the eastern christian exegetical tradition of daniel's vision of the ancient of days

The Eastern Christian Exegetical Tradition of Daniel's Vision ofthe Ancient of Days

McKay, Gretchen Kraehling.

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 7, Number 1, Spring 1999,pp. 139-161 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/earl.1999.0019

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by University of Belgrade at 01/17/13 5:38PM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v007/7.1mckay.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v007/7.1mckay.html

MCKAY/EASTERN CHRISTIAN EXEGETICAL TRADITION 139

Journal of Early Christian Studies 7:1, 139–161 © 1999 The Johns Hopkins University Press

The Eastern Christian ExegeticalTradition of Daniel’s Vision ofthe Ancient of Days

GRETCHEN KREAHLING MCKAY

An unusual depiction of an aged man with white hair and beard emergesin post-Iconoclastic Byzantine art. Most commonly, this figure wasidentified as God the Father. However, the rulings of the Council ofNicea that ended the century-long Iconoclastic struggle declared that noimages of God the Father were permitted in Byzantine art. Who or what,then, was the image of the Ancient of Days meant to signify? Animportant source for the original intent of the image may lie in earlyChristian and Byzantine exegesis of the only passage in which theAncient of Days is referred to by name: Daniel 7. Throughout the earlyChristian and Byzantine periods, many writers discussed this figure andits relevance to the meaning of the vision in chapter seven. Their varyinginterpretations provide the foundation for any subsequent study of thisunusual image in Byzantine iconography.1

The vision of the Ancient of Days, which is recorded in the seventhchapter of the Book of Daniel (7.9–10, 13–14), describes the appearanceof a white-haired man whom Daniel refers to by name as “the Ancient ofDays” (ı palaiÚw t«n ≤mer«n). This particular Old Testament theophanygenerated many different interpretations by early Christian and Byzan-tine writers, all of whom offered comments on the unusual revelation ofthis aged man.

Previous studies on the Ancient of Days have only superficiallyaddressed the literary and theological interpretations of the Biblical

1. I refer here to my unpublished dissertation, “Imaging the Divine: A Study of theRepresentations of the Ancient of Days in Byzantine Manuscripts,” University ofVirginia, 1997. These exegetical passages were compiled for the dissertation and werethe foundation of the search to uncover the meaning of the image of the Ancient ofDays in Byzantine art.

140 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

vision on which the image is based. While the literary tradition on themeaning of the Ancient of Days is particularly important for scholarsseeking to understand this complex image, no study has ever consideredall the theological interpretations of the figure described in Daniel’svision. In this article, the extant written sources that examine thesignificance of the Ancient of Days are brought together for comparativestudy and will demonstrate that Byzantine writers from the third totwelfth centuries, including both church fathers and secular writers,found different meanings in Daniel’s account.

The patristic and literary commentaries on Daniel’s vision will beexamined chronologically. In addition to providing a framework withwhich to interpret Byzantine imagery, this compilation of variousinterpretations of the Daniel passage adds to our understanding of therole of the Bible in early Christian exegesis.2 To this end, I have provideda brief overview of each passage, placing it in its proper historicalcontext, since several religious controversies influenced the writer’sdiscussion of the Ancient of Days. The main aim of this article is not therole these texts played in different religious controversies. However, it ishoped that this study will aid scholars who seek to establish how specificBiblical passages, in this case Daniel 7, were utilized in establishingofficial church positions on various doctrinal issues.

I. THE COMMENTARIES

1. Hippolytus, Fragmenta in Danielem3

One of the earliest commentaries on the Book of Daniel is by Hippolytus(ca. 170–ca. 236), who discusses the identities of both the Ancient ofDays and a figure named “One Like the Son of Man,” who appears inDan 7.13–14. Two separate editions of this text by Hippolytus exist, andeach offers a different identification of the Ancient of Days. The Greektext provided by Migne states that the Ancient of Days was a revelation

2. Much has been written on this topic, including H. DeLubac, Exégèse médiévale,vol. 1 (Paris, 1959); B. de Margerie, Introduction to the History of Exegesis, 3 vols.,(Petersham: St. Bede, 1993–96); M. Simonetti, “Exegesis, Patristic,” in Encyclopediaof the Early Church, vol. I (New York: Oxford, 1992), 309–11. See also Jean Pépinand Karl Hoheisel, “Hermeneutik,” RAC 24: 722–71, with full bibliography andDenis Farkasfalvy, “Interpretation of the Bible,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity,vol. I (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997), 580–84, also with a thoroughbibliography.

3. PG 10:684.


of “the Lord and God and Master of All, [who is] Christ himself.”4

However, Migne’s text was based on an edition by Mai, who did notconsult all of the extant manuscripts of Hippolytus’ Daniel commentary.5

As a result, the word “patÆr” (“Father”) is missing from Migne’s text.This omission makes it seem that Hippolytus identified the Ancient ofDays as Christ.

In a later edition of Hippolytus’ commentary, Bonwetsch correctedMai’s errors and provided an emendation based on all the extant copiesof Hippolytus’ work. In Bonwetsch’s edition, Hippolytus writes that theAncient of Days “is, for Daniel, nothing more than the Lord, God andMaster of All, the Father of Christ himself.”6 Hippolytus also commentson the meaning of the name “Ancient of Days” by explaining that itrefers to one who makes the days old, one who is the creator of time butis not made old by the passage of time. This idea, first expressed byHippolytus, so far as we know, will be echoed by several other writers.

2. Eusebius of Ceasarea. De ecclesiastica theologia 3.177

The vision of the Ancient of Days is incorporated by Eusebius (ca. 260–ca. 340) in the seventeenth chapter of the third book of his treatise Deecclesiastica theologia. In this work, Eusebius attempts to refute theteachings and beliefs of Marcellus of Ancyra (d. ca. 374), whom heaccuses of Sabellianism, a heresy in which primacy of the oneness of Godis stressed to the exclusion of an acknowledgment of the three persons ofGod. Eusebius’ use of the Ancient of Days is different in some respectsfrom the other interpretations to be examined; rather than making it partof the construction of a larger theological scheme, he utilizes Daniel’svision to refute a specific aspect of Marcellus’ theology. Eusebius hadpreviously completed an attack on Marcellus in the aptly named Contra

4. PG 10:684.5. A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, I.2 (Rome: n.p., 1825), 166–221.

Important among his omissions were the manuscripts in the Vatican.6. The text for this statement is found in G. N. Bonwetsch, Hippolytus Werke, vol.

