Garments and Tunic John 19:23 commentary

An attempt at an exhaustive commentary of John 19:23

Much can be derived from the event in John 19:23 when Christ was crucified and the solider took his clothes. 

When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments (ἱμάτια) and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic (χιτῶνα). But the tunic (χιτὼν) was seamless (ἄραφος), woven (ὑφαντὸς) in one piece from top (ἄνωθεν) to bottom,--John 19:23

οἱ οὖν στρατιῶται ὅτε ἐσταύρωσαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἔλαβον τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐποίησαν τέσσαρα μέρη, ἑκάστῳ στρατιώτῃ μέρος, καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα. ἦν δὲ ὁ χιτὼν ἄραφος, ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν ὑφαντὸς δι' ὅλου·--John 19:23 Greek major texts (only variant is the spelling of  arafos)

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.

And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple robe.--John 19:2

Jesus was not crucified with the purple garment according to Mark and Matthew, they dressed Him back in his own clothes to crucify Him

And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple (πορφύραν) cloak and put his own clothes (ἱμάτια) on him. And they led him out to crucify him.--Mark 15:20

Matthew's account describes a scarlet mantle:

And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet (κοκκίνην) robe (χλαμύδα).--Matthew 27:27

καὶ ἐκδύσαντες αὐτὸν χλαμύδα κοκκίνην περιέθηκαν αὐτῶ,--Matthew 27:28

Purple with scarlet, by the way, are some of the priestly colors:

And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple (πορφύραν), and scarlet (κόκκινον), and fine linen.--Exodus 28:5 

The differences in color was discussed in my article on John 19:2. 

Its noteworthy that some rabbinical sources speak of/interpret Lamentations 2:17 as saying God tore His purple garment:

They said further: This royal garment wherewith they clothed Thee, why keep it upon Thee?  Whereupon—if the fact were not set down in Scripture, no one would dare say it—The Lord hath done that which He devised. He rent His purple’? (Lam. 2:17).-Pesikta Rabbati 27/28 (some editions 27:5-6, or verse 2). translation:  Pesikta Rabbati (the Second of two volumes), William G. Braude, p 549

האמירה הזו שהלבישו אותך מה היא עושה עליך אלולי שהדבר כתוב אי אפשר לאומרו עשה ה' אשר זמם בצע אמרתו וגו' (שם שם י"ז) 

The editor's note states: 

12. JV: He Hath performed His word. But the word bs may be taken to mean "performed" or "rent"; and the word 'mrh may be taken to mean "word" or "purple." Cf. Lam. Rabbah I:I

This is why some translations say “He has carried out His word…” as its generally translated in Lamentation 2:17. The meaning of purple is somewhat forced since it lacks the letter gimmel.

The Hebrew word purple is: אַרְגָּמָן

The text quoted uses  אמרתו   instead. 

Lamentations Rabbah cited in the note states:

Rabbi Berekhya [said] in the name of Rabbi Avdimai of Haifa: [This is analogous] to a king who had a son. When he would perform his father’s will, [the king] would clothe him in fine silk, and when he would not perform his will, he would clothe him in the garments of an olive-press worker [badad]. So too Israel, as long as they would perform the will of the Holy One blessed be He, it is written: “I clothed you in embroidery” (Ezekiel 16:10). Rabbi Sima said: Purple garments. Onkelos translated: Embroidered garments. But when they do not perform the will of the Holy One blessed be He, He clothes them in the garments of olive-press workers....... 

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: The Holy One blessed be He summoned the ministering angels and said to them: ‘A flesh and blood king, when a relative of his dies and he mourns, what does he typically do?’...

‘A flesh and blood king, what does he typically do?’ ‘He rends his purple garments.’ ‘That is what I will do,’ as it is stated: “The Lord accomplished what He devised; He implemented [bitza] His statement [emrato]” (Lamentations 2:17). Rabbi Yaakov of Kefar Ḥanan explained it: What is bitza emrato? It is that He rent His purple garments. ‘A flesh and blood king, what does he typically do?’ ‘He sits in silence.’ ‘That is what I will do,’ as it is stated: “Let him sit alone and be silent” (Lamentations 3:28).--Lamentations Rabbah 1:1, Sefaria

רַבִּי אַבְדִּימֵי דְּמִן חֵיפָה, לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן, בִּזְּמַן שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו, הָיָה מַלְבִּישׁוֹ בִּגְדֵי מִילָתִין, וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה רְצוֹנוֹ, מַלְבִּישׁוֹ בִּגְדֵי בָּדָד. כָּךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, כְּתִיב (יחזקאל טז, י): וָאַלְבִּשֵׁךְ רִקְמָה, רַבִּי סִימָא אָמַר פּוּרְפִּירָא תִּרְגֵּם אוּנְקְלוּס אַפְקַלְטוֹרִין פְּלִיקְטָא. וּבִזְּמַן שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, מַלְבִּישָׁן בִּגְדֵי בְּדָדִין, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב: אֵיכָה יָשְׁבָה בָדָד... 

 אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, קָרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת, אָמַר לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם כְּשֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת וְהוּא מִתְאַבֵּל, מַה דַּרְכּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת...

מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם מַה דַּרְכּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת, מְבַזֵּעַ פּוּרְפִּירָא שֶׁלּוֹ. כָּךְ אֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה, דִּכְתִיב (איכה ב, יז): עָשָׂה ה' אֲשֶׁר זָמָם בִּצַּע אֶמְרָתוֹ. רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב דִּכְפַר חָנָן מְפָרֵשׁ לֵיהּ מַהוּ בִּצַּע אֶמְרָתוֹ, מְבַזַּע פּוּרְפִּירָא שֶׁלּוֹ. --Lamentations Rabba 1:1

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).

Josephus commenting on the High Priest's tunic/robe says:

4. The high priest is indeed adorned with the same garments that we have described, without abating one; only over these he puts on a vestment (χιτῶνα)  of a blue color. This also is a long robe, reaching to his feet (ποδήρης), [in our language it is called .Meeir,] and is tied round with a girdle, embroidered with the same colors and flowers as the former, with a mixture of gold interwoven. To the bottom of which garment are hung fringes, in color like pomegranates, with golden bells by a curious and beautiful contrivance; so that between two bells hangs a pomegranate, and between two pomegranates a bell. Now this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides, but it was one long vestment so woven as to have an aperture for the neck; not an oblique one, but parted all along the breast and the back. A border also was sewed to it, lest the aperture should look too indecently: it was also parted where the hands were to come out. --Antiquities of the Jews - Book III:7:4, Josephus

Ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς κοσμεῖται μὲν καὶ ταύτῃ παραλιπὼν οὐδὲν τῶν προειρημένων, ἐπενδυσάμενος δ᾽ ἐξ ὑακίνθου πεποιημένον χιτῶνα, ποδήρης δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ οὗτος, μεεὶρ καλεῖται κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν γλῶσσαν, ζώνῃ περισφίγγεται βάμμασιν οἷς ἡ πρότερον ἤνθει διαπεποικιλμένῃ χρυσοῦ συνυφασμένου: [160] κατὰ πέζαν δ᾽ αὐτῷ προσερραμμένοι θύσανοι ῥοῶν τρόπον ἐκ βαφῆς μεμιμημένοι ἀπήρτηντο καὶ κώδωνες χρύσεοι κατὰ πολλὴν ἐπιτήδευσιν τῆς εὐπρεπείας, ὥστε μέσον ἀπολαμβάνεσθαι δυοῖν τε κωδώνοιν ῥοΐσκον, καὶ ῥοῶν κωδώνιον. [161] ἔστι δ᾽ ὁ χιτὼν οὗτος οὐκ ἐκ δυοῖν περιτμημάτων, ὥστε ῥαπτὸς ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων εἶναι καὶ τῶν παρὰ πλευράν, φάρσος δ᾽ ἓν ἐπίμηκες ὑφασμένον σχιστὸν ἔχει βροχωτῆρα πλάγιον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ μῆκος ἐρρωγότα πρός τε τὸ στέρνον καὶ μέσον τὸ μετάφρενον: πέζα δ᾽ αὐτῷ προσέρραπται ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ διελέγχεσθαι τῆς τομῆς τὴν δυσπρέπειαν: ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὅθεν αἱ χεῖρες διείργονται σχιστός ἐστιν.  

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)

καὶ ἐποίησαν χιτῶνας βυσσίνους ἔργον ὑφαντὸν Ααρων καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτοῦ--Exodus 36:35 LXX

And they made linen tunics (χιτῶνας ), a woven (ὑφαντὸν) work, for Aaron and his sons --Exodus 36:35 LXX

 As you can see just like John 19:23, Exodus 36:35 LXX mentions both tunic--χιτῶνας and woven--ὑφαντὸν.

