All Things Fulfilled
Eschatology -
Eschatology, Armageddon, Fulfiled Bible Prophecy, Last Days

Who Is the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7?

Rabbula Gospels, Eusebian Canons

Image via Wikipedia

Daniel 7, a hotbed for eschatological theorizing,
continues to baffle commentators, past and

The solution to the identity of the Ancient of
Days is in my opinion, one that is without

The most common designation this obviously
Divine character is God himself. This view
largely stems from the reading of the text.

Variant renderings are:

The Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days
The Son of Man comes as the Ancient of Days

In the first rendering the Father is meant. In
the second it refers to the Son. Can we solve
this debate of Who is the Ancient of Days in
Daniel 7?

Have you ever overlooked the obvious when it
was right in front of you? Objects like eyeglasses
sitting on your desk, but you search all over the
house because you can’t find them.

Recently, I had difficulty finding the exit in the
airport. Over the weekend, I flew to San
Francisco, CA from Memphis.

The first stop was Minneapolis. It was a long
trek through the airport to the terminal. I made
it with no problem.

From there, it was off to San Francisco. Again,
no problem navigating my way through the airport.

On the return trip, I flew into Detroit. Again another
long trek for my connecting flight. Even took the
shuttle without getting lost.

But, making my way back to Memphis, I could not
recognize what was right in front of me, the exit
to baggage claim.

Instead I took a circuitous scenic stroll through
the airport before figuring out I was headed the
wrong way.

The exit was so obvious I missed it. But, I turned
around and retraced my steps and the within a
few steps of the gate from which I exited the
plane was the baggage terminal.

Well, that’s the way today’s topic is, a few steps
away. Follow the article and I will serve as your
tour guide to the solution to a problem that baffles

The answer lies in how one approaches the text
of Daniel 7:13. The clues supporting the solution
we offer can be verified from several passages in
the New Testament.

But first, take a look at the clues from the text
which are:

  • The natural division in Daniel 7.
  • The inspired interpretation in the chapter
  • The evidence from the gospels
  • The evidence from the Apocalypse

The Natural Division

The question, “Who is the Ancient of Days in
Daniel 7?
, is answered by noting the natural
division of the chapter.

The chapter is divided into two main segments.
The first is the dream, 1–16. The second is the
interpretation of the dream, 17–28.

To interpret divine dreams requires divine
inspiration. As noted in Daniel chapter 2,
“There is a God in heaven who reveals secrets.”

God had made known to Daniel the interpretation
of the image in chapter two. (2:19, 28). Why
should we expect anything different here?

Daniels own words express his utter inability to
interpret the dream.

“I, Daniel was grieved in my spirit within my body,
and the visions of my head troubled me.” (v. 15)

How did the prophet spell apocalyptic relief? He
asked God for the answer. Simple enough? We
think so.

“I came near to one of those who stood by, and
asked him the truth of all this. So he told me and
made known to me the interpretation of these
things.” (7:16).

Ah!, What a revelation? What an ingenious
method for understanding the scriptures. Just
ask God for the answer.

Daniel yet walked away with a headache after
hearing the meaning of the dream, but now its
cause is not from ignorance or not knowing.

Rather, it is from knowing what the dream meant.
What follows in verses 16–27, is God’s answer
to Daniel.

Luckily for us, the clues to the identify of the
Ancient of Days is found in this section.

Whatever may be the obscurity in translating
the Hebrew in verse 13, is eliminated by the
more lucid text in verses 21–22:

“I was watching; and the same horn was
making war with against the saints, and
prevailing against them

until the Ancient of Days came, and a
judgment was made in favor of the Most
High, and the time came for the saints
to possess the kingdom.

In the vision, the saints are Christians who
engage in battle against the little horn. There
is no possible way this could happen in A.D. 30.

Many want to make it the Ascension of Christ
to the Father, but their was no war going on
between Christians and their enemy.

Why, because their was no enemy of Christians
prior to Christ’s ascension (Acts 1:11). Why? It’s
because there were no Christians before he
ascended to the Father.

Thus, no judgment could be rendered to stop an
ongoing battle against the saints (Christians)
and the little horn at that time.

That forever rules out Pentecost of A.D. 30 as
a viable solution.

The battle continues until a judgment is rendered
in the saints favor against the little horn with
they were at war.

The focus is the eschatological judgment resulting
in the kingdom being awarded in their favor. See
Matthew 25:31–34.  At the coming of the Son of
Man, the saints inherit the kingdom.