I: Die Kommentaire zu Daniel and zum Hohenliede (Liepzig: J. C. Hinrichs’scheBuchhandlung, 1897), 212. This is the critical edition used by Maurice Lefèvre in hisFrench translation, Lefèvre, Hippolyte. Commentaire sur Daniel (Paris: Éditions duCerf, 1947), 175. The Greek text is not provided in Lefèvre’s volume. The Greek text,as provided by Bonwetsch reads: palaiÚn m¢n oÔn ≤mer«n oÈx ßteron l°gei, éllÉ ∑ tÚnèpãntvn KÊrion ka‹ YeÚn ka‹ DespÒthn, tÚn ka‹ aÔtoË toË XristoË Paterã, tÚnpalaioËnta tåw ≤m°raw, oÈk aÈtÚn ÍpÚ xrÒnvn ≤ ≤mer«n palaioÊmenon.

7. Critical edition by Erich Klostermann, Eusebius Werke, vol. 4 (GCS 14, 1906),176–79. Revised by G. C. Hansen (1972), no changes in pagination.


Marcellum,8 to justify the condemnation of Marcellus at the synod ofbishops at Constantinople in 336.9 In De ecclesiastica theologia, Eusebiusattempts to depose Marcellus a second time, often using the samearguments already expressed in Contra Marcellum.10

While in general terms Eusebius claims Marcellus is both a Sabellianand a Jew, more formal charges of heresy were expressed in the threefollowing accusations. First, Eusebius alleges that Marcellus denies thatGod the Son had a separate and distinct existence from the Father priorto the Incarnation; secondly, Marcellus’ description and explanation ofthe way in which God the Word took on flesh appears, according toEusebius, to deny the reality of the Incarnation.11 Eusebius’ thirdallegation accuses Marcellus of claiming that the kingdom of Christ willend, and that Christ will then be reabsorbed into the Father, losing hisdistinct identity.12

Although deposed in 336, again in 339, and exiled until his death (ca.374), Marcellus maintained a relationship with the sees of Alexandriaand Rome, and his Trinitarian and Christological views were neverspecifically condemned.13 However, Marcellus’ belief that the kingdomand reign of Christ would have an end was denounced, and it is towardsa refutation of this specific opinion that Eusebius incorporates adiscussion of the vision of the Ancient of Days in the third book of Deecclesiastica theologia.

In his effort to disprove Marcellus’ claim that the kingdom of Christwould end, Eusebius looks to scriptural texts that contradict Marcellus’interpretation. Marcellus bases his belief on I Cor 15.24–28, specificallyverse 24, which states, “Then comes the end, when he [Christ] deliversthe kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and everyauthority and power.” Since little remains of Marcellus’ works, and onlyfragments have been accepted as truly written by him, the specifics ofMarcellus’ argument are lost to us, and reconstructions are possible only

8. GCS 14:1–51.9. Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 1981), 264. Marcellus of Ancyra was reinstated to his see in 337.10. Barnes, Constantine, 264. As Barnes puts it, “Eusebius has nothing new to say

(in De ecclesiastica theologia).”11. Barnes, Constantine, 264–65.12. Barnes, Constantine, 265.13. T. E. Pollard, “Marcellus of Ancyra, A Neglected Father,” Epektasis: Mélanges

patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou (Beauchesne: Jacques Fontaine andCharles Kannengiesser, 1972), 192.


through the lengthy passages quoted by Eusebius for refutation.14 Theseexcerpts do not provide a thoroughly reliable or comprehensive recon-struction of Marcellus’ argument.

The vision of the Ancient of Days is one of several propheticquotations employed by Eusebius to contradict Marcellus’ claim thatthere will be an end to the kingdom of Christ. However, no text survivesin which Marcellus presents his own view of the vision in Daniel; it isimpossible to know if Marcellus commented on the vision.

Eusebius notes that in Daniel’s vision the Son of Man was given gloryand dominion over an unending kingdom. This is clearly expressed inDan 7.14, which Eusebius quotes in full. Furthermore, and of consider-able interest to Eusebius, the text of Daniel states that the kingdom wasgiven to the Son of Man by the Ancient of Days. Eusebius interprets thisto mean that the Son of Man receives the kingdom from his father(“parå toÊ aÈtoÊ patrÒw”).15 Eusebius does not explain this relationshipin more precise terms; he is content to imply a relationship betweenFather and Son without stating its exact nature. However, Eusebiusseizes the chance to expose Marcellus’ inclination to stress the oneness ofGod, a tendency that Eusebius labels Sabellianism.16 Without benefit of adirect quotation, Eusebius accuses Marcellus of saying that the Son ofMan and the Father of the Son of Man are one and the same. Eusebiusalso believes that Marcellus viewed the two figures in Daniel as twodistinct names for a single hypostasis, which is further evidence forEusebius that Marcellus had heretical leanings.17

Eusebius’ interest lies with the Ancient of Days’ bestowal on the Son,whom Eusebius equates with Christ, of an unending kingdom. This,according to Eusebius, disproves Marcellus’ view that there will be an

14. Several scholars have attempted to assign various treatises, many of themattributed to pseudo-Athanasius, to Marcellus’ hand in order to create a “Marcellan”body of work. For these scholars see Pollard, “Marcellus,” 189. However, morerecently these attempted attributions, especially those of pseudo-Athanasius, havereceived little scholarly approval. See Ch. Kannengiesser, “Marcellus of Ancrya,”Encyclopedia of the Early Church 1:522.

15. “tÚn uflÚn eÂnai toË ényr≈pou tÚn tØn îfyarton basile¤an parå toË palaioËt«n ≤mer«n, dhladØ parå toË aÈtoË patrÒw, Ípodejãmenon” (GCS 14:177).

16. In attempting to show that God consisted of three separate persons, Eusebius’remarks often sound similar to Arianism, in which the Son of God was thought of acreature of God, and not equal with him. He perhaps exposes these leanings towardsArianism in this chapter of Ecclesiastical Theology, when he says “TÚn d¢ YeÚn oÈpoim°na oÈd¢ îrxonta l°getai ktÆsesyai, éllÉ aÈtÒyeon” (GCS 14:179).

