Read the series.
I’ve said quite a lot about already about the angel of the bottomless pit, but I’ve not finished. I believe certain passages of Scripture act as hermeneutical touchstones. Decisions about what direction to take can be either determinative of where the exposition is going to go, or they highlight the assumptions brought to the text. One thinks of the Olive Tree metaphor in Romans 11, or the exhortation given to Ezekiel in Ezekiel 43. The first eleven verses of Revelation 9 are like that. They ask the interpreter, “Are you going to hold your nerve?”
Last time I ended by saying something about the strange statement of the angel who rebukes John for worshiping him in Revelation 22:9. This angel claimed to have been “of your brethren the prophets,” and I stuck my neck out and connected him with Daniel. I did so tentatively, let it be said, but in the spirit of inquiry. Still some might object to this because how can a man now be an angel? I don’t know. But I do know that the Angel of the Lord isn’t an “angel” either. (Of course, I realize that some writers insist that the Angel of the Lord is not a theophany, but most accept it). “The Angel of His Presence” (Isa. 63:9) is, after all, no mere angel. Therefore, the Bible does use the term “angel” (meaning “messenger”) in what we might call a non-technical sense, at least in respect to the Angel of the Lord.