Thus, according to the interpretation in the vision,
it is the Ancient of Days who comes in judgment.
That refers to Christ, not the Father.

Further evidence for this view are the parallels
texts in the gospels. Matthew 24:30, speaks of
the coming of the Son of Man in judgment upon
Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The text is quoted from Daniel 7:13. Jesus, in
this verse, identifies himself as the Son of Man
who comes as the Ancient of Days in judgment.

Because the Jews knew this figure reprented
a Divine being in the apocalyptic imagery, is
evidence from Caiaphas’ charge that Christ,
again referring to the Danielic text, blasphemed.

But Jesus kept silent, And the high priest
answered and said to Him, I put you under
oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the
Christ, the Son of God!”

Jesus said to him, It is as you said. Nevertheless,
I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of
Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and
coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying,
‘He has spoken blasphemy!…(Matthew 26:64, 65

The text is a direct allusion to Daniel 7:13, and
the coming of the Son of Man. Jesus claim to
be the Ancient of Days, hence a divine being
resulted in his conviction of a crime worthy of

Evidence from Revelation

Finally, the book of Revelation gives clues as to
the true identify of the Ancient of Days. Once
again, their can be no mistake that Christ is the

Consider the description of the Ancient of Days in
Daniel 7:9. He adorns a garment white as snow,
and hair like pure wool.

Compare the vision in Revelation:

Chapter 1:13, shows the High Priest, i.e. the
Most High, among the seven lamp stands, and
in their midst, one like the Son of Man. . .

Observe the attire.

“. . . clothed with a garment down to the feet
and girded about the chest with a golden band.

His head and hair were white like wool, as white
as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire;

His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a
furnace,  and His voice as the sound of many

This is the description of the Ancient of Days.
The identity is unmistakable. The Son of Man
is the Jesus, the Christ

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave A Reply (24 comments so far)


  1. Susan
    7 years ago

    I would like to take a stab at who is “The Ancient of Days” in Daniel Chapter 7. In verse 9, Ancient of Days would be Christ whom sits at the right hand of His Father (Psalm 110:1). In verse 7:13, Christ, the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days.(God) Literally or logically, Christ could not have come to himself. Was this not God who gives Christ dominion, and glory? In 7:22 could this be Christ who gives judgment to the saints of the Most High after his Father has given dominion and glory to Him? Jesus says, “I and my Father are one.” John 10:30. In John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Therefore, could not this “Ancient of Days” be interchangeable from Father to Son? And finally, I am working with the King James Authorized Version and it does trip you up from time to time. Is there any logic here????

  2. Susan
    7 years ago

    I would like to amend my previous statement on “Who is the Ancient of Days”. After thinking about it, I believe that in Daniel 7:9, the Ancient of Days is God Himself. Jesus stated in John 12:47 “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world”; therefore, God is the first Judge, Daniel 7:10″…the judgment was set, and the books were opened.” After that judgment, one like the Son of Man (the Messiah) came to the Ancient of Days (God) (Dan 7:13) and was given dominon and glory….Finally, in verse 7:22, the Ancient of Days (the Messiah) came and gave judgment to the Saints of the Most High. Hallelujah

  3. William Bell
    7 years ago

    Susan, I’m in agreement. I’ve taken that position before and see no harm in it, especially since per Matt. 16:27 and John 5:19-27, Christ comes in judgment in the glory of His Father.

  4. JOHN V
    7 years ago

    Changing around the words of Scripture to fit ones interpretation does not constitute the correct answer. The Ancient of days in verse 13 of (Dan.7 kjv) is the same personage as the Ancient of days in verse 22, the SON of God (Son of the Most High). This is Jesus who will physically appear (come) V.22 at the end of the End days. This one like the Son of man who comes up with the clouds, is declared for the (last days) in (Dan.7) and is that one who is translated, caught up to God’s throne in (Rev.12: 5) in the (latter days). This depiction of (Dan.7: 13) is in relationship to (Rev.12: 5) that man child, an individual. The same is afterwards (end days) that one like the Son of man in (Rev.14: 14). He resembles (is LIKE) the Son of man (Jesus) but is not the Son of man! This is the desire of the Father (Rom.8: 29) that all might eventually be transformed into his son’s image, likenss. This one like the Son of man in (Rev.14: 14) is being commanded, instructed and ordered by angels to thrust in his sickle. This one like the Son of man is not the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Son of man, Son of God. Never, never, never does the thing created (angels) instruct the creator (God). Yet, this man did not know what to do with that sickle until instructed! God instructs angels, angels instruct men but only by the order and command of God. No angel would ever dare instruct, command or order God, the Son of God or the Son of man (Jesus Christ)!

