The messenger provides an archetypal image for understanding communication. Several Western communication scholars have recognized this and employed the messenger image to propose corresponding theories of communication. However, current research on the messenger not only offers inconsistent functional interpretations based on preconceived notions of communication, but also excessively relies on the universal archetype of the “angel,” thereby obscuring the historicity of the messenger and the modernity of communication. The “death of God” and the disappearance of intermediaries have turned everyone into a messenger—dutifully delivering messages yet unaware of the reason or the recipient. This predicament of communication demands a re-examination of the messenger image situated between the human and the non-human. Both Raymond Henry Williams and Walter Benjamin rejected the idea of the messenger acting solely as the sovereign “source” of the message. The former proposed returning to experience and the public sphere to reshape the messenger's subjectivity, while the latter emphasized “gesture” as a “means without end” to reconcile the conflict between subject and medium. This paper argues that only when the medium is not merely a value-neutral object, and when the messenger is not merely a functionalized “non-human entity,” can communication theory developed from the perspective of the messenger genuinely comprehend the mediatized existence of modern humans.