The Hebrew Masoretic Text of this verse (which is found in chapter 39!) reads:

 וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת-הַכָּתְנֹת שֵׁשׁ, מַעֲשֵׂה אֹרֵג, לְאַהֲרֹן, וּלְבָנָיו-- Exodus 39:27 Masoretic Text

And they made the tunics (ha-katnot הַכָּתְנֹת ) of fine linen of woven (oreg--אֹרֵג) work for Aaron, and for his sons-- Exodus 39:27

As you see the Greek LXX uses χιτῶνας kitonas, the Hebrew uses כָּתְנֹת kat'not. Many argue the χιτῶνας is a loanword from Semitic languages either Assyrian/Akkadian/Hebrew:

Together with Mycenaean Greek 𐀑𐀵 (ki-to) and likely Latin tunica from some Central Semitic *kittān, as found in Aramaic כִּיתּוּנָא‎ (kittōnā, “tunic”) / ܟܝܬܘܢܐ‎ (kittōnā, “tunic”), Hebrew כֻּתֹּנֶת‎ (kuttṓnĕṯ, “tunic”), which is derived from the local word for flax, found as Aramaic כּיתָּנָא‎ (kittānā, “flax”) / ܟܬܢܐ‎ (kettānā, “flax”), Akkadian 𒃰 (GADA /⁠kitû⁠/, “flax”), Sumerian 𒃰 (gada, “flax”).--Wiktionary, χιτών

 Tunics--Katnot, is first mentioned also in Eden:

 וַיַּעַשׂ יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ, כָּתְנוֹת עוֹר--וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם--Genesis 3:21 Masoretic Text

And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments (כָּתְנוֹת) of skins, and clothed them (וַיַּלְבִּשֵׁם)--Genesis 3:21

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 

It appears again in the story of Joseph, who is a type of Christ (envied, betrayed and left for dead, only to 'rise' again):

 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he [was] the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of [many] colours.--Genesis 37:3 KJV

This translation is likely wrong about "many colors":

And Israel has loved Joseph more than any of his sons, for he [is] a son of his old age, and has made for him a long coat [כְּתֹנֶת];--Genesis 37:3 Literal Standard Version 

 וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אָהַב אֶת-יוֹסֵף מִכָּל-בָּנָיו--כִּי-בֶן-זְקֻנִים הוּא, לוֹ; וְעָשָׂה לוֹ, כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים.--Genesis 37:3 MT

The LXX reads:

Ιακωβ δὲ ἠγάπα τὸν Ιωσηφ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ ὅτι υἱὸς γήρους ἦν αὐτῷ ἐποίησεν δὲ αὐτῷ χιτῶνα ποικίλον --Genesis 37:3 LXX

Now Iakob loved Ioseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of old age to him, and he made him a variegated tunic [χιτῶνα kitona]. --Genesis 37:3 NETS (translation of LXX)

John 19:24 states the prior verse fulfills the prophecy

so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments (ἱμάτιά) among them, and for my clothing (ἱματισμόν) they cast lots.”--John 19:24

διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον --John 19:24 (quoting LXX of Psalm 22:18)

 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.

Old Testament References and words used

John quotes the Psalms in the LXX word-for-word:

They divide my garments (ἱμάτιά) among them and cast lots for my clothing (ἱματισμόν).--Psalm 22:18

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, Job 1:20-- 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

When David mourned he tore his garments:

While they were on their way, the report came to David: “Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons; not one of them is left.” Then the king arose, and rent (וַיִּקְרַע, vayyikra') his garments, and lay on the earth; and all his servants stood by with their clothes rent.--2 Samuel 13:30-31

וַיְהִי, הֵמָּה בַדֶּרֶךְ, וְהַשְּׁמֻעָה בָאָה, אֶל-דָּוִד לֵאמֹר:  הִכָּה אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶת-כָּל-בְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְלֹא-נוֹתַר מֵהֶם אֶחָד.  וַיָּקָם הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת-בְּגָדָיו, וַיִּשְׁכַּב אָרְצָה; וְכָל-עֲבָדָיו נִצָּבִים, קְרֻעֵי בְגָדִים. -- 2Samuel 13:30-31

The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his attendants stood by with their clothes torn. 

The Jewish Talmud states:

The Gemara challenges: But if one was standing there at the time of the soul’s departure, i.e., at the time of death, he is also obligated to rend his clothes. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who stands over the deceased at the time of the soul’s departure is obligated to rend his clothes. To what may this be likened? To a Torah scroll that is burned, for which anyone present is obligated to rend his clothes. --Moed Katan 25a

אִי דְּקָאֵי הָתָם בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאַת נְשָׁמָה חַיּוֹבֵי מִיחַיַּיב! דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הָעוֹמֵד עַל הַמֵּת בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאַת נְשָׁמָה — חַיָּיב לִקְרוֹעַ. לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה — לְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׂרַף, שֶׁחַיָּיב לִקְרוֹעַ!--Moed Katan 25a

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

In addition, according to the medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides, a Jew is required to ripe their clothes when they hear blasphemy which explains why the High Priest tore his robes!