17. “éllå Mãrkellow ©na ka‹ tÚn aÈtÚn e‰nai ır¤zetai, ka‹ m¤an ÍpÒstasin dus‹nÙnÒmasin Ípokeim°nhn” (GCS 14:177).


eventual end to Christ’s kingdom. The remainder of this passage includesdifferent quotations intended to prove further the unending nature of thekingdom of Christ. For instance, Eusebius quotes Ezekiel, who said thatDavid will rule as a shepherd watches over sheep,18 and he recallsMatthew’s statement that the Son of Man will come in glory to sit injudgment.19

In the end, Eusebius does not offer any specific identification orinterpretation of the Ancient of Days. While suggesting a relationshipbetween the two figures in Daniel’s account, Eusebius does not attemptto identify them beyond recognizing Christ as “One like the Son ofMan.” Assuming that Eusebius disagrees with Marcellus’ thought thatthe two figures are one hypostasis under two separate names, perhaps wecan surmise that Eusebius believes the two figures are two separateindividuals, and not simply two names for one hypostasis.20 However,since he does not state this explicitly, it is difficult to determine with anycertainty Eusebius’ exact identification of the Ancient of Days.21

3. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses XV illuminandorum22

Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315–387) discusses the Ancient of Days in thefifteenth of his twenty-four catechetical lectures. The first nineteen ofthese lectures were written for those preparing for the sacrament ofBaptism at Easter. The last five, referred to as the “MystagogicalCatecheses,” in which Cyril explains in more detail the meaning of thesacraments and the liturgy, were specifically written for the newlybaptized members of the church.23

18. Ezek 37.24 reads, “‘My servant David shall be king over them; and they shallall have one shepherd.’” Using Rom 1.3, which states Christ is from the seed ofDavid, Eusebius believes that Ezekiel is talking about Christ when he wrote hispassages, for David would have been dead.

19. Mt 25.31–34.20. Eusebius’ insistence that the two names are not to be applied to a single

hypostasis may reflect his own Arian leanings. Although nowhere in this text does hestate it explicitly, it is possible that Eusebius, in his effort to show the separate natureof the Father and Son also lapses into thinking that the Son is a creature of the Father,which is an Arian interpretation. Again, this is not stated explicitly. The impact of thevision of the Ancient of Days and One Like the Son of Man had on Eusebius’ Arianviews is an interesting question that deserves more attention.

21. Eusebius also mentions the Ancient of Days in his History of the Church.However, the reference is made in passing, and no specific identification of theAncient of Days is offered there.

22. PG 33:869–916.23. M. Simonetti, “Cyril of Jerusalem,” trans. Adrian Wolford, Encyclopedia of

the Early Church, 1:215.


Cyril’s fifteenth lecture is entitled “On the clause, ‘And shall come inglory to judge the quick and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall beno end.’”24 The lecture begins with a quotation from Dan 7.9–14, whichmentions the Ancient of Days. Cyril does not set out to write a line-by-line commentary on the entire Book of Daniel, but rather, uses thepassages about the Ancient of Days as part of his discussion of the finaljudgment and the kingdom of Christ. Like Eusebius, Cyril was concernedwith heretical notions about the nature of Christ’s kingdom, andalthough he never specifically mentions his name, Cyril is most certainlyspeaking of Marcellus of Ancyra when he says in section twenty-seven:

A certain one has dared to affirm that after the end of the world Christshall reign no longer; he has also dared to say, that the Word having comeforth from the Father shall be again absorbed into the Father, and shall beno more.25

Along with other carefully chosen passages, Cyril uses Daniel’s vision ofthe Ancient of Days in order to refute these beliefs held by Marcellus.

Cyril uses this passage from Daniel in several instances, each timestressing a different aspect of the text. He sets out to disprove the notionthat there will be an end to the kingdom of Christ, as well as the idea thatChrist will be absorbed into the Father at the end of time. To counter theidea of an end of the kingdom, Cyril suggests that the reader considerDaniel’s description of the Ancient of Days’ gift of an everlastingkingdom to the Son. Cyril does not explain the Daniel text; he merelyoffers it as proof that the Son of Man, whom Daniel describes as having“come up to” the Ancient of Days, was given a kingdom that will notperish, thus clearly discrediting Marcellus’ interpretation.

Cyril objects to Marcellus’ notion that the Son will be absorbed backinto the Father, and states that “there will be present at the judgment inthat day, God, the Father of all, [and] Jesus Christ being seated withhim.”26 For proof of this, Cyril again looks to the Daniel passage andnotes that Daniel speaks not only of a myriad of angels serving theAncient of Days, but also notes that it is “One Like the Son of Man”who approaches the Ancient of Days.27 Cyril interprets the Ancient of

24. The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbiship of Jerusalem, trans. EdwinHamilton Gifford, NPNF, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 104–14. Forthe Greek text, see PG 33:869–916.

25. Lecture 15.27, NPNF, 113; PG 33:909.26. Lecture 15.24, NPNF, 112; PG 33:904.27. Lecture 15.24, NPNF, 112; PG 33:904.


Days, “One Like the Son of Man,” and the assembled multitude as aprefiguration of the final judgment.

However, it is earlier in the lecture that one may glean Cyril’s specificidentification of the Ancient of Days. Cyril equates the Ancient of Dayswith God the Father, thereby strengthening an interpretation of therelationship of the Father and the Son at the time of judgment as one ofseparate entities, and not one in which the Son is absorbed into theFather. Noting that the text states that the figure with garment as whiteas snow and hair like pure wool shall sit, Cyril states specifically that itis the Father who will sit. Cyril does not use the Greek name “palaiÒwt«n ≤mer«n” here, but says specifically “PatÆr” (Father). As didHippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalem identifies the Ancient of Days as God theFather and the whole passage as one of final judgment.

4. Jerome, Commentariorum in Danielem libri III28

Jerome’s commentary on Daniel was an important and influential bookon the subject, and an invaluable source for subsequent writers.29

According to Jerome (ca. 342–420), the Ancient of Days is the “Onewho sits alone upon his throne,” which is a reference to Rev 4.2, whichdescribes one who sits upon a throne and has a likeness of jasper andother precious stones.30 With this reference, Jerome suggests a connec-tion between the Book of Revelation and this vision revealed to Daniel.Jerome believes that both of these texts refer to the final judgment.

In addition to interpreting much of Daniel as a vision of the end oftime, Jerome connects the Ancient of Days in Daniel’s vision with theperson described in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation. ToJerome they are one and the same, and the figure in Daniel prefigures theone revealed in the Book of Revelation. Commenting on verses 9 and 10of Daniel, Jerome remarks that “God is called the One who sits and whois the Ancient of Days, in order that His character as eternal Judge mightbe indicated.”31 Again, Jerome links the Ancient of Days with judgment,

28. Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Book House, 1958). Archer used the Latin edition found in PL 25. A lateredition may be found in CCL 75a.

29. Jerome is usually thought of as a Western theologian, known especially for hisLatin translation of the Bible. However, Jerome had much contact with the East,including his ordination in Antioch and close acquaintence with Gregory ofNazianzus. For these reasons, Jerome is included in these Eastern writers’ commentar-ies. See Barry Baldwin, “Jerome,” ODB, 1991.

30. Archer 78; CCL 75a:845.31. Archer 78; CCL 75a:845.


interpreting the vision recorded in Daniel as a prefiguration of the finaldays.

Jerome provides an explanation for many of the descriptive character-istics of the Ancient of Days. For instance, he explains the white hair andgarments as a prefiguration of Christ at the Transfiguration, when Christappeared in a radiant, white light. This bright and shining light reflectsthe divine majesty of both of these figures.32 He explains the characteris-tics of old age as attributes of one who judges, and likewise the fierythrone as indicative of the terrible fortune of the sinners, many of whomwill be moved to repent.33

In these texts, Jerome carefully avoids stating with any precisionwhether or not the Ancient of Days is God the Father. He refers to theAncient of Days as God, without indicating to which person of theTrinity he is referring. However, when discussing verses 13 and 14 of thevision, in which Daniel describes One like a Son of Man coming beforethe Ancient of Days, Jerome makes more specific identifications. ToJerome, this verse indicates the equality of God the Son and God theFather, which leads him to quote Phil 2.6–8.34 According to Jerome, thefigure identified as One Like the Son of Man is Christ, the Son of God.Christ’s approach to the throne of the Ancient of Days indicates toJerome that the Son of God has equal status with God. Although Jeromenever specifically refers to the Ancient of Days as the Father, he impliesas much when he interprets this section of Daniel’s vision as a revelationof the relationship between the Father and the Son.

5. John Chrysostom, De incomprehensibili XI35

John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407), considers the Ancient of Days in threeseparate works, all of which will be discussed here. First to be examinedis his eleventh of twelve homilies on the subject of the incomprehensiblenature of God, in which Chrysostom deals with the nature of theophanicvisions. Although Chrysostom specifically discusses the Ancient of Days

32. Archer 78; CCL 75a:845.33. Archer 78; CCL 75a:845.34. Phil 2.6–8 reads, “Though he [Christ] was in the form of God, he did not count

equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of aservant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form hehumbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.”

35. John Chrysostom, Sur l’égalité du père et du fils (Homilies VII–XII, trans.Anne-Marie Malingrey [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1994]), 303–7 provides Greek textwith French translation. For an English translation, see John Chrysostom, On theIncomprehensible Nature of God, trans. Paul W. Harkins (Washington, D.C.:Catholic University of America Press, 1984), 270–85.


in Homily 11, his thoughts on the definition of visions of God expressedin the other homilies will also be examined in order to place his views onthe Ancient of Days within the context of his understanding of divinerevelations.

Central to Chrysostom’s view of visions is the notion of condescen-sion, which he defines in Homily 3.15.36 In this homily, Chrysostomrhetorically asks what is condescension, answering that it is God’s way ofmaking himself visible to those incapable of seeing him in his essence.Thus, God appears to those who are unable to see him by taking on aform that accommodates their level of understanding.

For Chrysostom, any vision of God is an instance of condescension,and never a revelation of the divine essence. To support this idea,Chrysostom notes Hos 12.10, in which the prophet quotes God assaying, “I have multiplied visions and have likened myself through theprophets.” This text is important, for, as Chrysostom shows, if the trueessence of God were revealed, each vision recorded by the prophetswould be identical, for the essence is pure and unchanging. But, as Hoseaexplains, each prophet describes a different vision, which Chrysostominterprets as an accommodation, or condescension, by God, to helpthose who gaze upon him to understand what they are seeing. In eachcase he must take on forms alien to his pure essence in order to aid thosewho are otherwise incapable of comprehending the divine.37

Chrysostom devotes much of these homilies to explaining visions andtheir relationship to God; he does not, however, specifically comment onthe meaning of each Old Testament vision. Chrysostom quotes thepassage in Daniel in juxtaposition to his comments on the Son’s place atthe Father’s right hand, which indicates that the two are equal in status.Chrysostom does not explicitly state that the Ancient of Days is theFather, but he also never states that he is not. Based on his more generalcomments on visions, Chrysostom tends to stress that the Ancient ofDays is not a revelation of the essence of God, but rather an accommo-dation, or condescension, that makes known some specific aspect ofhimself that was appropriate for revelation. As far as Chrysostominterprets it, the purpose of the revelation of the Ancient of Days was toshow the identical honor and status of both the Father and the Son. He

36. For the Greek text, see John Chrysostom, Sur l’incompréhensibilité de Dieu,trans. Robert Flacelière, vol. I, ed. Anne-Marie Malingrey (Paris: Éditions du Cerf,1970), 200.

37. Incomprehesible 15. See also Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, trans.Asheleigh Moorhouse (Clayton, WI: American Orthodox Press, 1963), 77.


stresses the idea of the equality of the Father and the Son expressed in theDaniel text, but is more interested in what the two figures tell us aboutthe relationship of the first two persons of the Trinity than specificallyidentifying the Ancient of Days.

6. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1538

As in his homilies De incomprehensibili, Chrysostom discusses the roleof visions of God in the fifteenth sermon on the Gospel of John.Specifically, this sermon examines the text from Jn 1.18, which states,“No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in thebosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Chrysostom begins with alist of prophets from the Old Testament who witnessed a vision,presumably of God. Chrysostom notes Isaiah, who said “I saw the Lordsitting on a throne high and lifted up,”39 Ezekiel, who saw the Lordseated among the cherubim,40 and finally Daniel, who saw the Ancient ofDays seated on a throne. Chrysostom explains these Old Testamenttheophanies as instances of condescension, and not as visions of theessence of God. Chrysostom connects this idea to the evangelist’sstatement that “no one has seen God,” as meaning no one has seen Godin his pure essence. As in his eleventh homily discussed above, Chrysostomquotes Hosea to prove that had these prophets seen the essence of God,their visions would be identical, for God is one in his essence, which isunchanging.

The definition of condescension and the explanation of visions of Godare common themes in these two homilies by John Chrysostom. TheAncient of Days is never explained with any specificity; it is listed withother Old Testament descriptions of visions, namely those by Isaiah andEzekiel. Thus, Chrysostom does not offer any particular identification ofthe Ancient of Days other than to insist that it is not a revelation of theessence of God, but is another instance of God’s condescension througha visible form.

