"clothed with a vesture dipped in blood" Who's blood?

[crin63]

In Revelation 19:13 it says that Jesus will be wearing a vesture dipped in blood when He returns to smite the nations. Who's blood do you think is on Him and why?


Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

I'll wait to give my answer since I'm curious what you all believe.

[DannyR]

I've always though it referred to his own blood, still fresh from the cross and scourging.

Boy, Jesus needs to take some clotting factors, as he must be a hemophiliac.

On the sacrilegious side of things, if you watch the movie Jesus Christ Vampire Slayer, his robes have plenty of vamp blood on them. That count?

[Immanuel]

I, too, have always believed it to be his own blood... the blood of salvation. My Study Bible says it is either his blood or the blood of the enemy. I stick with it being his blood.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

I don't think of it as anyone's blood in particular, but as the symbolic blood/cloak of righteousness. He is coming to smite, after all.

[5stringJeff]

Since this is when Jesus first appears in the act of judging, I would imagine it to be His own blood, symbolic of His sacrificial death that makes Him worthy to lead the army of the saints.

[crin63]

I believe it to be Jesus own blood as He was the final and perfect sacrifice for sin, He is the mercy seat and He is the Great High Priest. He carried His own blood to heaven when he rose bodily from the dead. As the High Priest He would sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat and being the mercy seat he would be sprinkling his own blood on himself for a once and final atonement for sin to those who come him for salvation.

It cant be the blood of His enemies because it would make no sense. His enemies would not be in heaven where Jesus is presently seated at the Fathers right hand and He has not at that point began to smite the nations.

[Psychoblues]

Jesus was murdered as a result of his noncompliance with then traditionally accepted mores. He would just as fast be murdered again today considering the bloodlust of our present world population.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[bullypulpit]

I've always though it referred to his own blood, still fresh from the cross and scourging.

Boy, Jesus needs to take some clotting factors, as he must be a hemophiliac.

On the sacrilegious side of things, if you watch the movie Jesus Christ Vampire Slayer, his robes have plenty of vamp blood on them. That count?

Just give give him a few units of flash frozen platelets and some vitamin K.

But seriously, the Book of Revelations must be seen in context of the times in which it was written...Rome was persecuting the Church, Nero being the chief persecutor and John's "Anti-Christ". There was serious disagreement at the Council of Nicea as to whether or not to include Revelations in the Bible because of the difficulties inherent in interpreting the Apocalypse of John and its potential for abuse. A potential we see being realized in the hands of the religious right in America today.

It wasn't until the 19th century, with the rise of rationalism and the explosion of scientific discovery, that Revelations began being read literally by some sects of Christianity instead of being read as the allegory which it is.

[bullypulpit]

Jesus was murdered as a result of his noncompliance with then traditionally accepted mores. He would just as fast be murdered again today considering the bloodlust of our present world population.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

No, he was crucified for being political which neither Herod nor Rome would tolerate. He was the FIRST Liberal.

[5stringJeff]

Just give give him a few units of flash frozen platelets and some vitamin K.

But seriously, the Book of Revelations must be seen in context of the times in which it was written...Rome was persecuting the Church, Nero being the chief persecutor and John's "Anti-Christ". There was serious disagreement at the Council of Nicea as to whether or not to include Revelations in the Bible because of the difficulties inherent in interpreting the Apocalypse of John and its potential for abuse. A potential we see being realized in the hands of the religious right in America today.

It wasn't until the 19th century, with the rise of rationalism and the explosion of scientific discovery, that Revelations began being read literally by some sects of Christianity instead of being read as the allegory which it is.

That's incorrect. Many of the anti-Nicene church Fathers believed in interpreting Revelation literally, believing in such things as the antichrist and the millenial reign of Christ.