What is the source which teaches that one is obligated to rend his garments when hearing the blasphemy of God's name? II Kings 18:37 states: "And Elyakim ben Chilkiyah who oversaw the palace, Shevna the scribe, and Yoach ben Asaf the secretary, came to Chizkiyahu with rent garments." Just as one who hears the blasphemy itself must rend his garments; so, too, one who hears the report of the blasphemy from the listeners must rend his garments. --Mishneh Torah, Laws for the Mourning 9, Maimonides

 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

Muhammed's friend looked like Jibril

The Islamic prophet Muhammed in the hadith would occasionally claim a certain entity looked just like something earthly, take form of something earthly, or that something earthly was a devil.

Muhammed stated Gabriel sometimes came in form of a man he knew,

"Al-Harith bin Hisham asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): 'How does the Revelation come to you?' He said: 'Like the ringing of a bell, and when it departs I remember what he (the Angel) said, and this is the hardest on me. And sometimes he (the Angel) comes to me in the form of a man and gives it to me.'"--Sunan an-Nasa'i 933

As a side note, Muhammed also said Satan also appears as a familiar man to deceive people:

Abū Sa’īd al-Ashajj narrated to me, Wakī’ narrated to us, al-A’mash narrated to us, on authority of al-Musayyab bin Rāfi’, on authority of Āmir bin Abdah, he said, Abd Allah [bin Mas’ūd] said:‘Indeed Satan will appear in the form of a man and he will come to the people, narrating to them false Ḥadīth, and they will then depart. Then a man among them will say: ‘I heard a man whose face I recognize but I do not know his name narrating [such and such]…’--Sahih Muslim Introduction 17

Perhaps, Satan taking form of a man claiming to be Gabriel has a role in the Satanic verses Muhammed received. Ironically, Muhammed said the devil cannot take form of Muhammed.

Muhammed had a male friend named Dihyah. Muhammed said the angel Gabriel (Jibril) would sometimes appear in the form of Dihyah.

Narrated Abu Uthman: I got the news that Gabriel came to the Prophet while Um Salama was present. Gabriel started talking (to the Prophet and then left. The Prophet said to Um Salama, "(Do you know) who it was?" (or a similar question). She said, "It was Dihya (a handsome person amongst the companions of the Prophet )." Later on Um Salama said, "By Allah! I thought he was none but Dihya, till I heard the Prophet talking about Gabriel in his sermon." (The Sub-narrator asked Abu 'Uthman, "From where have you heard this narration?" He replied, "From Usama bin Zaid.") --Sahih al-Bukhari 3634

حَدَّثَنِي عَبَّاسُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ النَّرْسِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا مُعْتَمِرٌ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عُثْمَانَ، قَالَ أُنْبِئْتُ أَنَّ جِبْرِيلَ ـ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ ـ أَتَى النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَعِنْدَهُ أُمُّ سَلَمَةَ، فَجَعَلَ يُحَدِّثُ ثُمَّ قَامَ، فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لأُمِّ سَلَمَةَ ‏ "‏ مَنْ هَذَا ‏"‏‏.‏ أَوْ كَمَا قَالَ‏.‏ قَالَ قَالَتْ هَذَا دِحْيَةُ‏.‏ قَالَتْ أُمُّ سَلَمَةَ ايْمُ اللَّهِ مَا حَسِبْتُهُ إِلاَّ إِيَّاهُ حَتَّى سَمِعْتُ خُطْبَةَ نَبِيِّ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُخْبِرُ جِبْرِيلَ أَوْ كَمَا قَالَ‏.‏ قَالَ فَقُلْتُ لأَبِي عُثْمَانَ مِمَّنْ سَمِعْتَ هَذَا قَالَ مِنْ أُسَامَةَ بْنِ زَيْدٍ‏.‏ 

again,

 It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: There appeared before me the apostles, and Moses was among men as if he was one of the people of Shanu'a, and I saw Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) and I saw nearest in resemblance with him was 'Urwa b. Mas'ud, and I saw Ibrahim (blessings of Allah be upon him) and I see your companions much in resemblance with him, i. e. his personality, and I saw Gabriel (peace be upon him) and I saw Dihya nearest in resemblance to him; but in the narration of Ibn Rumh it is Dihya b. Khalifa.--Sahih Muslim 167

حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا لَيْثٌ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رُمْحٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ أَبِي الزُّبَيْرِ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ عُرِضَ عَلَىَّ الأَنْبِيَاءُ فَإِذَا مُوسَى ضَرْبٌ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ كَأَنَّهُ مِنْ رِجَالِ شَنُوءَةَ وَرَأَيْتُ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ - عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ - فَإِذَا أَقْرَبُ مَنْ رَأَيْتُ بِهِ شَبَهًا عُرْوَةُ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ وَرَأَيْتُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ صَلَوَاتُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ فَإِذَا أَقْرَبُ مَنْ رَأَيْتُ بِهِ شَبَهًا صَاحِبُكُمْ - يَعْنِي نَفْسَهُ - وَرَأَيْتُ جِبْرِيلَ - عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ - فَإِذَا أَقْرَبُ مَنْ رَأَيْتُ بِهِ شَبَهًا دِحْيَةُ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَفِي رِوَايَةِ ابْنِ رُمْحٍ ‏"‏ دِحْيَةُ بْنُ خَلِيفَةَ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ 

