jdigrande wrote:Thanks for the information. I have never considered the Ancient of Days to be the exclusively for either the Father or the Son. Joseph
You're welcome. It is a common argument made by those who instigate against images of the Father, that the Son is exclusively the Ancient of Days, and you will find them unwilling to confess that the Father is the Ancient of Days seen in the vision of Daniel 7:13. Were they to admit that Daniel saw the Father in a vision, then the rest of their arguments would fall apart.
For example, the HOCNA pamphlet published by the H.O.M.B. (Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston), called "The True Image of the Father," which is an apology for why they reject images of the Father:
"Some in their limited, human reasoning assumed that in the vision of the Prophet Daniel (7:9-22), the white hair of the Ancient of Days indicate that He is the Father...The vision clearly prefigures Christ at the Last Judgment, for it is He Who will sit as judge in that day. There is also in intimation of the incarnation of Christ, for a son of man was brought to the Ancient of Days, which further indentifies Him with Christ."
and...
"As we have said, it is always the Word of God, not the Father, Who speaks and appears in the Old Testament."
As one can see, this erroneous pamphlet issued by Met. Ephraim of HOCNA is not in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Fathers, who indeed identify the Father as the Ancient of Days in the vision of Daniel. St. John Chrysostom says that the Father appears in the Old Testament, but this HOCNA pamphlet asserts "it is always the Word of God, not the Father" who appears in the OT.
There are other errors in this pamphlet and many errors held by the HTM/HOCNA over the years. HOCNA errors did not begin with Met. Ephraim's "Awake Sleeper" and Imyaslavie. The Boston monastery of HTM and those with them held several strange and unorthodox teachings since at least the early 1970s.