  5. mini
    5 years ago

    The Ancient of Days with his throne is his chariot of fire, that He will be coming in the midst of chariots in heaven, and thousands and thousands and thousand of myriads shall serve Him. With Him, will be coming angels in the chariots in heavens.

    • ATF
      5 years ago

      Sounds impressive, but it's not biblical. It ignores the chronological setting for the events, and ignores the use of apocalyptic language in expressing the meaning. You're speaking of an event that occurred almost 2 thousand years ago.

  6. mini
    5 years ago

    The Ancient of Days is Jesus Christ, and the Son of Man, is his messenger, and his ally, and his Angel.

    • ATF
      5 years ago

      Interesting concept. Would you care to elaborate with scriptures to support your claims?

  7. Ramon Arteaga
    5 years ago

    so Christ presented himself to himself? …one like the Son of man…came to the Ancient of Days and they brought him(Christ) near before him(Christ) again?

    • ATF
      5 years ago

      To say that Christ is the Ancient of Days does not mean that the term cannot also used for the Father. Just as Christ is God, and is "equal with God" and the very image of God. He is also called the "Everlasting Father, Mighty God and Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6). So, I see no contradiction in Christ being referred to as the "Ancient of Days" which likewise denotes deity.Remember, he was crucified because he made himself "equal with God" and claimed to be the one of whom Daniel spoke, per Matt. 26:64. How would you explain the coming of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:21-22 who comes in defense of the saints during the days of the 10-horn beast (Rome) Was it God, the Father who came or the "Son of Man"? (Rev. 1:7, 13-14; Matt. 25:31; Matt. 26:64)

  8. melodicplayer
    5 years ago

    Christ is clearly said in Daniel to "present himself to (or before) the Ancient of days". There is clearly a reference to the Son of Man, and God the Father. When Jesus referenced this at His trial, He referred to "the Son of man", not the "ancient of days" as describing Himself. The natural, clear and straightforward way to read the text in Daniel 7, is to see that until the personage referred to as the 'Son of man' comes into the view, that He and the Ancient of days are not the same person.

    Just becuase Jesus is also described in language which speaks of His equality in nature, with God, does not mean that the personage known as 'the Ancient of days' in Daniel 7, who is clearly distinct from the Son of man, is in fact the Son of man. Your comment did not answer the question posed above " So Christ presented Himself to Himself?"

    Answering a question, by ignoring it, while quoting other passages, which are related, but not specific to the point in question, does not answer anything.

    • ATF
      5 years ago

      Melodicplayer, I understand your view of Daniel 7. It is one that I struggled with continuously, and yet do for that matter. I have no question that there is ambiguity in that section which is what I pointed out, I believe in a recording and maybe an article. I think you failed to grasp my entire response.

      First, if it can be incontrovertibly established that the "Ancient of Days" refers exclusively to the Father, I for one have no problems with that at all. The section of scripture you are drawing your conclusions from are part of the dream revealed to Daniel. To God alone belongs the interpretation of dreams. Daniel made that clear in chapter 2:28. As I indicated, the truth is probably between the two extremes of taking the Ancient of Days reference to God alone or Christ alone. Here is why I say that.

      In the "revelation" of the dream, which God, not I, interpreted, he said, "I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom" (7:21-22). So, my question would be, does the Ancient of Days come to Himself per 7:22? Or, does the "Ancient of Days" come to the "Ancient of Days" mentioned in Daniel 7:13? Since Christ and the Father are one, and in view of Isaiah 9:6-8, where he is called the "Everlasting Father, Mighty God and Prince of Peace" why would it be such a stretch to refer to Christ as the "Ancient of Days?"

      On the other hand, I can, in the light of John 14:23, see that the Father himself would come "with Christ" in the New Heavens and earth which came down to men, Rev. 21:1-3. Clearly, the scene in Dan. 7:13-14, is "judgment" imagery, as confirmed in 7:22; not one of "ascension and coronation" as in Pentecost.

