presumption of the Jews carried them. Rather, when He foretold these details, He foretold also the great event itself; firstly, in order that we might know that, as He was by Nature God, He had perfect knowledge of the future; secondly, also, that we might believe that He was in fact the Messiah of prophecy, being led to the knowledge of the truth by the many and great things fulfilled in Him.--St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Gospel according to John, Book XII, on John 19:23
