In her study of the interpretation of the "Ancient of Days" among the patristics, Gretchen Kraehling noted that the two leading defenders of icons and icon veneraton, John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite, interpreted the "Ancient of Days" within the framework of the doctrine of icon veneration and the allowance in the Bible of depicting God:
John of Damascus,
De imaginibus oratorio (On the Divine Images, trans. David Anderson
[Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980])
For John of Damascus (ca. 675–ca.
749), the visions recorded in the Old Testament were prefigurations of “what
was yet to come" (On the Divine Images, 80). Without stating it
explicitly, John hints that visions like that of the Ancient of Days should be
interpreted as revelations of the Incarnation to come, when the Logos who is
“the invisible Son and Word of God was to become truly man” (Ibid.). These Old
Testament revelations were, according to John, images created by God himself,
intended to reveal to man the promise of the Incarnation. John provides several
instances in which the prophets of the Old Testament fell down to venerate the
vision that was presented to them. John mentions Abraham, (Ibid.; Gen. 18.2)
Joshua, (Ibid.; Josh 5.14) and Daniel, (Ibid.; Dan 7.9, 13) who all honored the
forms that appeared before them, not as gods, but as images created by God.
Writing during Iconoclasm, John defends icons by showing that God utilized
visions, which should be considered images, to reveal his plan of salvation.
The Old Testament visions were a part of the long tradition of images that
played an integral role in the history of the church and in God’s plan for
salvation.
Theodore the Studite,
Oratio VI. In sanctus angelos (PG 99:740D-741A)
Theodore the Studite (759–826), in
this passage in his treatise on angels, is concerned with the Old Testament
appearances recorded by the prophets. While he places particular emphasis on
Daniel’s vision, he does not specifically identify the Ancient of Days. Instead,
he discusses what it is not. Theodore states that the Ancient of Days was a
revelation of God, (In Sanctus Angelos [PG 99:740D]: "τον
Παλαιον των ημερων Θεον"]) but he also points out that it is not the
essence of God that was revealed, for this is invisible, indescribable, and
uncircumscribable.
Theodore explains that visions in
the Old Testament are to be interpreted as physical manifestations intended to
help earthly beings understand the idea of God since they are unable to see the
essence of God (PG 99:740D-741A). Similar to Chrysostom’s emphasis on
condescension is Theodore’s explanation that God’s visions are revelations of
himself to humanity. The commentaries and interpretations of Theodore the
Studite and John of Damascus are important, for they state explicitly that the
essence of God can never be seen and was not revealed by any Old Testament
vision, including Daniel’s. However, their writings were completed in the
context of the bitter struggle against the Iconoclasts, who were attacking the
production and veneration of icons. Each argument and interpretation presented
by these two writers was primarily intended to combat the destruction of icons
and restore their veneration in the Orthodox tradition. The authors do not
state with any precision who the Ancient of Days is, and what relationship, if
any, he has with God the Father; this was not their main intention. They do,
however, provide important interpretations of Old Testament visions. (Gretchen
Kraehling, "The Eastern Christian Exegetical Tradition of Daniel's Vision
of the Ancient of Days," Journal of Early Christian Studies 7, no.
1 [Spring 1999]: 154-55)
On icon veneration, see the listing of articles at:
Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons