Christ and the Ancient of Days are often conflated in medieval
theology and iconography because of the textual variant in Dan 7:13 OG that
depicts the humanlike one approaching “as,” instead of “up to,” the Ancient of
Days. This conflation informs the imagery used to describe the divine figure in
Rev 1:7, and it led to a long dispute in some Christian communities over the
nature of these figures. In the Coptic Fourteenth
Vision of Daniel of the eighth–twelfth century, for example, the Son of Man
and the Ancient of Days are understood to be identical (DiTommaso 179–84). And
the conflation of these figures did not stop there: in the nineteenth-century
Mormon book of Doctrine and Covenants
27.11, a list of those who have received the gospel includes “Michael, or Adam,
the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days,” which conflates the
biblical characters of the first human and the chief angel (J. Smith 41).
Joseph Smith clarified this teaching: “Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of
the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will
call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare for the
coming of the Son of Man. He [Adam] is the father of the human family.… The Son
of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam
delivers up his stewardship to Christ” (Nyman 111). Thus Smith interprets Dan 7
as a transmission of authority from Adam/Michael to Jesus as the rightful ruler
of the earth. (Carol A. Newsom and Brennan W. Breed, Daniel: A
Commentary [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2014], 249)
