John Roche, an 18th-century theologian from Dublin, wrote a work critiquing the Moravians. In response to the claim that the “Ancient of Days” was Jesus, not God the Father, Roche wrote:
In this Refutation we shall
attempt no more than to consider as brief as possible, in recapitulatory
Manner, the foregoing Passages quoted from their Writings.
First. They say that—"The
Ancient of Days is an Infant made." I don't know a Clearer Confutation of
this Error than the four of five following Verses in the same Chapter of Daniel
where God is called the Ancient of days. I think it is impossible for a Person
of common sense to read that Chapter through, without seeing the absolute
Distinction, made between the Ancient of Days, and the Son of Man, which is an
Appellation there given to Christ, and afterwards specially adapted, to him in
the Gospel. (John Roche, Moravian Heresy [Dublin, 1741(*)], 250-51. Roche is responding to John Cennick [1718-1755], Collection of Sacred Hymns, p. 15)
While Roche held to the “traditional” interpretation, it
does evidence some Moravians (to whom he was responding) held to an alternative
interpretation (here, it was Jesus).
(*) some have the publication date as 1641, not 1741, as the Roman numerals in the texts I have examined often have MDXCLI (1641; this caught me out initially until I found out that he was interacting with Cennick who was born in 1718, so the publication date is 1741. Just thought I would share).