Fascinating that Muhammed even claims to know what Jesus looked like! Continuing on, the account of Gabriel appearing as Diyah appears also in:

Salman reported: In case it lies in your power don't be one to enter the bazar first and the last to get out of that because there is a bustle and the standard of Satan is set there. He said: I was informed that Gabriel (Allah be pleased with him) came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and there was with him Umin Salama and he began to talk with him. He then stood up, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to Umm Salama: (Do you know) who was he and what did he say? She said: He was Dihya (Kalbi). He reported Umm Salama having said: By Allah, I did not deem him but only he (Dihya) until I heard the address of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) informing him about us. He (the narrator) said: I said to Uthman: From whom did you hear it? He said: From Usima b. Zaid.--Sahih Muslim 2451

حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ الأَعْلَى بْنُ حَمَّادٍ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الأَعْلَى الْقَيْسِيُّ، كِلاَهُمَا عَنِ الْمُعْتَمِرِ، - قَالَ ابْنُ حَمَّادٍ حَدَّثَنَا مُعْتَمِرُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، - قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عُثْمَانَ، عَنْ سَلْمَانَ، قَالَ لاَ تَكُونَنَّ إِنِ اسْتَطَعْتَ أَوَّلَ مَنْ يَدْخُلُ السُّوقَ وَلاَ آخِرَ مَنْ يَخْرُجُ مِنْهَا فَإِنَّهَا مَعْرَكَةُ الشَّيْطَانِ وَبِهَا يَنْصِبُ رَايَتَهُ ‏.‏ قَالَ وَأُنْبِئْتُ أَنَّ جِبْرِيلَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ أَتَى نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَعِنْدَهُ أُمُّ سَلَمَةَ - قَالَ - فَجَعَلَ يَتَحَدَّثُ ثُمَّ قَامَ فَقَالَ نَبِيُّ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم لأُمِّ سَلَمَةَ ‏ "‏ مَنْ هَذَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ أَوْ كَمَا قَالَ قَالَتْ هَذَا دِحْيَةُ - قَالَ - فَقَالَتْ أُمُّ سَلَمَةَ ايْمُ اللَّهِ مَا حَسِبْتُهُ إِلاَّ إِيَّاهُ حَتَّى سَمِعْتُ خُطْبَةَ نَبِيِّ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يُخْبِرُ خَبَرَنَا أَوْ كَمَا قَالَ قَالَ فَقُلْتُ لأَبِي عُثْمَانَ مِمَّنْ سَمِعْتَ هَذَا قَالَ مِنْ أُسَامَةَ بْنِ زَيْدٍ ‏.‏ 

As noted above, Muhammed also claimed Jesus looked like  'Urwa b. Mas'ud. Muhammed is likely trolling his followers, trying to see how gullible they are, or perhaps he is trying to claim knowledge only a prophet can possibly know. It was probably nonesense like this that Nabtal repeated to Muhammed's mockers.

Granted, angels can take any form the want, ir is nonetheless very convenient that Gabriel just happens to take the form of a man everyone knows. Telling people that Jibril looks like someone familiar is to help convince people Muhammad is not making things up. By waiting for Dihya to leave then tell his wife that was Jibril not Dihya is to convince people that others have seen Jibril, too, and that Muhammed definitely cannot make it up because now there is a witness, rather than the witness being able to talk to Jibril, he makes her an unknowing witness, preventing any investigation. 

Concerning Muhammed saying black dogs are devils:

It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Samit from Abu Dharr, that the Prophet (ﷺ) said:“The prayer is severed by a woman, a donkey, and a black dog, if there is not something like the handle of a saddle in front of a man.” I (‘Abdullah) said: “What is wrong with a black dog and not a red one?” He (Abu Dharr) said: ‘I asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) the same question, and he said: “The black dog is a Shaitan (satan).”--Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 952

Hafs reported that the Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) as saying, and the other version of this tradition transmitted through a different chain has:Abu Dharr said (and not the Prophet): If there is not anything like the back of a saddle in front of a man who is praying, then a donkey, a black dog, and a woman cut off his prayer. I asked him: Why has the black dog been specified, distinguishing it from a red, a yellow and a white dog? He replied: My nephew, I also asked the Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) the same question as you asked me. He said: The black dog is a devil.--Sunan Abi Dawud 702

