King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Jesus rules as king under Jehovah's authority. He was given the kingdom
by his Father. Any titles he holds are delegated, not inherent. Jehovah
alone is the supreme sovereign.
Show that "King of kings and Lord of lords" is applied to Jehovah in and to Jesus in and 17:14. Then cross-reference where Paul applies this title to the one who "alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light." If this describes Jehovah alone, yet Revelation gives the identical title to Jesus, the implication is clear: Jesus shares Jehovah's identity. Note: JWs may pivot to ("whom no man has seen") to argue this cannot be Jesus. Recognise that this describes the Father's unapproachable divine nature — the same nature the Son shares, yet the Son made visible through the incarnation (, ).
The NWT itself renders with "King of kings and Lord of lords" for Jesus. gives this title to Jehovah. The Lamb bears the name that belongs to God alone.
Jesus received that title from Jehovah — it's a delegated honour, not proof he is God.
says the Lamb conquers "because he is Lord of lords and King of kings." It's not that he was appointed to a role — he IS this. And in , the "King of kings" is described as the one who "alone is immortal" and whom "no one has ever seen." If that's Jehovah, then Jesus bearing the same title places him in Jehovah's identity.
Many kings can be called king of kings — it just means highest-ranking king.
In the Old Testament, "king of kings" is used for human emperors like Nebuchadnezzar (, ). But reserves "God of gods and Lord of lords" for Jehovah as the supreme being — not just the highest-ranking created being. Revelation applies this divine title to Jesus, not in the Nebuchadnezzar sense, but in the sense — the supreme Lord over all lords.
Revelation is symbolic — you can't build doctrine on symbolic language.
The title is also used in a non-symbolic passage — . And even in Revelation, the Lamb receives the same worship as the one on the throne (). Symbolic language still communicates real theology.
On his thigh it says King of kings and Lord of lords, but never God of gods. Why does it stop there?
Look at where the title comes from. in your NWT says "Jehovah your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords." Moses puts the two together in one breath as a single description of the one true God; "Lord of lords" is not the lesser half of it. and do the same, giving thanks first to "the God of gods" and then to "the Lord of lords". So when and 19:16 give the Lamb "Lord of lords", John is reaching for a title Scripture uses of Jehovah, not one it uses of kings or angels. And in the same scene, verse 13, the rider "is called by the name The Word of God", the Word that calls god and that Thomas called "My Lord and my God" (). An argument from what a single verse doesn't say is always weaker than what it does say. If Moses used "God of gods and Lord of lords" as one title for Jehovah, what does it tell you that John gives half of it to Jesus?
Revelation 19:15 says he treads the winepress of the wrath of God the Almighty. So Jesus is carrying out God's anger. He isn't God Almighty himself.
I agree the verse distinguishes Jesus from the Father. The Trinity has never said the Son is the Father, so that part is common ground. But notice where the picture of the winepress comes from. In Isaiah 63 a warrior comes from Edom with stained garments, and in of your NWT he says, "I have trodden the wine trough alone. No one from the peoples was with me." adds, "I looked, but there was no one to help ... So my arm brought me salvation." The one speaking is Jehovah, and he stresses that he did this work of judgement by himself, with no helper. Revelation 19 gives that same work, in the same imagery, to the rider. If he were a creature Jehovah brought in to help, Isaiah's "alone" and "no one to help" would no longer be true. The verse doesn't take Jesus outside of God; it shows the Son doing what Jehovah said he would do himself. If Jehovah trod the winepress alone and no one helped him, who is the one treading it in Revelation 19?
Don't overstate this as a standalone proof — it works best alongside other shared-title arguments (Alpha and Omega, I AM, etc.). Avoid getting sidetracked into debates about Revelation's symbolic genre.
Read , , and until you can place each from memory. Then read and , so you can freely grant that "king of kings" is used of Nebuchadnezzar and explain why is different. Look up and in the NWT on jw.org and see the title for yourself. Prepare for the pivot with and . Practise the doorstep question aloud, then rehearse the "delegated honour" reply: says the Lamb conquers "because he is" Lord of lords. Plan to use this alongside other shared-title arguments, not on its own.