7. John Chrysostom, In Danielem41

Unlike the two homilies in which the Ancient of Days is mentioned inconjunction with other descriptions of Old Testament visions, Chrysos-tom’s Commentary on Daniel interprets the Ancient of Days within the

38. PG 59:97–102.39. Isa 6.1.40. Ezek 1.10.41. PG 56:231–33.


context of the entire text of the vision. While Chrysostom made nospecific identifications of the Ancient of Days in the two homilies justdiscussed, in his commentary on Daniel he comes closer to doing so.

The commentary on Daniel includes an extensive section devoted toDaniel’s visions, including that of the Ancient of Days. Chrysostominterprets the vision of the ancient one in the context of the finaljudgment, but he also stresses the divine nature of the Son, and therebyemphasizes the Christological implications of Daniel’s revelation.

Chrysostom offers lengthy commentary on these few lines fromDaniel’s text, and he identifies the Ancient of Days simply as God. In hisinitial remarks on the Ancient of Days, Chrysostom notes that it is thedescription of someone who has grown old, and that the characteristicsare consistent with one who is the divine judge.42 Later, however,Chrysostom states that when one mentions aged or ancient, one is notmeant to think only of an old man; rather, the idea of one who is aged isbut a shadow of something else. For instance, in the beginning of thissame passage, Chrysostom notes that when one says “lioness” (as inDaniel’s description of the four beasts, Dan 7.1–4) one is not referring tothe animal, but to kingdoms. In the same way, the elderly image that isconjured up when one hears the phrase “Ancient of Days” is not meantto imply simply one who is old, but one who is eternal.

In addition to giving a metaphorical interpretation of this phrase,Chrysostom also comments on the relationship between the Ancient ofDays and the One Like the Son of Man. In the vision, Daniel witnessesthe bestowal of dominion, honor, and kingdom on the Son. Thispresentation, he says, is not like the human practice of giving somethingnot already possessed by the recipient. On the contrary, Chrysostomstates, the vision reflects that these things had already been the Son’s, forthe Son was truly and wholly divine. According to Chrysostom, thesegifts grant to the Son the power of rendering judgment. That this powerwas not temporary is clearly stated in the text: “His dominion is aneverlasting dominion which shall not pass away.”43

In Chrysostom’s reading of the text, the characteristics of old ageimplied by the phrase “Ancient of Days” are not taken literally, but areconceived as revealing specific aspects of God’s immutable nature, andprimarily, his divine judgment for all eternity. According to Chrysostom,the presence of the Ancient of Days and the subsequent appearance of

42. Chrysostom expresses this by saying: “to›w toioÊtoiw pisteÊesyai tã xritÆriaxrÆ,” PG 56:231.

43. Dan 7.14.


the Son of Man express the divine power of judgment possessed by boththe Father and the Son. Finally, Chrysostom notes that this is the onlyvision in which the Father and Son were seen face to face, and that itreveals the equal status of the divine persons.

8. Cyril of Alexandria, In Danielem Prophetam 7.1344

Unlike Chrysostom’s treatise, all that remains of Cyril of Alexandria’s (d.444) commentary on the Book of Daniel is a short fragmentary notecovering three verses of the seventh chapter. Fortunately, the fragmentpreserves verse thirteen, which mentions both One Like the Son of Manand the Ancient of Days. In this verse Daniel specifically describes thefigure identified as the Son of Man coming unto (“¶fyasen”), theAncient of Days. The word “¶fyasen” is of considerable interest to Cyrilfor it reveals certain aspects about the relationship of the two individualsidentified in Daniel.

Cyril explains how the verb “¶fyasen” has no spatial denotation, forthe sacred fills all things and is never confined to one specific position inspace; to conceive of God as stationary is foolish. Instead, Cyril explainsthe verb “¶fyasen” as referring to the Son’s attainment of the glory ofthe Father, which is implied by the next verse in the passage, which statesthat the Son of Man received glory, honor and kingdom. Cyril alsoquotes Psalm 109(110).1, in which the psalmist proclaims, “The Lordsaid to my Lord, sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies yourfootstool.” This verse similarly makes the point that the two divinepersons are of equal status.

In the surviving fragment, Cyril never suggests that the Ancient ofDays is to be interpreted as the first person of the Trinity. Instead, heintimates that the Ancient of Days is a revelation of the glory of theFather. This glory is shared with the Son, for it is bestowed upon himalong with honor and kingdom, according to the text. Thus, in Cyril’sinterpretation, the Ancient of Days is not the Father himself, but arevelation of one specific aspect of him—namely, his glory, which issubsequently given to the Son, who is equal to the Father in every way.

9. Theodoret of Cyrus, In Danielis Cap. VII.9, 13–1445

Theodoret’s view on the Ancient of Days is revealed in his commentaryon the Book of Daniel, which examines the text verse by verse.

44. PG 70:1461B. Many of Cyril of Alexandria’s works are compiled by P. E.Pusey, Opera (Oxford, 1868–77), 7 vols., but the Daniel fragment is not included.

45. PG 81:1420–21, 1423–25.


Theodoret (ca. 393–ca. 446) discusses the Ancient of Days in relation toverses 9–10 and 13–14. In his discussion of the latter, Theodoret’sprimary concern is with the Son of Man who sits at the right of theAncient of Days, a position that, for Theodoret, reflects the equal statusof the two figures.46 In examining verses 9–10, Theodoret attempts todecipher the meaning of the older figure.

After quoting verses 9–10, Theodoret begins his discussion with somecomments on the nature of visions of God in general. According toTheodoret, God forms visions of himself as he deems useful. AlthoughGod himself is “bodiless, simple, and formless, not lending himself todescription, but being descriptionless by nature,”47 at certain times Godchooses to provide a vision of himself. These visions are recorded by theprophets. For instance, Theodoret notes the different ways in which Godwas seen by Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.48 This is reflected inHosea, who records God as saying, “I have made multiple visions andhave likened myself in the hands of the prophets.”49 Theodoret paysspecial attention to the word “likened” (“…moi≈yhn”) in this quotation;this is the key to understanding the nature of divine revelations.Theodoret notes that the word “likened” is Hosea’s way of emphasizingthat God was not seen in fact.50 For Theodoret, there is a great differencebetween viewing a likeness and actually seeing the divine. He providesfurther proof of this difference when he quotes Ezekiel, who, after tellingof his vision, states, “such was the appearance of the likeness of the gloryof the Lord.”51 Again, Theodoret stresses that Ezekiel did not see God,but only a likeness of his glory.