      So, again, we have a scenario where the Ancient of Days comes in judgment. So, I ask again, which is the question you ignored in your response, who is it that came in Daniel 7:22, the Father or the Son, and to whom did He come? Yes, given they have an equality in nature, you have backed yourself into the same exegetical corner. Are you by ignoring verses 21-22, evading the question? Since Daniel offered it as an interpretation of verses 1-14, are they not specifically related? How can you charge me with not addressing the issue in light of this?

      I also addressed the fact that there is some ambiguity over the translation of the text in 7:13 as recognized by scholars. That at least raises some doubt on being too dogmatic about drawing well-defined conclusions though I realize that is a matter of the interpreter's choice. For me, since there is a "reasonable shadow of doubt in view of 7:22), I'm willing to keep exploring the issue until I'm satisfied in my mind. But, if you prefer to interpret verse 13, as though verse 22 does not exist, I can accept your decision about that. I simply choose not to interpret it that way.

      So, to beat the horse one more time, who is the Ancient of Days in v. 22, and to whom does he come? Does the Ancient of Days come to the Son of man, does he come to the saints in judgment at which time they receive the Kingdom? Is the "Most High" in the context of 7:22f, the Father, or the Son? If the latter, then does the "Ancient of Days" in v. 22 come to the "Most High" or does the "Most High" come to the Ancient of Days, or does the Most High come to Himself? I will eagly await your definitive and very clear answers.

      • ATF
        5 years ago

        One correction: Please read the word "revelation" above as "interpretation" of the dream.

      • melodicplayer
        5 years ago

        ATF, First, there is no doubt at all, that in verse 9, the personage who “tookHis throne”, and beforewhom or to whom, the”son of man” comes, is God the Father. Second, asto your question in verses 21 -22, all this says is that the “little horn” (mostunderstand to be referring to the anti-christ), will wage war on the people of God and prevail against them, until the “Ancient of days” comes and pronounces judgment in favour of the people of God. Your commentsuggests that the “Ancient ofdays” actually comes and wages war onthe “little horn”,but the text does not say this.There is no reason atall to take this as anything other than what it does say, that God the Father will pronounce that the time of the “little horn” is at an end. you ask, ” Since Christ and the Father are one, and in view of Isaiah 9:6-8, where he is called the “Everlasting Father, Mighty God and Prince of Peace” why would it be such a stretch to refer to Christ as the “Ancient of Days?” I answer, though they are one in essence and nature, they are not the same person, and God the Father is always clearly distinguished from the Son in both theold and New Testament. The phrase in Isa 7 “everlasting Father”, when applied to Jesus, can also be translated as “Father of eternity” (see AMP, Young's literal translation,) tyhe Wycliffe bible renders this as “Father of the world to come”, which though similar, is quite different from “everlasting Father”. The term “father of eternity” would be a title saying Messiah wasthe One who actuallycreated eternity, or the one for whom it was created.And we know from John 1, Heb 1 and specifically Col 1:16,- “all things were created by and for Him (Jesus). Jesus always made clear distinction between Himself and the Father, and as scholars ppint out, His personal favorite title for Himself was ” the son of man” (obviously referencing Dan 7). So, it would be a 'stretch' because the fully- complex understanding of the relationship between the Father and Son, which we find in the New Testament, was certainly not understood or fully revealed in Daniel's time. And beyond that, the text does not read as you suggest. Nothing in the text suggests that Daniel has referred to the “ancient of days, and also the “son of man”, and then refers to the “son of man” as the “ancient of days” again… The text reads thus: Daniel sees a vision (not a dream),of diffferent “beasts”, each representing a future word-dominating or at least influencing kingdoms which shall each successively impact the world; Daniels see the last beast “made iron”, which demolishes the others; Daniel sees a vision of the heavenly court sitting, ready to pronounce judgment on the last beast…but the pronouncement does not yet occur. Here he sees the One who is called “the Ancient of days”; Daniel sees the “the son of man” -clearly referring to Jesus, come to the Ancient of days. Daniel sees the “little horn” speak blasphemies against the Most High and make war on the saints. Daniels sees the Ancient of days come and pronounce judgment -Daniel does not say the 'ancient of days' came and made war against the little horn….which seems to be how you are reading the text. I stillsee no reason whatsoever, for referring to Jesus as the “ancient of days” inDaniel 7, something which, the text does not support. Cheers, John <DIV> From: notifications@intensedebatemail.comTo: worships1@hotmail.comSubject: ATF replied to your comment on Who Is the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7?

