Prophetic experiences often unfold as guided journeys rather than direct communications from God. In many instances, a prophet receives messages through an intermediary angel who converses with him and helps decode the mysteries being revealed [רד״ק, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Seeking clarity, the prophet turns to this guiding angel and asks for an explanation of the unfolding sights [מצודת דוד, מלבי״ם].
The exact identity of this speaking angel is a matter of discussion. The primary approach among commentators is that he is the rider on the red horse from an earlier scene, functioning as a divine official. Conversely, other opinions identify him as the man standing among the myrtle trees [רש״י, אבן עזרא].
Responding to the prophet's plea, the angel promises to "show" him the meaning of the events. This specific phrasing presents a logical difficulty. Since meanings and explanations are concepts that are heard or understood, it would be more natural for the angel to promise to "tell" or "inform" him, rather than using a word associated with physical sight.
Commentators offer several ways to understand this visual promise. One approach suggests that the seeing refers to the broader prophetic experience itself. Within this visual state, the prophet will soon hear the actual explanation from the man standing among the myrtle trees [מצודת דוד]. Another perspective explains that the concept of seeing is borrowed to describe hearing. Because sight is the most powerful human sense, the text uses it to convey a profound sensory experience, similar to other biblical moments where people are described as seeing sounds [רד״ק]. However, this idea is strongly rejected by the argument that each physical sense is strictly distinct, and those other biblical examples require their own specific explanations [אברבנאל].
A third approach takes the angel's promise literally. The angel is assuring the prophet that the current mystery will be clarified through entirely new visual experiences that will be shown to him later, such as a subsequent vision involving four horns [מלבי״ם, רד״ק]. Yet, this literal approach also faces sharp criticism. Critics argue that it makes little sense to clarify one obscure metaphor by introducing another confusing vision, comparing it to a guarantor who themselves requires a guarantor [אברבנאל].