 Concerning Muhammed saying a black man looked like Satan himself:

From B. Dubay'a b. Zayd b. Malik b 'Auf b. 'Amr b. 'Auf: Bijad b. 'Uthman b. 'Amir.  From B. Laudhan b. 'Amr b. 'Auf: Nabtal b. al-Harith. "I have heard that it was of him that the apostle said, "Whoever wants to see Satan let him take a look at Nabtal b. al-Harith!"  He was a sturdy black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks.  He used to come and talk to the apostle and listen to him and then carry what he had said to the hypocrites.  It was he who said:  "Muhammad is all ears:  if anyone tells him anything he believes it."  God sent down concerning him:  "And of them are those who annoy the prophet and say he is all ears, Say:  Good ears for you.  He believes in God and trusts the believers and is a mercy for those of you who believe; and those who annoy the apostle of God for them there is a painful punishment."  (Sura 9:61)--Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Translated by A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, (Re-issued in Karachi, Pakistan, 1967, 13th impression, 1998) 1955, p. 243. [emphasis mine]

Muhammed did not just stop at claiming what Gabriel, Jesus, Satan, demons looked like, he also said he knows what the Quran will take form as--an old man:

It was narrated from Ibn Buraidah that his father told that the Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) said: "The Quran will come on the Day of Resurrection, like a pale man, and will say: 'I am the one that kept you awake at night and made you thirsty during the day."--Sunan Ibn Majah 3781 (rated Hassan)

As mentioned before, Muhammed claimed to know elements of God's appearance, for instance Allah has two right hands (which is absurd):

The Prophet [SAW] said: "Those who are just and fair will be with Allah, Most High, on thrones of light, at the right hand of the Most Merciful, those who are just in their rulings and in their dealings with their families and those of whom they are in charge." Muhammad (one of the narrators) said in his Hadith: "And both of His hands are right hands."--Sunan an-Nasa'i 5379, Book 49, Hadith 1

أَخْبَرَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو، ح وَأَنْبَأَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ آدَمَ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنِ ابْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ دِينَارٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَوْسٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ إِنَّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى عَلَى مَنَابِرَ مِنْ نُورٍ عَلَى يَمِينِ الرَّحْمَنِ الَّذِينَ يَعْدِلُونَ فِي حُكْمِهِمْ وَأَهْلِيهِمْ وَمَا وَلُوا‏"‏‏.‏ قَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ فِي حَدِيثِهِ ‏"‏ وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ ‏"‏‏.‏

Evidence the SDA teaches Jesus is Michael

Some who are Seventh Day Adventist, sympathetic, or just uneducated about them believe they do not officially teach that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. [As I mentioned several times before Jesus=Michael was a common Protestant doctrine among Calvinists and some Baptists until the 19th century] In a sense, this is true since their official website will you see very little about the Archangel being Jesus. I did find this:

Even before time on Earth began, the universe was engaged in a terrible conflict. John, the last living disciple of Jesus, described this conflict from what he saw in a vision while a prisoner on the island of Patmos. "There was war in heaven," he said. "Michael [another name for Jesus] and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan], and the dragon and his angels fought back" (Revelation 12:7).--A Lesson from History, Rodney Woods  [emphasis mine]

This is only a reference in passing. For more definitive proof the SDA states White is a prophet and her interpretation of the Bible is to be used since it was inspired by God. We see their official statement on Methods of Bible Study under Methods of Bible study 4.l says:

l.          Seventh-day Adventists believe that God inspired Ellen G. White. Therefore, her expositions on any given Bible passage offer an inspired guide to the meaning of texts without exhausting their meaning or preempting the task of exegesis (for example, see Evangelism, 256; The Great Controversy, 193, 595;Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 665, 682, 707-708; Counsels to Writers and Editors, 33-35). --Methods of Bible Study: Bible Study: Presuppositions, Principles, and Methods, 4.l (Methods of Bible Study) [Official statement]

The preamble of this statement says:

This statement is addressed to all members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church with the purpose of providing guidelines on how to study the Bible, both the trained biblical scholar and others. --Methods of Bible Study, 1. Preamble

Also, at the bottom of the statement on the webpage says:

This statement was approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council Session in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 12, 1986

Their official Church Manual under their 28 Fundamentals also states about Ellen White:

"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)."--Chapter 14: Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventists, 18. The Gift of Prophecy, page 162. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, Revised 2010. 18th edition. [pdf] [A smaller PDF of the relevant fundamental beliefs are found here]

The Adventists state this statement was lead by the Holy Spirit, but admit the Spirit might later cause them to better express their beliefs:

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word."--Chapter 14: Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventists, page 156. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, Revised 2010. 18th edition. [pdf] [A smaller PDF of the relevant fundamental beliefs are found here]