From these explanations, one can see Theodoret’s insistence on theimpossibility of seeing the essence of the divine. In no way can humanityview the true nature of God, for it remains wholly invisible and formless;however, physical forms recognizable to mortals can reflect specificaspects of God that cannot be directly revealed.52 Thus, the differentvisions given to Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and Ezekiel all exhibit different

46. PG 81:1425.47. PG 81:1421: “˜ti és≈matow Övn ı YeÚw, èploËw te ka‹ ésxhmãtistow, perigrafØn

oÈdem¤an dexÒmenow, éllÉ éper¤grafon ¶xvn tØn fÊsin.”48. Theodoret does not record the descriptions of these other visions or quote them

directly in this stage of his discussion.49. Hos 12.10.50. PG 81:1421; “ÑVmoi≈yhn e‰pen, oËk Œfyhn.”51. Ezek 2.1. Theodoret provides the quotation as follows: “toËto ımo¤vma dÒjhw

Kur¤ou” (PG 81:1421).52. Lossky, Vision, 79–80.


aspects of the divine without being revelations of the true essence ofGod.

The appearance of the Ancient of Days to Daniel is another propheticvision intended, according to Theodoret, to reveal certain attributes andcharacteristics of God. After explaining visions in general in order toprovide a context for the Ancient of Days, Theodoret examines thisrevelation specifically. According to Theodoret, the Ancient of Daysteaches us about eternity, for the vision of someone ancient connotes thatwhich is eternal, wise, and gentle.53 Thus, the Ancient of Days isinterpreted by Theodoret as indicating God’s wisdom, gentleness, andeternal life.

10. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, De divinus nominibus,Chapter 1054

A different type of textual commentary from those previously examinedis in the treatise De divinus nominibus (On the Divine Names) byPseudo-Dionysius (ca. 500). In this work, Pseudo-Dionysius is notinterested in what specific aspect of God was revealed in any specific OldTestament vision.55 Instead, he seeks to draw a composite picture of thenature of God by discussing and comparing all the names attributed toHim.

According to Pseudo-Dionysius, God is called Ancient of Days because“he is the eternity and time of everything, and because he precedes daysand eternity and time.”56 The name Ancient of Days refers to one who isthe cause of all time, of creation and time and all the days.57 Thisinterpretation of the name Ancient of Days is reminiscent of thecomments on Daniel by Hippolytus who states that the Ancient of Daysmakes the days old. However, Pseudo-Dionysius further explains that thephrase “Ancient of Days” connotes someone who was before time,beyond time, and preceded all the ages, existing before and beyondeternity.58 Rather than a name that identifies one of the three persons ofthe Trinity, Pseudo-Dionysius interprets the phrase in Daniel’s vision as adescriptive statement about the nature of God in more general terms. For

53. PG 81.1424.54. PG 3:943–48. For an English translation see Pseudo-Dionysius, “The Divine

Names,” The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press,1987), 49–131.

55. Pseudo-Dionysius 120.56. Pseudo-Dionysius 120.57. Pseudo-Dionysius 120.58. Pseudo-Dionysius 121.


him, the name Ancient of Days reflects the pre-eternal aspects of the Godwho existed before time and yet created time.

11. John of Damascus, De imaginibus oratorio59

For John of Damascus (ca. 675–ca. 749), the visions recorded in the OldTestament were prefigurations of “what was yet to come.”60 Withoutstating it explicitly, John hints that visions like that of the Ancient ofDays should be interpreted as revelations of the Incarnation to come,when the Logos who is “the invisible Son and Word of God was tobecome truly man.”61 These Old Testament revelations were, accordingto John, images created by God himself, intended to reveal to man thepromise of the Incarnation. John provides several instances in which theprophets of the Old Testament fell down to venerate the vision that waspresented to them. John mentions Abraham,62 Joshua,63 and Daniel,64

who all honored the forms that appeared before them, not as gods, butas images created by God. Writing during Iconoclasm, John defendsicons by showing that God utilized visions, which should be consideredimages, to reveal his plan of salvation. The Old Testament visions werea part of the long tradition of images that played an integral role in thehistory of the church and in God’s plan for salvation.

12. Theodore the Studite, Oratio VI. In sanctus angelos65

Theodore the Studite (759–826), in this passage in his treatise on angels,is concerned with the Old Testament appearances recorded by theprophets. While he places particular emphasis on Daniel’s vision, he doesnot specifically identify the Ancient of Days. Instead, he discusses what itis not. Theodore states that the Ancient of Days was a revelation ofGod,66 but he also points out that it is not the essence of God that wasrevealed, for this is invisible, indescribable, and uncircumscribable.

Theodore explains that visions in the Old Testament are to beinterpreted as physical manifestations intended to help earthly beingsunderstand the idea of God since they are unable to see the essence of

59. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images, trans. David Anderson (Crestwood,NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980).

60. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images, 80.61. John of Damascus 80.62. John of Damascus 80; Gen 18.2.63. John of Damascus 80; Josh 5.14.64. John of Damascus 80; Dan 7.9,13.65. Theodore the Studite, In Sanctus Angelos (PG 99:740D–741A).66. Theodore the Studite, In Sanctus Angelos (PG 99:740D): “tÚn PalaiÚn t«n

±mer«n YeÒn.”


God.67 Similar to Chrysostom’s emphasis on condescension is Theodore’sexplanation that God’s visions are revelations of himself to humanity.

The commentaries and interpretations of Theodore the Studite andJohn of Damascus are important, for they state explicitly that the essenceof God can never be seen and was not revealed by any Old Testamentvision, including Daniel’s. However, their writings were completed in thecontext of the bitter struggle against the Iconoclasts, who were attackingthe production and veneration of icons. Each argument and interpreta-tion presented by these two writers was primarily intended to combat thedestruction of icons and restore their veneration in the Orthodoxtradition. The authors do not state with any precision who the Ancientof Days is, and what relationship, if any, he has with God the Father; thiswas not their main intention. They do, however, provide importantinterpretations of Old Testament visions.

13. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Historia ecclesiastica68

In a short passage explaining the proskomide, or preparation of theelements in the liturgy, Germanus (ca. 634–ca. 733) explains the processof salvation as dictated and planned from the beginning of time. Thisprocess unfolds in three successive stages, each of which is heralded by adifferent manifestation of Christ: the Ancient of Days, the incarnateEmmanuel, and the adult Christ who was crucified.

This text does not specifically identify the Ancient of Days as eitherChrist or the Father. It does, however, make reference to God and thedifferent manifestations of God to humankind throughout history. TheAncient of Days, then, rather than specifically signifying the Son or theFather, is a figure meant to express the fact that God is withoutbeginning. The history of salvation continues with the Incarnation of theSon, who, as God, is likewise without beginning; it is completed with thedeath of the Son.

