What is the significance of this verse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mattjolley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mattjolley

Guest
John, Chapter 19:

23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified him, took his garments, (and they made four parts, to every soldier a part,) and also his coat. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

Is there some special meaning attached to the fact that Jesus’ coat/cloak is without seam? Are we to read into this the perfection of Christ, is this where we get the phrase ‘seamless’ from, when we describe something which is perfect? Only one of my bibles has any sort of explanation! It says that the seamless garment may be an allusion to the robes of the High Priest.

Any other ideas? Or was this just included to highlight the fact that Psalm 21 v 19 was fulfilled in Christ?

Matt
 
John, Chapter 19:

23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified him, took his garments, (and they made four parts, to every soldier a part,) and also his coat. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

Is there some special meaning attached to the fact that Jesus’ coat/cloak is without seam? Are we to read into this the perfection of Christ, is this where we get the phrase ‘seamless’ from, when we describe something which is perfect? Only one of my bibles has any sort of explanation! It says that the seamless garment may be an allusion to the robes of the High Priest.

Any other ideas? Or was this just included to highlight the fact that Psalm 21 v 19 was fulfilled in Christ?

Matt
consider this from the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 23. They made four parts. Christ’s upper garment had seams, which the four executioners could easily divide; but his under garment, or vest, was without seam, so that being cut, it would have been of no use. (Witham) — This coat without seam is a figure of the unity of the Church. (St. Cyprian, de unit. Eccles.) — The Rev. Fred. Nolan, of Woodford, in Essex, in his late work, entitled, Objections of a Churchman to uniting with the Bible Society, after quoting 2 Peter iii. 15, 16, says: “That the Bible may, therefore, prove the remote, but innocent cause of harm, is not, I apprehend, to be disputed, if we are to admit of its own authority:” p. 23, and again, p. 24, “that the present mode of circulating the Scriptures must prove a most effectual specific for multiplying sects and schisms; and consequently, for increasing, to an infinite degree, the greatest evil, under which Christianity has suffered, from the time of its promulgation, down to the memorable epoch of this happy invention, for the establishment of Christian faith, and the extension of Christian unanimity.” P. 62 in the same work, “That the Bible is the foundation of our religion, is new doctrine, unless in the divinity of the conventicle. We are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. (Ephesians ii. 20.) On this foundation others still build, who are labourers together with God; (1 Corinthians xi. 9. 10.) of which divine co-operation the successors of the apostles have an express promise, to the end of the world. (Matthew xxviii. 20.) And by persons thus authorized (John xx. 21.) apostolical tradition has been delivered down to the present day, p. 63. The one body, of which our Lord was resolved his Church should consist, was to have one faith, (Ephesians iv. 4, 5.) it was to contain no schism, (1 Corinthians xii. 25.) but the present confederacy is formed on the principle of combining every sect and party, and this, while we have received an express prohibition against associating with those, who reject apostolical traditions, committed to the Church.” (2 Thessalonians iii. 6. 14.) In a foot-note on the above, the learned divine very appositely cites St. Ignatius, in which quotation we find these emphatic words: Me planasthe adelphoi mou, ei tis schizonti akolouthei, Basileian theou ou Kleronomei. Be not deceived, my brethren, not only acknowledged schismatics, but whoever shall join with a schismatic, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The same apostolic Father, in another part, adds: he who corrupts the faith of God, for which Christ suffered, shall go into unquenchable fire: eis to pur to asbeston choresei. St. Alexander, in the fourth century, says of the Arians: that seamless garment, which the murderers of Jesus Christ would not divide, these men have dared to rip asunder. Tou arrekton chitona schisai eiolmesan.
 
There is some great commentary on this topic on Dr. Scott Hahn’s “The Fourth Cup” CD and DVD. Dr. Hahn explains, in part, that the Greek word ketone is the word for the garment or tunic of a high priest. Jesus, through His celebration of the Last Supper, passion, and death, was our High Priest and also Victim/Paschal Lamb. You can get the CD for $8 at St. Joseph Communications (www.saintjoe.com/).
 
John, Chapter 19:

23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified him, took his garments, (and they made four parts, to every soldier a part,) and also his coat. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

Is there some special meaning attached to the fact that Jesus’ coat/cloak is without seam? Are we to read into this the perfection of Christ, is this where we get the phrase ‘seamless’ from, when we describe something which is perfect? Only one of my bibles has any sort of explanation! It says that the seamless garment may be an allusion to the robes of the High Priest.

Any other ideas? Or was this just included to highlight the fact that Psalm 21 v 19 was fulfilled in Christ?

Matt
First, congratulations for rising above reading Scripture literally, only, and instead looking for what the Church refers to as the sensus plenior, the “fuller sense.”

Second, the NAB translation helps to clarify the issue raised.

**23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four shares, a share for each soldier. They also took his tunic, but the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top down.
24 So they said to one another, “Let’s not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it will be,” in order that the passage of scripture might be fulfilled (that says): “They divided my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots.” This is what the soldiers did. **

Clothing and cloth comprise the Biblical type, or symbol, for relious faith. So, when Adam and Eve donned fig leaf clothing, they were putting on the Jewish faith. When God gave them animal skins later in Genesis 3, He was giving them “the religion of the sacrificed victim,” Christianity. When the soldiers are careful to not rip the seamless cloth, I suspect that the receipt of the entire Christian faith – not just pieces of it – is symbolized.

In fact, the Roman Army carried Christianity to the four quarters of the Empire. Some of the early martyrs were soldiers.
 
The one piece garment recalls the vestment worn by the high priest of Israel (Lev 16:4) which was not to be torn (Lev 21:10). This implies that Christ acts as a high priest when he made himself a sacrifice on the cross. (Heb 2:17; 9:11-14).

Allegorically it signifies the indivisible kingdom of Christ. Although Solomon’s kingdom was rent assunder like a garment and its glory passed away (1 Kings 11:29-32), the Church of Christ is forever glorious and will always remain intact (John 19:24).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top