So, its plainly clear that Seventh-Day Adventists must believe in the divine inspiration of Ellen G White's writings. (Interestingly. despite the SDA often saying the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, here they seem to make a church structure like the Catholic with Ellen White being the equivalent to the Pope, and the General Conference being equal to Ecumenical Councils,) Here is what the "prophetess" White says about Michael the Archangel [all writings are on an SDA website], remember according to the SDA her writings are "inspired" by God according to them:

The words of the angel, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,” show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, “There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.” Daniel 10:21. --The Desire of Ages, page 99 (1898) Ellen G White

Again: Christ is called the Word of God. John 1:1-3. He is so called because God gave His revelations to man in all ages through Christ. It was His Spirit that inspired the prophets. 1 Peter 1:10, 11. He was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord’s host, Michael the Archangel.--Patriarchs and Prophets, Page 761. (1890) Ellen G White

Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, “The Lord rebuke thee.”--Early Writings, Page 164, Ellen G White [statement also found in The Story of Redemption, Page 206]

Michael, or Christ, with the angels that buried Moses, came down from heaven,--The Truth About Angels, Page 104, Ellen G White

 We see that since the Seventh-Day Adventists regard Ellen G White as a prophet with her writings inspired and "authoritative truth," and those writings teach Jesus is Michael, that logically this would make official Adventists doctrine to be Jesus is Michael.

Ibn Kathir's fake history of Constantine

The following is based on the writings of the Sunni Muslim "historian" and Quran commentator Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Surah 3:55, found on google books volume 2, page 171 and on, and also on the Qtafsir website  The Tafsir Ibn Kathir will be in black, my words in blue.

And I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve, till the Day of Resurrection

This is what happened. When Allah raised `Isa to heaven, his followers divided into sects and groups. Some of them believed in what Allah sent `Isa as, a servant of Allah, His Messenger, and the son of His female-servant.

The vast majority believed in this, only gnostics might object to the identification of him as "the son of His female-servant." Islam itself divided into sects shortly after Muhammad died, and even more wanted to leave Islam. The early Christians were given death threats for STAYING Christians, the early Muslims were given death threats for LEAVING Islam.

However, some of them went to the extreme over `Isa, believing that he was the son of Allah.

No one objected to this at all. How is this an extreme? People debated what "son of God" meant, no early Christians denied Jesus was the son of God since this was synonymous with "Christ" to them. We see in the 4 Gospel accounts Jesus own apostles and disciples call himself the "son of God," the demons and Satan call him "son of God," and even Jesus Himself refers to Himself as "the son of God." As we see in these verses:

Jesus Christ speaking of Himself (called Isa by Muslims):

Amen, amen I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.—John 5:25

John the Baptist (Yahya):

And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God.—John 1:34

Archangel Gabriel (called Jibreel by Muslims):

And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.—Luke 1:35

Disciples/Apostles of Jesus:

“And they that were in the boat came and adored him, saying: Indeed thou art the Son of God.”—Matthew 14:33

Satan:

“And the tempter coming said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread."--Matthew 4:3

Demons:

What have we to do with thee, Jesus Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?"--Matthew 8:29

Jesus’ Crucifiers (Roman centurions):

Now the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake, and the things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: Indeed this was the Son of God.—Matthew 27:54

So based on the fact that we have the 4 accounts of the Gospels telling us Jesus is the “Son of God” with Jesus saying so Himself in John 5:25 with that verse have all variants of it reading “son of God” we have no reason to think Jesus is anything besides the son of God! Any Muslim claim of corruption is baseless. Demonstrating ibn Kathir had little to no knowledge of the Gospels and probably derived all his information from ignorant Islamic sources.

Some of them said that `Isa was Allah Himself,

If by “some” he means Jesus’ own apostles, then yes:

Apostle Thomas speaking to Jesus Christ:

Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!—John 20:28

Apostle John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.—John 1:1

St Thomas addressed Christ himself, yet Christ did not object to this identification at all, so either He allowed St Thomas to commit idolatry, or He really is God!

while others said that he was one of a Trinity.

Being the Son of God and God are necessary for the Trinity to be true, since we believe there is only One God and that Jesus is not the Father but born of the Father and the Holy Spirit also is God (and not an angel like Muslims foolishly assume) then for monotheism to be true and for them too all be God Trinitarianism must be true too. Other Christian before Constantine sometimes taught the 3 persons were really one person and that the Son is the Father and the Spirit is also, this too was rejected by our leaders like the Popes 100 before Emperor Constantine gathered the council of Nicea.

Allah mentioned these false creeds in the Qur'an and refuted them.

Reading how they state the creed seriously makes you wonder if “Allah” really knew what he was talking about at all.

The Christians remained like this until the third century CE, when a Greek king called, Constantine, became a Christian for the purpose of destroying Christianity.

