And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which became exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauty [of the earth].
Daniel 8 has just shown two great empires rise and fall. Now the prophecy narrows to one figure: a small horn growing out of one of the four parts of Alexander's broken kingdom. Who is he, why does the vision spend so much space on him, and why do his conquests bend toward Israel's land?
(The ESV says "the glorious land." The older translations quoted below say "the pleasant land.")
Two verses cover a huge span of history. Each phrase marks a stage.
This short statement packs in a long stretch of history. Yet it holds every point that matters to the prophecy of this chapter. First, the Greek kingdom comes into being. Then Alexander dies in the middle of his triumphs — "when he was strong." Then four of his generals divide his empire between them. And finally, out of one of these rises "a little horn, which grew exceedingly great."
Which four kingdoms, and which one produced the horn?
In the end, Alexander's empire split into four kingdoms, as Daniel 7 points out: Syria, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace. The last two soon fell to the advancing Roman power. The first two lasted until about 50 B.C. The little horn arose out of Syria.
Daniel 7 also showed a little horn. Is this the same one?
It is important to distinguish between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8. The one arises in the West, out of the fourth Empire; the other arises in the East, out of one of the four divisions of the third Empire. This last is the king of the North, whose doings we read so much about in Daniel 11.
The word "little" says something about where this man comes from. It also explains why the chapter keeps its eye on him.
The expression "little horn" may show that the person pictured here rises out of the crowd. Apart from his own genius, he would be a person of no importance. The little horn of Daniel 8 is a figure of the king of the north. Many prophecies speak of him, and he will play a leading part in what happens to God's earthly people in the time of the end. For this reason, no doubt, the vision and the interpretation deal mainly with this little horn.
Three directions are named. They also point back to where the horn began.
"And out of one of them came forth a little horn," otherwise called in Scripture the king of the north. Being in the north, he pushes his territory down "toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." The direction of his conquests shows where his own power lay, and the point from which he started.
Each direction points to a real place on the map.
This little horn extended his kingdom. He "grew exceedingly great toward the south," that is, toward Egypt. Egypt is always described this way because it lies south of Palestine. He grew "toward the east," that is, toward Parthia and Armenia, and so on. And he grew "toward the pleasant land," that is, Palestine. All these are well-known facts of history, and history books record the various campaigns of this notorious king in these countries.
The third direction is not a compass point. It is a name.
The power called "the little horn" enlarges its territory toward the east, and toward the pleasant land, or ornament of the earth. That is to say, as it appears to me, toward Jerusalem or Zion.
Writers name the man of verse 9: Antiochus Epiphanes, a Syrian king who attacked the Jews. The vision and its later interpretation look in two directions.
Daniel 8 speaks not of the west but of the east. It speaks of the Greek-Syrian kingdom, which persecuted and defiled holy things in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel 11:21-31 gives us ample details about him. This prediction is so exact that it goes beyond what any ancient historian we still have supplies. The vision in Daniel 8:9-14 dwells on what is now history. The interpretation, in verses 23-25, dwells mainly on what is still to be fulfilled.
So why does Scripture linger over his crimes?
Scripture dwells on his evil deeds at some length, we believe, because he acted with such violence against the Jews. That made him a type or forecast of the king of the north, who in the last days will be their great enemy.
- Small. The horn starts as nothing — one shoot out of Syria. Syria was one of four fragments left when Alexander died at the height of his strength.
- Growing. It grows "exceedingly great," pressing south to Egypt, east to Parthia and Armenia, and into Palestine.
- Northern. The direction of his conquests shows where he began; he is the king of the north, not the western horn of Daniel 7.
- Aimed. His third target is the land God calls pleasant — Jerusalem, Zion — which is why this one man fills the chapter.
- Twofold. Verses 9-14 read as history already fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes. The interpretation in verses 23-25 still waits. He is the forecast of Israel's last great adversary.
And it became great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down [some] of the host and of the stars to the ground, and trampled upon them.