        • ATF
          5 years ago


          You appear to have misunderstood my statement about Christ and the Father being one. It was not to indicate they are the same but precisely as you state, the same in nature as two separate divine beings. So, to attribute such to my comments as your words imply are not an equitable evaluation of my statements.

          My point is that because they are both divine in nature, it is not a "stretch" to see similar titles ascribed to them.

          In fact, your reply confirms and acknowledges the very point that I made in using the text. Yes, I do understand the nuance you made. It is a title referring to the Christ as the Messiah of the age to come which is the kingdom age shared by him and the Father, Eph. 5:5; Rev. 3:20, 21:22, 22:5.

          Secondly, I did not see where you addressed who the Most High was in the text. The Ancient of Days comes and renders a judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High. So, for whom/on whose behalf besides the saints, was this judgment rendered? Here are some possible options. If none of these work for you, please offer one you feel does.

          Option 1: The Most High is the Father, thus the Ancient of Days (the Father) came and pronounced a judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, i.e. the Father.

          Option 2: The Most High is the Christ, thus, the Ancient of Days (the Father) came and pronounced a judgment in favor of Christ.

          Option 3: The Ancient of Days is Christ who came and pronounced a judgment in favor of the Most High (the Father)?

          Option 4: The Ancient of Days is Christ who came and pronounced a judgment in favor of the Most High (Christ)?

          Thirdly, concerning your interpretation and citation of Wycliffe, here are some reputable commentaries who certainly do not hold to Wycliffe's interpretation or translation.

          Barnes Notes

          "It does not affirm that this would occur immediately, but that at some subsequent period the Ancient of days would come, and would set up a kingdom on the earth, or would make over the kingdom to the saints. There would be as real a transfer and as actual a setting up of a peculiar kingdom, as if God himself should appear on the earth, and should publicly make over the dominion to them."

          Gill's Exposition of the Bible:

          "Until the Ancient of days came,…. Not locally, by change of place, he being the omnipresent God; but in a providential way, to check and put a stop to the power and prevalency of the little horn over the saints; for this is the terminus or end of that; which puts a period to it; for when the Ancient of days comes in the exertion of his power and providence, he will come and sit as a Judge upon this little horn or antichrist, and judge, and condemn, and punish it;"

          Geneva Study Bible

          "Until God showed his power in the person of Christ, and by the preaching of the Gospel gave unto his own some rest, and so obtained a famous name in the world, and were called the Church of God, or the kingdom of God."

          Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

          "Ancient of days came-The title applied to the Father in Da 7:13 is here applied to the Son; who is called "the everlasting Father" (Isa 9:6). The Father is never said to "come"; it is the Son who comes."

          So the interpretation you've offered is by no means unanimous and the above quotes are more than evidence to the contrary.

          Fourthly, in the gospel of John, where the context was clearly the role of Christ and that of the Father, the Jews chided Christ for making himself equal with God. Jesus' response was the following:

          "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himseolf, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

          For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel.

          For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 'that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

          Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death in to life…For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Jn. 5:19-27.

          When the Jews questioned Jesus' deity, he replies by saying not only was He equal with God, but just as the Father judged, He would judge also. The reference is to me, related to the context of Daniel 7, the very basis of which establishes the authority of Christ to execute judgment.

          So, as I said before. I understand your point, have considered it before, but at this time and in light of the above, do not see it as conclusive or without problems.

          • melodicplayer
            5 years ago

            The Ancient of dayswho rendersjudgmentfor the saints of the most High God, is the same one who sits on the throne…it is God theFather. You are reading this verse in particular to mean “Until the Ancient of days came and a judgment is made in favour of the saints of the Most High God (who is not the ancient of days ). That is how you are reading the text, and I say again, nothing in the text warrants such, nor suggests otherwise. Daniel needs to taken on its own, and having already identified the ancient of days as being distinct from the son of man, nothing in the text suggests that Daniel now refers to the son of man, by the title ancient of days. It is merely an opinion of some interpreters that it now refers to Jesus. You are assuming that because the Father is referred to by two titles in one verse, that one of the titles here must refer to the son. There are numerous times in scripture, when God is referred to by more than one title in the same text. The Father, according to the text,is the Ancient of days, and He is also the most high God. The text plainly re-inforces this natural and un-stretched interpretation. My friend, you waste time,attempting to prove the essential divinity of Christ. I am a Christian and believe in the personall divinity of Jesus, as sharing the same essential nature and attributes as theFather, though in the God-head, as afunctional role (not an ontological one),He is subordinate, as the quotes from John verify,He only does what He sees and hears the Father tellHim to do. I stand still firm in the first point I replied to;that Jesus is not the “ancient of days” in Daniel 7. He is, who He said He Himself is, which is, the son of man! John <DIV> From: notifications@intensedebatemail.comTo: worships1@hotmail.comSubject: ATF replied to your comment on Who Is the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7?

