Jesus, The Prince Of Princes, Not Jehovah!

[Londoner]

Hi all :)


I've been wanting to comment on the WT's strange interpretation in the book: Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy. On page 176, paragraph 23 it says:

By persecuting the "holy ones" during World War 2, the small horn put on great airs "all the way to the Prince of the army." Or, as the angel Gabriel states, it stood up against the Prince of princes. (Dan 8:11,23).

The title "the Prince of princes" applies exclusively to Jehovah God. The Hebrew word sar, translated "prince" is related to a verb meaning "exercise dominion".
In addition to referring to the son of a king or a person of royal rank, the word applies to a head or a chief one. The book of Daniel mentions other angelic princes - for example, Michael. God is the Chief Prince of all such princes. (Dan 10:13,21, compare Psal 83:18).

Can we imagine that anyone could stand up against Jehovah - the Prince of princes?


This is strange indeed. A prince is always below the rank of a king - how can Jehovah be a prince? As the WT admit themselves in the above quote, a prince is a "son of a king". If Jehovah is the Supreme King, then who is the supreme "son of a king"? Let the scriptures speak:

Isa 9:6 - For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Isa 9:7 - To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.

Dan 7:14 - And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.

Dan 8:11 - And all the way to the Prince of the army it put on great airs, and from him the constant [feature] was taken away, and the established place of his sanctuary was thrown down.

Dan 10:21 - However, I shall tell you the things noted down in the writing of truth, and there is no one holding strongly with me in these [things] but Mi´cha·el, the prince of YOU people.

Dan 12:1 - "And during that time Mi´cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book.

Isn't it clear that the real Prince of princes is Jesus Christ? Why has the Society pushed aside Christ in regard to this title and given it to Jehovah? It must be in fulfillment of the prophecy that the Man of Lawlessness will lift himself up above the God of gods.

He must first push aside the Head of the Congregation, Jesus Christ, before he tries to usurp the throne of Jehovah Himself.

Love
Londoner

[Alex]

Interesting point Londoner.

I asked the same question to a sister in my congregation, just giving her the appropriate verses in Daniel 8 to read, without using the 'Pay Attention' book to explain its meaning.

She too came to the conclusion the Prince of Princes was Jesus. Her jaw dropped when I showed her the Watchtower's definition of the Prince of Princes.

In my mind to refer to Jehovah as a Prince just does not add up, to convey the lofty position Jehovah has. A prince is of a lower station than a King.

Jehovah is King in the absolute sense, and forever will be. Jesus as his Son, in subjection to his Father, can be appropriately described as a 'Prince'. It is also beneficial to note how other scriptures refer to Jesus as a prince as you rightly highlight.

However, if we go against what the Society teaches we become 'false apostles' according to the latest study in the Revelation book. May be I will keep my 'independent thinking' to myself for time being!......

Brotherly affection to you, Alex.

[DoubtingThomas]

As hard as it is to believe, The Watchtower’s commentary on Daniel is correct in referring to this Prince as Jehovah. Every Bible commentary in existence agrees with the WT Society on this one. Here are some additional references and explanations on why this Prince is Jehovah and not Jesus:

[watchman]

Good points Londoner. I have never bought into the Society's interpretation on that issue. Doubting Thomas makes a good counterpoint though. However, isn't it true that those very same scholars who believe that God is the prince of the army also predominately believe that Jesus is God?

I don't delve in too deeply into Hebrew or Greek terminology. I generally trust the translators and if there are any descrepencies I think common sense ought to prevail. In this instance common sense indicates that the son of man is the prince of the army. By common sense I mean a consideration of the overall context. Like Londoner pointed out, the son is consistently referred to as a prince elsewhere in the Scriptures.

And take the context of Daniel: The prophecies of Daniel present a series of visions all ending the same way -- with the son of man taking control of the kingdom and destroying an enemy kingdom. Why should the 8th chapter of Daniel be any different? It isn't. Jesus is the prince of Jehovah's army.

[DoubtingThomas]

Good points Londoner. I have never bought into the Society's interpretation on that issue. Doubting Thomas makes a good counterpoint though. However, isn't it true that those very same scholars who believe that God is the prince of the army also predominately believe that Jesus is God?

I don't delve in too deeply into Hebrew or Greek terminology. I generally trust the translators and if there are any descrepencies I think common sense ought to prevail. In this instance common sense indicates that the son of man is the prince of the army. By common sense I mean a consideration of the overall context. Like Londoner pointed out, the son is consistently referred to as a prince elsewhere in the Scriptures.

And take the context of Daniel: The prophecies of Daniel present a series of visions all ending the same way -- with the son of man taking control of the kingdom and destroying an enemy kingdom. Why should the 8th chapter of Daniel be any different? It isn't. Jesus is the prince of Jehovah's army.[/b]


That makes good sense to me Watchman. Thanks for the input.

[Molly]

Interesting point Londoner.

I asked the same question to a sister in my congregation, just giving her the appropriate verses in Daniel 8 to read, without using the 'Pay Attention' book to explain its meaning.

She too came to the conclusion the Prince of Princes was Jesus. Her jaw dropped when I showed her the Watchtower's definition of the Prince of Princes.

In my mind to refer to Jehovah as a Prince just does not add up, to convey the lofty position Jehovah has. A prince is of a lower station than a King.

Jehovah is King in the absolute sense, and forever will be. Jesus as his Son, in subjection to his Father, can be appropriately described as a 'Prince'. It is also beneficial to note how other scriptures refer to Jesus as a prince as you rightly highlight.

However, if we go against what the Society teaches we become 'false apostles' according to the latest study in the Revelation book. May be I will keep my 'independent thinking' to myself for time being!......

Brotherly affection to you, Alex.[/b]

I am so happy that this application has been brought to light. When I read when the book first came out it was pretty glaring inaccuracy to me. Every application indicates that Jesus is the "Prince of princes." I am thrilled to see that I was not the only one that recognised this inconsistency.

Molly