I have noted the parallelism between Mohammed
and Mary with the angel Gabriel. At all conclusions, I've always reminded myself
with the warning verse: Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Now, paying attention at how Stephen twice mentioned Moses and the "angel" of the bush, I believe it is rather crucial to make such contrast.
First, is that the Angel of the Lord (Exodus 3) unlike that in Mohammed's account, has not been named. Given all proper theological research, it could only mean God and the fact that God has not been seen by men (John 1:18), the conclusion could only be the second person of God in the immanent existence of Trinity, as Adam Clarke noted in his commentary. And so it was noted, that Jesus Christ, in a body suited to the dignity of his nature, frequently appeared to the patriarchs...(Clarke on Genesis 16:7). Should anyone try to struggle with this, surely the superior nature of this angel of the Lord pertaining to these verses over the accompaniment of a host of angels in Acts 7:53, even the Muslim's "gabriel", cannot be denied.
Secondly, the outcome of such meeting never breaks away from the old covenant of God to Abraham and the patriarchs. There is one concept of Israelites as God's children back then and even now, not Israel then and Muslims now. Unlike Judaism and Islam, God took the seed of the old testament as it was and bloom it into a beautiful garden in Christianity. To which is justified by one of Edith Schaeffer's title: Christianity is Jewish.