(And he magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, and from him the continual [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
The vision has been describing a horn — a power — but here the pronoun changes and a person steps forward. That raises two questions: who is the Prince of the host he rises against, and who is robbed of the regular burnt offering?
Verse 11 and the first half of verse 12 sit apart from the flow around them, marked off by the switch from "it" to "he":
Those who held this place of responsible authority in Israel are spoken of here as the host and stars of heaven. God put them in that place of authority… This little horn grew great, and cast down some of the host and stars of heaven, and trampled on them. That is, certain Jewish rulers held that place of great authority. They are overthrown, treated with the utmost cruelty, and degraded. "Yes, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host," which I take to mean the Lord Himself… In other words, the eleventh verse and the first half of the twelfth form a parenthesis. Then in the latter part of the twelfth verse we again have "it," which points to the little horn of verse 10.
Writers see the shift of pronoun as pointing past the kingdom to the man who heads it.
The change from "it" to "he" has already been noticed. It seems to show that the king himself acted here — the king pictured by the little horn. That reading convinces, since the little horn may stand for the power of the kingdom in a general way. So this king was daring enough to set himself openly and publicly against Him who was no less than Jehovah.
Older versions read "by him the daily sacrifice was taken away." Their margin reads "from him," and the ESV follows it: the regular burnt offering "was taken away from him." Writers hold the margin is right, and the next clause proves it:
I take the marginal reading in chapter 8 to be beyond doubt the right translation — "from him," and not "by him." In that case "him" refers to the prince of the host. The words "the place of his sanctuary" fully confirm this, for that sanctuary is certainly not the little horn's.
The title sets the offence at its true height. This is more than an attack on a nation's worship.
He pushes his claims so far that he opposes Him. He sets himself against Christ as Prince of Israel, against the Judge who comes, the Head of Israel, who is Jehovah Himself… We know it is Jehovah, because the sacrifice taken away is His and the sanctuary cast down is His. But the vision presents Him here as the Prince of the host.
The next verse supplies the reason the attack succeeds, and it is not the attacker's strength:
However wicked the agent was, he was only an instrument in the hands of God. God used him to chastise those who held the place of His people. He let this wicked king succeed in his plans against the daily sacrifice "by reason of transgression." Moreover, "the place of His sanctuary was cast down." For a time all Jewish rites and sacrifices stopped, and the Gentile oppressor defiled Zion, the holy mountain.
Take away the daily offering and you take away the ground on which a worshipper could approach:
The reason God gave for not cursing (we hear it in Genesis 8) is that He looks to Noah's sacrifice, not to the sin. God deals with us in virtue of what the Mediator is, instead of what we are. It ought to be always in our hearts, but it is always before God. When the daily sacrifice was taken away, the Jew could not go to God; there was no savour; see Dan. 8:11.
Does all of this lie in the past? One writer traces the little horn to a real king, then shows why the vision reaches past him:
The third kingdom, the Grecian, split into four. Out of it arose a little horn, which magnified itself. Then follows the ceasing of the daily sacrifice at Jerusalem, "the pleasant land." But in Dan. 8:11 and part of verse 12 there is a change from "it" to "he," and Dan. 8:17 and Dan. 8:19 speak of "the time of the end." The little horn does refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, and he did cause the worship at Jerusalem to cease. Even so, the passage points to a later and still future period, and to another king of Syria. He will stand against the Prince of princes, and shall be broken without hand. Dan. 8:25.
- Person. The pronoun turns from "it" to "he" — the vision stops describing a kingdom and shows the king himself.
- Prince. The one he lifts himself against is the Prince of the host, Israel's Head, Jehovah Himself — and the king who defies Him is broken at last, "without hand."
- Plunder. Read "from him," not "by him": the sacrifice and the sanctuary are God's, and they are taken from Him.
- Permission. The attack succeeds only "by reason of transgression." The oppressor is a tool in God's hand to chastise His own people.
- Poverty. With the daily sacrifice gone, there was no savour. The Jew could not come to God.
And a time of trial was appointed unto the continual [sacrifice] by reason of transgression.) And it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised and prospered.
Daniel 8:12 sits in the middle of a vision about a small horn that turns on the Jewish people, their worship, and their God. It is one of the hardest verses in the book. Who takes the sacrifice away? What does its opening clause mean? Whose success is described?
Writers point out that verse 11 and the opening of verse 12 read as a break in the flow. Getting the translation right matters here.
There is a change in the next verse that matters a great deal, because it concerns the complete destruction of the worship of God at Jerusalem. Here is what I believe is the right reading: "And he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and from him (the prince of the host) the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down, and a certain time of distress was appointed to the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression." I would put all of that in a parenthesis. The important change is that the taking away of the daily sacrifice is not credited to this little horn. The little horn's actions start again after the word "transgression": "And it cast down the truth to the ground."
The words say the offering was taken from someone, not by someone. So who lost it? The answer points to the "prince of the host" named just before.
God further permits that the daily sacrifice should be taken away from this prince. We see therefore who this Prince is. It is the Lord. The sacrifice is taken away from Him, and the place of His sanctuary cast down, in this time of terror.
The verse gives a reason for the loss, and it sits with the people, not with the tyrant. His freedom to act is on loan.
"It," referring to the little horn, is changed to "he" in verse 11, alluding in both cases to the same person, Antiochus Epiphanes. He takes away the daily sacrifice from the temple, and is allowed to do so as the scourge of God because of the transgression of the people.
Once the parenthesis closes, the horn is back in view, and the verse names two things about it: what it does to truth, and how it operates.
In addition to this the little horn (the connection with verse 10 is now picked up again) "cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered." Along with the ending of the daily sacrifices, and the defiling and destruction of the sanctuary, the truth, as Isaiah says, had fallen in the streets, "cast down" by the violence of the enemy. And this wicked power practised — it worked by cunning, plans, and schemes — and prospered.
The success is real, and it is also on a leash.
Then the vision indicates that "it," the northern power, will cast down the truth and, for a time, be allowed to prosper and accomplish great things.
Commentators differ on the timing. Some read verses 10–12 as already fulfilled in the past.
What is said of the horn up to verse 12 has been fulfilled in the times of the Seleucids (Antiochus Epiphanes)… and not the last days.
Others hold that the past event was a sample of something larger.
I strongly suspect that most of what we have here, apart from the part marked as a parenthesis, has had a partial fulfilment in the past… In secular history he is called Antiochus Epiphanes, and he was a particularly bad man… He tried to force pagan worship on the Jews, and he put to death all who resisted his plans. At last, partly by the Romans and partly by the courage of the Maccabees, he was put down and defeated, the temple was cleansed once more, and Jewish worship started again. No doubt this was the person meant historically by the little horn. But he shows the same kind of features which will reappear.
- Transgression — the door opens from the inside. The oppressor gains ground "because of transgression." The first cause of the loss is the sin of the people, not the strength of the enemy.
- Permission — the tyrant is a tool. He is "allowed to do so as the scourge of God," which means his power is granted, not seized.
- Loss — what is taken is taken from God. The daily sacrifice is taken from the Prince of the host. Commentators identify that Prince as the Lord Himself.
- Method — the horn works by "subtleties, plans, and schemes," and truth is thrown to the ground by violence before the horn appears to succeed.
- Limit — the prospering is "for a time." Scripture states the success and dates its end, so apparent triumph over truth is temporary by design.