4th century actually, and there is no evidence Constantine wanted to destroy Christianity. He did not formally become Christian however until his death bed when he was baptized.

Constantine was either a philosopher, or he was just plain ignorant.

Constantine was a military child, he was educated in Latin and Greek and philosophy, but does receiving some philosophical education make you a philosopher?

Constantine changed the religion of `Isa by adding to it and deleting from it. He established the rituals of Christianity and the so-called Great Trust, which is in fact the Great Treachery.

No clue what this “Great Trust” is. We have references to our rituals before Constantine. All of them can be found in the New Testament, and they are referred to before Constantine’s time in Christian writings.

He also allowed them to eat the meat of swine,

This was ALREADY done by Christians, since Christians do not follow dietary laws like the Jews did since we believe a new Law was established by Christ establishing a New Testament, in fact the New Testament explicitly states this in Colossians 2:16

Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbaths—Colossians 2:16

Despite this by being written by St Paul, Muslims must admit at least this was done long before Constantine since St Paul lived in the 1st century.

changed the direction of the prayer that `Isa established to the east,

There is no tradition, no information about Jesus instruction people what direction they are to pray in the Bible, we are to assume He prayed facing the Temple as did all Jews at His time due to Solomon establishing it. The custom of praying facing East was known and established 100 years before Constantine:

our being known to turn to the east in prayer.—Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 16, c. AD 200

Praying facing East was a custom of Churches that were never inside the empire of the Romans like Persia, Ethiopia, and India.  Interesting ibn Kathir does not volunteer where Christians prayed facing before that.

built churches for `Isa, and added ten days to the fast as compensation for a sin that he committed, as claimed.

What fast, which fast? No information about the days added, or the sin! Convenient!

So the religion of `Isa became the religion of Constantine, who built more then twelve thousand churches, temples and monasteries for the Christians as well as the city that bears his name, Constantinople (Istanbul).

Temples were just how Christians referred to their church buildings at times, but ibn Kathir makes them sound different. His 12,000 number seems to be an exaggeration, but I cannot prove it.

Throughout this time, the Christians had the upper hand and dominated the Jews. Allah aided them against the Jews because they used to be closer to the truth than the Jews,

Does this make sense at all? Ibn Kathir says what a terrible person Constantine was for intentionally corrupting Christianity and that many Christians already confessed false creeds that he considers idolatry, yet Allah thinks this idolatry is closer to the truth than the non-idolatrous Jews? Christians did not have the upperhand over the Jews until AFTER Constantine.

even though both groups were and still are disbelievers, may Allah's curse descend on them.

Cursing people is an old Muslim pastime, whereas Christian pray for a person to repent and that God drive them to it, Muslims are prone to curse and damn in prayer.

When Allah sent Muhammad , those who believed in him also believed in Allah, His Angels, Books and Messengers in the correct manner. So they were the true followers of every Prophet who came to earth. They believed in the unlettered Prophet , the Final Messenger and the master of all mankind, who called them to believe in the truth in its entirety. This is why they had more right to every Prophet than his own nation, especially those who claim to follow their Prophet's way and religion, yet change and alter his religion. Furthermore, Allah abrogated all the laws that were sent down to the Prophets with the Law He sent Muhammad with, which consists of the true religion that shall never change or be altered until the commencement of the Last Hour

Muslims are proud of Muhammad’s lack of education, and this lack of education is reflected in the Quran.  Interesting that ibn Kathir accuses modern Christianity of being started by Constantine was may have been “plain ignorant” yet when calling Muhammad “unlettered” he does not refer to him as “plain ignorant” when we have more reason for that. The funny thing about this statement is it talks about Muhammad abrogating what other prophets taught, and Muhammad’s own religion does not change—despite much of the Quran being abrogated by other verses in the Quran and by things Muhammad said.

 Muhammad's religion shall always be dominant and victorious over all other religions. This is why Allah allowed Muslims to conquer the eastern and western parts of the world and the kingdoms of the earth. Furthermore, all countries submitted to them; they demolished Kisra (king of Persia) and destroyed the Czar, ridding them of their treasures and spending these treasures for Allah's sake. All this occurred just as their Prophet told them it would, when he conveyed Allah's statement

Muslims did an excellent job of conquering sparsely populated desert lands taking the Middle East and North Africa. Barely making any headway into Europe, they took Spain for hundreds of years only to lose it in the 15th century completely. They took some of the Balkans like Albania, which is now atheist. For a while Europe controlled much of the Middle East, almost all of Africa (except Ethiopia) and other lands, yet the Muslim religion “shall always be dominant and victorious.” Even in our present times the Muslims completely outnumbered the Israelis in war, yet the Israelis won and took some Muslim land! So much for always being dominant and victorious!