Angels? Or Humans?
In Revelation 1-3, the term often translated as “angels” is rendered as “messengers” in the RcV, and I think that is a thoughtful and meaningful choice. On the surface, both renderings may seem similar, but the RcV brings out a richer application.
A couple of simple questions help show why this word should not refer to angelic spiritual beings here. Does it make sense for John to send a written message to angels so they can relate it to the churches? And in Revelation 2 and 3, do angels normally function as part of local church life? Even casually, the answer seems no. “Messenger” fits the context much better.
If these are messengers, then the matter is not just about carrying information. It shows us that the Lord is looking for human messengers on earth—people who are living in fellowship with Him and are fit to carry His speaking. That also means we ourselves must be heavenly people on earth, partaking of His divine nature and regularly enjoying Him.
This is why I appreciate the RcV. Its rendering is not only more accurate in context, but it also opens up a deeper spiritual application. The Lord is not only concerned with the message being delivered, but also with the kind of people who carry it.
For that reason, I would strongly recommend the RcV here. Its use of “messenger” instead of “angel” helps us see the Lord’s desire for people who are heavenly in their living and faithful in transmitting His word.