"Perfect Angels"? A Subtle Shift in Watchtower Doctrine — And Why It Matters
Quoted Paragraph from the Watchtower September 2025, Study Article 38, paragraph 12:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-september-2025/Show-Respect-for-Others/
Why show respect? (Read 2 Peter 2:9-12.) In his second inspired letter, Peter mentioned that some in the first-century Christian congregation were speaking disrespectfully about “glorious ones,” that is, Christian elders. How did the faithful angels who saw what was happening react? “Out of respect for Jehovah,” they did not utter a single abusive word against the wrongdoers. Imagine that! The perfect angels refused to speak harshly about those arrogant men. Instead, they left it to Jehovah to judge and rebuke them. (Rom. 14:10-12; compare Jude 9.) We can take a lesson from the angels. If we should not treat opposers with disrespect, how much more so should we avoid treating fellow believers with disrespect. On the contrary, we should “take the lead” in honoring them. (Rom. 12:10) Doing so shows that we respect Jehovah.
At first glance, this paragraph appears to be a straightforward call for Christian decorum and respect within the congregation. However, beneath its surface lies a noteworthy shift in theological emphasis — particularly in how the Watchtower now presents angels, and even more subtly, in how it appears to distance itself from long-standing interpretations regarding Michael the Archangel and Jesus Christ.
What Happened to Michael the Archangel?
Historically, Jehovah’s Witnesses have taught that Michael the Archangel is none other than Jesus Christ himself — in his pre-human existence and even now in his heavenly role. This belief has been emphasized for decades in publications, including the 1984 book “Reasoning from the Scriptures” and the 2010 Bible Teach book. In these, Michael is not merely “an angel,” but the chief of all angels — the singular “archangel” (Jude 9) and the one leading the heavenly armies (Revelation 12:7), which aligns perfectly with Jesus’ apocalyptic role in the book of Revelation.
So what should we make of this paragraph’s reference to "perfect angels"—a term that not only generalizes the heavenly host but completely omits any mention of Michael or Jesus? This generic attribution to "perfect angels" appears to flatten the hierarchy previously taught, where Christ — as Michael — acted as the foremost advocate and defender of Jehovah’s people.
Are Angels Really “Perfect”?
The phrase “perfect angels” is strikingly ambiguous and rare in Watchtower literature. In fact, it’s difficult to find a consistent doctrinal definition for it.
Are angels perfect? Not in the absolute, unchangeable sense. If they were, how do we account for the rebellion of one-third of them, led by Satan himself? (Revelation 12:4) Clearly, angelic perfection did not equate to moral infallibility. Angels were created with free will — the very thing that enabled some to rebel.
So why this language? Why the sanitized phrase “perfect angels” in a context meant to contrast respectful versus disrespectful behavior? It could be read as an attempt to project moral superiority onto these beings to serve as behavioral examples — but at the expense of theological precision and consistency with their own past teachings.
A Subtle Deviation: Downplaying Michael, Elevating Anonymous Angels
This paragraph contains another telling omission: the complete absence of Michael in its citation of Jude 9. The article references the verse but avoids naming Michael explicitly, even though Jude 9 is the only passage in the Bible that mentions “Michael the Archangel.” In that passage, Michael did not bring a railing accusation against the Devil — precisely the kind of behavior the article is discussing.
One would expect the Watchtower to use this as another opportunity to reinforce the role of Jesus (as Michael) as the ultimate example of godly restraint and deference. But instead, the paragraph attributes the model behavior to anonymous “perfect angels.”
This isn’t just an oversight; it’s a theological pivot.
Is This Angel Veneration by Another Name?
The tone and structure of this article veer toward something even more subtle — and perhaps more troubling: a form of admiration or exaltation of angels that borders on veneration. The apostles — especially Paul — warned against such tendencies.
Paul specifically cautioned the Colossian congregation:
“Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind.” (Colossians 2:18, ESV)
In a religious tradition so heavily focused on hierarchy, obedience, and channel-based teaching, it’s not difficult to see how a heavy emphasis on angelic example could morph into an undue reverence — especially when angels are described as “perfect” and more virtuous than even earthly elders or “arrogant men.”
This is especially ironic given that Jehovah’s Witnesses have historically accused other denominations of fostering angel-worship or elevating saints and intermediaries improperly. Could the Watchtower be inching toward the very behavior it once denounced — cloaked in the language of moral instruction?
From Christ-Centered to Angel-Admiring?
Perhaps the most striking thing about the quoted paragraph is what it doesn’t say: Jesus is absent. In the past, Jesus — in his identity as Michael — was the paragon of humility and divine judgment. Now, that mantle seems to be subtly handed over to anonymous “perfect angels.”
Is this a rebranding effort? An intentional softening of the Michael/Jesus identity to accommodate future theological shifts? Or simply a way to redirect the reader’s gaze from Christ to the organizational chain of authority — mediated by anonymous, obedient spirit creatures?
We don’t know for sure. But when Christ disappears from the example and angels are raised up in “perfection,” readers ought to take note.
Conclusion: Beware the Drift
While this single paragraph may appear harmless, it signals a theological shift — a move away from Christ-centered teaching (as historically understood within the Watchtower) toward a more angel-centric moralism. In doing so, it quietly distances itself from the long-held belief in Michael the Archangel as Jesus Christ, waters down biblical clarity on angelic fallibility, and risks fostering admiration for spirit creatures that the apostles warned against.
The question remains: Why?
And more importantly: Where is Jesus in all this?
‐--------
If you like this kind of articles i have combined them into a book, currently as The Yearbook