Germanus is not the first author to schematize salvation history; otherchurch fathers offer soteriological interpretations that explain the con-nections of the divine persons and their relationship to humankind.Germanus, however, incorporates the three manifestations of God into asequential order that expresses the interconnectedness of these threedivine manifestations. This text appears to reflect a subtle shift in theinterpretation of the Ancient of Days. Most of the other writers were

67. PG 99:740D–741A.68. St. Germanus of Constaninople, On the Divine Liturgy, tr. Paul Meyendorff

(St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984).


primarily concerned with the person of Christ, and their works reflecttheir fundamental interest in determining the relationship between hisdivine and human natures. Once this fundamental issue was settled,other interpretations emerged. An example of this is Germanus’ explana-tion of three different forms of divine revelation, which he reads as afoundation for understanding God’s salvation plan for mankind.

13–14. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentarius inApocalypsin I:12–1669 and Michael Akominatos,Commentarius in Apocalypsin70

Andrew of Caesarea’s (563–614) commentary on the Apocalypse hasbeen dated to the sixth or seventh century, and although it is chronologi-cally earlier than Michael Akominatos’ (d. after 1210) twelfth-centurycommentary by the same title, both writers are examined here together,since both offer an interpretation of the figure of the Ancient of Days intheir commentaries. Each of the writers’ comments on the Ancient ofDays is brief; their primary concern is with describing the end of theworld and the final judgment. However, each mentions the Ancient ofDays in relation to Christ, and each comments about the significance ofthe white hair.

Andrew states that “although he [Christ] appeared for us recently, Heis shown ancient, or rather eternal; the symbol of His eternity is thewhite hair.”71 Thus Andrew believes that the Ancient of Days is Christ.Similarly, Michael Akominatos states that “the Ancient of Days . . .recently became a child for us and received flesh.”72 These two passagesreveal that both writers identify the Ancient of Days as a manifestationof Christ in a form that stresses his eternal nature. While these twowriters do not discuss the Ancient of Days at great length, they explainthat the Ancient of Days implies the eternal, and that the white hair,specifically, is a symbol of eternity. These aspects of eternity areinterpreted by both writers as characteristics of the divine, but morespecifically, the person of Christ.

69. For the Greek text see PG 106:228D, 517D.70. For the Greek text see Duobouni≈thw, ÉEpethr‹w ÑEtaire¤aw Bujantn«n Spoud«n

(Athens, 1928), vol. 5, 19–30. The passage on the Ancient of Days is discussed on p.24.

71. An English translation of Andrew’s commentary is found in George Galavaris,The Illustrations of the Prefaces in Byzantine Gospels (Vienna: ÖsterreichischenAkadamie der Wisssenschaften, 1979), 99.

72. In Greek “efi ka‹ prÒsfatow g°goune dfi ≤mçw, nhp¤asaw …w sãrka lab≈n”(Duobouni≈thw, ÉEpethr‹w 24).


II. THE LITERARY INTERPRETATIONS IN COMPARISON

An overview of the interpretations expressed by these writers on themeaning of the Ancient of Days reveals some contradictions anddisparities. While all basically agree that the elderly features are reflectiveof the eternal existence of God, there is no consensus on the identity ofthe figure. The Byzantine writers define the Ancient of Days in one oftwo different contexts: first, in explanations of the relationship betweenthe Ancient of Days and the One Like a Son of Man, and second, inreference to the unusual elderly features.

When the writers we have examined attempt to determine therelationship between the Ancient of Days and One Like the Son of Man,they express an awareness of the unique features of this vision. Forinstance, Chrysostom notes that Daniel’s vision of the two figures is theonly one in which the two divine persons are seen face to face.73 Theimportance of the two individuals is clear, and their relationship to oneanother not only has a bearing on the meaning of the vision, but also onTrinitarian theology. To determine the relationship of the two principlefigures in the vision, several fathers seize on the verb ¶fyasen, meaning“came unto.”

For John Chrysostom, the action of the figure, identified by Daniel asOne Like the Son of Man, who “came unto” (¶fyasen) the Ancient ofDays, reflects the identical honor he shares with the Ancient of Days.This shared identical honor has Trinitarian implications, for the visionreflects the equal status of the first two persons of the Christian Trinity.Likewise, Cyril of Alexandria stresses that the figure who comes onto theAncient of Days does so not in a spatial or physical sense. The action ofOne Like the Son of Man, described as approaching the Ancient of Days,is meant to convey, according to Cyril, that the two persons enjoyidentical honor and status.

While some writers interpret the identical honor of the figures as arevelation of Trinitarian relationships, specifically that of the Father andthe Son, many withhold their identification of the Ancient of Days as theFather until they interpret verses 13–14, in which the figure identified asOne Like the Son of Man actually approaches the Ancient of Days.While certain authors tend to identify the Ancient of Days as the Fatherat this point, there is a tendency among other writers to suggest that allOld Testament visions reveal God the Son and should be interpreted asforeshadows of the Incarnation.

73. John Chrysostom, In Danielem (PG 56:233).


This latter emphasis is seen in the writing of Cyril of Alexandria, andto a lesser degree Eusebius of Caesarea, who tended to interpret thevisions of the Old Testament as revelations of Christ, the pre-existentLogos. This Alexandrian interpretation stands in contrast to that of theAntiochenes, exemplified by John Chrysostom and Theodoret of Cyrus,who tended not to emphasize Old Testament visions as prefigurations ofChrist. Rather, the Antiochene tradition places more emphasis on therole of God’s condescension as a temporal and historical event. A goodexample of this school of thought is John Chrysostom’s explanation ofthe prophets’ visions. John states that the prophets saw of God what waspossible for them to understand at the precise moment of their vision.74

This is in contrast to Cyril of Alexandria and Eusebius, who enter into aChristological explanation of Old Testament visions and interpret themas typological prefigurations of events in the New Testament.

Chrysostom does not identify outright the Ancient of Days as God theFather, but he does allude to that interpretation when he explains thatthe existence of the two separate visionary forms suggests that identicalhonor is due to both figures. In other words, the honor of the Son isequal to that of the Father, and Chrysostom’s interpretation of equalhonor suggests that the Father, in his manifestation as the Ancient ofDays, is present in order to offer the identical honor to the figure named“One Like the Son of Man.” In Chrysostom’s view, Daniel’s vision wasthe first and only vision in which a prophet sees both the Father andSon.75 Thus, the Antiochenes, exemplified here by Chrysostom, tend toread Trinitarian implications into the vision of the two figures.