In Daniel's vision a small horn grows until it reaches heaven itself. It pulls part of the sky down and tramples on it. What does that mean, and why does God describe an attack on people as an attack on stars?
The language sounds cosmic. One writer asks who these figures really are:
So we can conclude that the "host of heaven" in our Scripture stands for some ruling authorities. Who then are they? ... The "host of heaven" means those who held the place of authority among the Jews, those who occupied, by whatever means, positions of responsibility in the government of the Jewish people. Remember that Revelation 1–3 uses stars as symbols of those who hold the place of rule in the church, the assembly. In the same way, the host of heaven stands for those entrusted with rule among the Jews at that time.
The title is no compliment on their spiritual state. It says where these people stand, not what they are like:
The expression applies to those who, at least outwardly, surround the throne of God, and especially those who stand out among them. It does not mean the faithful who look towards heaven, whom chapter 7 speaks of. To be the host of heaven describes a position and not a moral state... They are again under the eye of God, in relation with Him. They are something He concerns Himself with. They are a people still responsible for their former relationship with Him, even though the Gentile power still stands.
The horn had already toppled nations. One writer points out where God's attention rests:
Notice how God weighs things. The priests and governors among this poor people matter more to Him than anything else the beast has been doing in the world. He lifted himself up "even to the host of heaven." A man may overturn empires or found them, or win the greatest victories, and God in His providence may oversee such events. But it is far more dangerous to meddle with the things that belong to God, the things He looks upon, and to try to wipe out His glory, however tarnished it may be in our hands.
The verse names two acts, and the second is the uglier one. One writer describes the man behind them:
This little horn casts down some of the host, and some of the stars too, to the ground. The rulers of the nation offend this man's proud heart. Like every other dictator, he cannot bear the slightest resistance to his will from anyone he has defeated.
His reach went through every rank of authority, and it stopped at nothing:
So our scripture teaches us that this little horn, Antiochus Epiphanes, attacked the ruling powers among the Jews. History records that he did. He cast down some of them, men of different ranks, "stamped" on them, and put them through every kind of ill-treatment and humiliation, even to destruction.
The title stands even though the people had fallen. One writer explains why:
By this I understand those who were in a position of honour and glory before the Jewish people... The importance of everything that touches Israel is now coming more and more into view. So you find an expression that may seem strong — "the host of heaven." But this should not surprise us. God takes the utmost interest in His people. Bear in mind that this does not imply that His people were in a good state. On the contrary, in judging failure, we must consider the position the people held, and for which they are responsible.
Commentators differ on the timing. Some read the horn's work as history already fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes. Others place this part of the vision in the future:
At verse 9 we pass to that part of the vision whose fulfilment is yet future. In the time of the end (verse 17), a nation will exist north of Palestine. It will attack the Jewish nation, then gathered back in their land... For a time this northern power will be allowed to overrun the "pleasant land," and to cast down those in authority among God's people.
- Stars mean rulers. The host and the stars stand for the men who held authority among God's people. Revelation uses stars the same way for those who rule in the assembly.
- Heaven means position. The title describes where God set them, not how well they behaved. They stay under His eye as a people still in relationship with Him.
- Position means responsibility. God takes the deepest interest in His people even when their state is poor. He measures their failure against the place He gave them.
- Touching them means touching God. Overturning empires weighs less with God than reaching for what belongs to Him. That is why this one act outweighs all the horn's conquests.
- The horn means two readings. Commentators differ. Some see the verse fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes. Others expect a northern power in the time of the end.
(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.
And I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that one who spoke, How long shall be the vision of the continual [sacrifice] and of the transgression that maketh desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden down under foot?
Daniel's vision has just shown a power that stops Israel's daily burnt offering and tramples the sanctuary. Now the prophet overhears two holy ones asking how long it will last — and the answer decides whether this is old history or still ahead.