          • ATF
            5 years ago

            You affirm that the Ancient of Days and the Most High as the same in verse 22, because the Father is referred to by two titles in one verse.

            Are you by that statement implying that Christ is never referred to by more than one title in the same verse? With that logic you could just as

            easily use both titles to refer to Christ, in v.13-14 or 22-27.

            You miss my point again on the divinity of Christ. I'm not denying you are a Christian. I assumed that much which you confirm. I raised the

            issue on the deity of Christ only to point out that it is he who came in judgment at the parousia.

            One major problem I have with your assessment of the two titles referring to one is verse 26 which says "But the court shall be

            seated and "they" shall take away his (the little horn's) dominion.

            The Septuagint reads: "Until the Ancient of days came, and he gave judgment to the sints of the Most High; and the time came on, and the saints possessed the kingdom….

            And the judgment has sat, and THEY shall remove his dominion to abolish it, and to destroy it utterly." v. 22, 26. Then, when the verse speaks again of the Most High, it

            reverts back to the use of the singular pronoun "his." "And the kingdom and the power and the greatness of the kings that are under the whole heaven were given to the

            saints of eth Most High; and "HIS" kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all powers shall serve and obey HIM.

            The text does not appear to use the titles to refer to one, and the use of the plural pronoun for those who sit in judgment (which can only be the Father and the Son)

            for only the Son is given authority to execute judgment as the Father did.

            Further, since the Father has authority over the Son, and all are to serve the Most High, the logical deduction for me in light of the grammatical context and the

            one whom all powers serve suggests the Most High is the Father. Christ comes and delivers the kingdom back to God. So, let's see how you explain away

            "they" in a text where you only see a "he".

          • melodicplayer
            5 years ago

            Hi again, for clarity, see below, I will respond under your points in different font, <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>From: notifications@intensedebatemail.comTo: worships1@hotmail.comSubject: ATF replied to your comment on Who Is the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7?

  9. Roderick Cruz
    3 years ago

    Hi John,

    I don't have scripture to back this up about the Ancient of Days. This is more of an opinion and hopefully could set another view of the subject. Please ignore this if you find it heretical.

    This is my view of the subject:

    Ancient of Days as I understand it pertains to time and I don't see it as pertaining to a person. God is not bounded by time for He is the Alpha and the Omega. So I would say that the Ancient of Days approached the throne and with it were all the saints that had fallen asleep in each corresponding time zones. They were presented to Christ for the handing over of the kingdom to them (First Resurrection/Rapture?).

    This view came into my mind when I thought about the Dead in Christ who will rise at the Rapture event together with those who are alive. A question popped into my mind about who were those Dead in Christ, are they a group of believers who had fallen asleep at some time long ago or at pre/med/post tribulation time? How could they be so many described as multitudes in revelation and had fallen asleep at the same time just to be gathered up at a twinkling of an eye (a bat of an eyelash)? This gave me the reason to search it up in scriptures to solve this mystery about who are the dead in Christ and when did they fell asleep. And I read about this Ancient of Days in Daniel 7, and find it also profound and mysterious. So I tried rationalizing and convincing myself this could be it referring to the Dead in Christ who have fallen asleep in different time zones (warp?).

    Here are my parameters in coming up with this rationalization:
    1. Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega
    2. A Thousand years is just a day to the Lord
    3. Medical and Scientific parallel in the case of the Dead in Christ, someone who undergone a comatose condition, unaware of how long he had been in an unconscious condition (twinkling of an eye).
    4. All/every eye will see the coming of the Son of Man (first and Second Resurrection).
    5. Nothing is Impossible to God.
    6. God is All-Power, All-Present, and All-Knowing.

    I hope this will not add to the confusion. I am very much willing to be corrected in this view should you find this inerrant. I would appreciate your comments on this.



    PS sorry if you find my grammar or vocabulary limited. I'm asian and I'm not that fluent in english.

Subscribe and Receive Free Audio

Two Guys and A Bible: Fulfilled Radio Broadcast





Google Ad

Pinterest Button

Hostgator Ad