Rather than viewing the Ancient of Days as a manifestation of the firstperson of the Trinity, Cyril of Alexandria interprets the old man inDaniel’s vision as a prefiguration of the two states of the same Son ofGod. In his chapter that dicusses whether or not God the Father could beportrayed in an image like that of the Ancient of Days, Ouspensky notesthat Cyril’s view reflects a tendency in the Alexandrian School tointerpret all Old Testament visions of God as revelations of Christ, notthe Father.76 Cyril interprets the statement, “the Son attained the glory ofthe Father,” as an indication that the Son, in the humanity assumed in

74. Metropolitan Demetrios Trakatellis, “Theodoret’s Commentary on Isaiah: ASynthesis of Exegetical Traditions,” New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essaysin Memory of John Meyendorff, ed. B. Nassif (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.Eerdmans, 1996), 329.

75. Chrysostom, In Danielem (PG 56:233).76. Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, trans. Anthony Gythiel (Crestwood, NY: St.

Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992), 377.


the Incarnation, shared in the glory of the Father from whom he wasnever separated. For Cyril, the two figures in the vision of Danielprefigure the two states of the same Son of God, specifically his state ofpre-existence and Incarnation. Thus, the account of anthropomorphicimages of the Godhead, here the Ancient of Days and One Like the Sonof Man, can only refer to Christ, either in the context of the Incarnation(Son of Man) or in the pre-existence that he shares with the Father (theAncient of Days).

It would appear that Cyril of Alexandria would never have identifiedthe Ancient of Days in Daniel’s vision as God the Father. In Ouspensky’swords, “to detect the two different persons in the vision of Daniel wouldbe to apply to a prophecy the logical categories it transcends, and wouldlead to the false interpretation that the Ancient of Days refers to God theFather.”77 Ouspensky’s comments on Cyril should be read in reference tothe church fathers, who tend to interpret Old Testament visions asrevelations of God the Son prior to the Incarnation. Since patristicwriters generally viewed Old Testament theophanies as revelations of theSon, and not the Father, it would appear that it was artists, seeking torepresent God the Father, who erroneously interpreted the vision of theAncient of Days as a manifestation of the Father.

In a similar vein, John of Damascus writes and stresses theuncircumscribable nature of God prior to the Incarnation. In his thirdoration on images, John states that humans are incapable of seeingbodiless creatures in their natures (Orat. 3.25): “We know that it isimpossible to look upon God, or a spirit . . . as they are by nature. Wewould be able to see them, however, if they appeared in forms alien totheir nature.”78 Here, John of Damascus is speaking primarily of angelsand their bodiless natures, and he explains that we are able to see themonly because they take on a nature foreign to their angelic immaterialityin order to be seen by human eyes.79 According to John of Damascus, theOld Testament visions are God’s way of making aspects of hisuncircumscribable nature visible to us. In order for humans to see God,he must take on another form, for his essence is formless and shapeless.

77. Ouspensky, Theology, 377.78. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images, 79.79. According to John of Damascus, we are connected to Christ and can be united

to God more so than the angels, for they are composed of an angelic nature, butChrist took on a human nature in addition to his divine nature. And we can unitewith Christ when his human nature is re-enacted and present in the Eucharist.Because of death, our human nature is inferior to the angels’, but because of God’sgood will and the Incarnation, it has become superior to the angels’.


This interpretation is similar to Cyril’s view that any vision in the OldTestament is a revelation of an aspect or form of the Incarnate Word whois yet to come. God the Father in his divinity is incapable of being seenby humans. This is further emphasized by John of Damascus when hewrites that even Abraham did not see the divine nature, but rather animage of God. While God the Father, the fully divine, is never seen byhumans, “an image of God” is possible only through God the Son, whois the only true and natural image of God.

From these examples, it is clear that identifying the Ancient of Days asa specific person leads to contradictory interpretations. However, muchmore agreement is reflected in the authors’ interpretations of themeaning of the aged features. Almost uniformly they interpret thecharacteristics of old age as indicative not of a decrepit being, butreflective of power over, or independence of, time. Pseudo-Dionysiusinterprets the nomenclature that alludes to old age as a reflection of onewho created time, stating that the Ancient of Days connotes someonewho is the cause of time and yet exceeds its limitations.80 In theircommentaries on the Apocalypse, both Andrew of Caesarea and MichaelAkominatos describe the white hair of the Ancient of Days as symbolicof eternity, a trait showing that he existed before the beginning of time.

In addition to these writers’ general agreement that the white hair ofthe Ancient of Days signifies God’s pre-existence is the notion thatphysical features of old age are an appropriate means for expressing theLast Judgment. Chrysostom notes that the phrase “Ancient of Days”does not connote an aging figure, but symbolizes something else. Henotes, for instance, that when one hears the word “throne” one does notsimply think of a chair or seat, but ideas of final judgment also come tomind.81 Similarly, the aged features of the Ancient of Days indicate,according to Chrysostom, a wise person who has the power of finaljudgment.82

The writers who comment on Daniel’s vision agree, more or less, thatthe elderly features of the Ancient of Days reflect a powerful figure whocontrols and even creates time. In addition, the aged characteristicsdenote the figure’s pre-existence and power over time, which likewisereflects eternity. Other writers, in harmony with this idea of the figure’spower over time, suggest that old age is indicative of the comingjudgment. While there is general agreement on the eternal qualities of the

80. Pseudo-Dionysios, Divine Names, 121.81. Chrysostom, In Danielem (PG 56:229).82. Chrysostom, In Danielem (PG 56:229).


Ancient of Days, some discrepancies appear when a specific, Trinitarianidentity is proposed for the figure. For instance, some claim the Ancientof Days to be the Father, while others are more cautious, noting thatsome sort of relationship between the two figures is conveyed in the text,but not explaining this relationship with any specificity.

The different interpretations of this vision could only be uncovered bycomparing all the extant sources. Having completed such a compilation,the importance and complexity of Daniel’s vision becomes clear. Thedifferent emphases in the various interpretations reflect theologicaldebates on various subjects ranging from the definition of the Trinity tothe characteristics of the final judgment. Daniel’s vision of the Ancient ofDays is a unique one that influenced not only the definition of spiritualconcepts, but artistic renderings of the Holy Trinity as well. Thecomparison of the written commentaries on this vision, spanning fromthe third to the twelfth century, reveals the evolution of the interpreta-tion of the Ancient of Days and reflects the complexity of this theophanyrecorded in the Book of Daniel.

Gretchen Kreahling McKay is Professor of Art History at theSavannah College of Art and Design

the eastern christian exegetical tradition of daniel's vision of the ancient of days

Documents