The word for "saint," or "holy one," does not have to mean a person. Scripture uses it of angels as well as of Israel:
Scripture speaks often of saints, or holy ones. It describes the elect angels this way (Deut. 33:2; Job 15:15; Dan. 8:13; Jude 14). It calls the people of Israel by the same name (Deut. 33:3).
The one being addressed is harder to name. An older English version calls him "that certain saint," and the margin adds a title:
We quote this passage for the phrase "that certain saint." A competent authority tells us the phrase means "a certain unknown person." The margin of our Authorized Bible describes this person as "the numberer of secrets, or the wonderful numberer." The Hebrew name is "Palmoni," which means a wonderful numberer, as the margin says. Does it not look as if there is an angel appointed whose work is to deal with numbers?
The question looks back to verse 11, where the horn attacks both the people and their worship. One small word decides the sense: was the daily sacrifice taken away by the horn, or from the Prince of the host?
This little horn grew great, and cast down some of the host and the stars of heaven, and trampled on them. That is, certain Jewish rulers who held a place of great authority are overthrown, treated with the greatest cruelty and degraded. "Yes, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host," which, I suppose, means the Lord Himself. The marginal note is right in the next clause: "From him the daily sacrifice was taken away." That at once makes it all plain. Taking "by him" to mean the little horn, and "the place of his sanctuary" to mean the sanctuary of the Prince of the host, brings in the greatest confusion.
The daily sacrifice is the verse's regular burnt offering, and it was never a private act:
The priest offered the daily sacrifice as acting for the whole nation. It pictured the ground of the nation's blessings and privileges. So faith made much of it. Ezra 3:3; Dan. 8:11, 13, 26; Dan. 9:27.
The wording here is not the better-known "abomination of desolation." One writer keeps the two apart:
I am not ready to say that "the abomination of desolation," which our Lord speaks of in Matt. 24, referring to Daniel 12:11, is the same as "the image" before us... In Dan. 8:13 it is a different thing: "the transgression of desolation."
Much of this has already happened once, and history names the man:
I strongly suspect that most of what we have here, apart from the part set in brackets, was partly fulfilled in the past... Secular history calls him Antiochus Epiphanes, and he was a very bad man... He tried to force pagan worship on the Jews, above all the worship of Jupiter Olympus. He put to death every Jew who resisted him. At last the Romans, together with the strength and courage of the Maccabees themselves, held him back and defeated him. The temple was cleansed once more, and Jewish worship started again.
But that fulfilment was only partial. The same writer shows how far the details of the vision run past anything Antiochus did:
The horn cast down the sanctuary to the ground, and Antiochus did not: he left it standing. The sanctuary and the host were to be trampled under foot until two thousand three hundred days, and in Daniel's prophecies days stand for years. But the defiling in the reign of Antiochus did not last that many ordinary days. The trampling was to last until the time of the end, until the very end of the indignation against the Jews — and that indignation has not ended yet. It was to last until the sanctuary that had been cast down should be cleansed — and the sanctuary is not yet cleansed. The most we can allow is that the prophecy had only a partial fulfilment in Antiochus, one that ran ahead of the real one.
The sanctuary in view stands on earth, not in heaven:
What is the sanctuary spoken of here? It is Israel's. The "indignation" is God's anger against them, and it ends with their restoration and blessing, as we see here... The only sanctuary of God that could be trampled underfoot was the one in Israel, and so shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
- Asked — holy ones raise the question in heaven while the trampling is still going on. God's people are not the only ones watching the clock.
- Numbered — the margin calls the one addressed the wonderful numberer. The evil has a counted limit, not an open one.
- Named — what is lost is the daily sacrifice, taken from the Prince of the host. It stood for the whole ground of Israel's blessing.
- Limited — the sanctuary and the host are given up, but only for a counted number of days. Antiochus fulfilled part of it; the sanctuary is not yet cleansed.
- Cleansed — the answer ends with a cleansed sanctuary. God's anger against His people closes in their restoration and blessing.
And he said unto me, Until two thousand and three hundred evenings [and] mornings then shall the sanctuary be vindicated.
A question in verse 13 asks how long the daily sacrifice will stay stopped and the sanctuary lie trampled, and this verse is the answer. Three things hang on it: what "evenings and mornings" counts, which sanctuary the verse means, and whether the answer belongs to the past or the future.
The figure is tied to Israel's own way of counting days. One writer asks whether it can stretch across the kingdoms of this chapter:
Does this time measure the whole time of the kingdoms spoken of? Of course, two thousand three hundred days, if it is literally this, could not; and "evening-mornings" — taken from the Jewish reckoning of days — seems literal enough.
The little horn of this chapter attacked Israel's worship. One writer follows the story to its end:
History outside the Bible calls him Antiochus Epiphanes, and he was a very bad man… He tried to force pagan worship on the Jews, above all the worship of Jupiter Olympus, and he put to death all the Jews who resisted his plans. In the end he was held back and defeated, partly by the Romans and partly by the force and courage of the Maccabees themselves. The temple was cleansed once more, and Jewish worship began again.
Because the count fits that history, some writers reject the popular method of turning each prophetic day into a year:
The 2,300 days (literal days) cover just about the period of time during which Antiochus did his wicked deeds. When those days ended, Judas Maccabaeus cleansed the sanctuary about December 25, 165 B.C… the foolish speculations that these days are years, and so on, lacks scriptural foundation altogether. Such views and fanciful interpretations bring the study of prophecy into disrepute. We have in mind especially the Seventh Day Adventist delusion. They teach the terrible falsehood that the Lord Jesus Christ did not enter the Most Holy Place until the year 1844, because by their reckoning that is 2,300 years after Cyrus gave the command to build the temple. That this is a denial of the gospel itself, and satanic, is self-evident.
Commentators differ on how far this verse reaches. Some see it fully carried out in the days of the Maccabees. Others follow Gabriel's interpretation, which points past that crisis to a later day.
What Daniel saw came true in history, in Antiochus Epiphanes during the time of the Maccabees. But Gabriel's interpretation now shows us that this historical fulfilment also pointed to another fulfilment. So the full realization of what Daniel describes will come after the rapture of the Church, when the Jews will be once more in their own land.
Older translations end the verse, "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed," and the writers here use that wording. The promise belongs to one people. God's anger let the trampling happen, and the same anger closes with their restoration.
What is the sanctuary spoken of here? It is Israel's. The "indignation" is God's anger against them, which closes with their restoration and blessing, as seen here.
Some move the cleansing to a sanctuary in heaven. One writer answers that nothing in heaven can be trodden down:
It is certain, however, that the sanctuary in Daniel 8 is the Jewish one. It is not wholly set aside, as they imagine. As we have seen, and as the sure word of God teaches, it is still to stand in the midst of Israel… No heavenly sanctuary, despite all claims, could be "trodden underfoot," and the prophecy shows us the one who is to do this to the earthly one.
This teaching makes 1844 the start of a work not yet finished. The cost falls on the cross:
Imagine believers, pardoned and accepted by the Father, still waiting for a verdict on whether they have a right to the benefits of the atonement! Imagine the work of atonement not completed. Every true believer in the Lord Jesus must reject this serious dishonour put upon his Saviour and His precious finished work.
- Question. The verse answers a "how long?" from the vision: the trampling of God's house has a fixed limit, not an endless one.
- Days. "Evenings and mornings" follows Israel's own way of counting days. Taken as real days, the span is far too short to cover the kingdoms of this chapter.
- History. The limit ran out on Antiochus Epiphanes. Judas Maccabaeus cleansed the sanctuary he had defiled, and its worship began again.
- Horizon. Commentators differ on how far the words reach. Gabriel's interpretation leads many to see that old tyrant as a picture of a last one.
- Hope. The sanctuary here is Israel's, not one in heaven. So the verse closes God's anger with restoration, and leaves Christ's finished work untouched.