Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host – Grotius, Ephraem the Syrian, and others, understand this of Onias the high priest, as the chief officer of the holy people. Lengerke supposes that it means God himself. This interpretation is the more probable; and the idea in the phrase prince of the host is, that as God is the ruler of the host of heaven – leading on the constellations, and marshalling the stars, so he may be regarded as the ruler of the holy army here below – the ministers of religion, and his people. Against him as the Ruler and Leader of his people Antiochus exalted himself, particularly by attempting to change his laws, and to cause his worship to cease.

And by him – Margin, from him. The meaning is, that the command or authority to do this proceeded from him.

The daily sacrifice was taken away – The sacrifice that was offered daily in the temple, morning and evening, was suspended. A full account of this may be found in 1 Macc. 1:20-24, 29-32, 44-50. In the execution of the purposes of Antiochus, he entered the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick, and all the vessels thereof; and the table of showbread, the pouring vessels, etc., and stripped the temple of all the ornaments of gold. After two years he again visited the city, and smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel, and when he had taken the spoils of the city he set it on fire, and pulled down the walls thereof on every side. Everything in Jerusalem was made desolate. Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honor into contempt. Subsequently, by a solemn edict, and by more decisive acts, he put a period to the worship of God in the temple, and polluted and defiled every part of it. For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should follow the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the sabbaths and festival days, and pollute the sanctuary and holy people; set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swines flesh, and unclean beasts; that they should also leave their children uncir. cumcised, and make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleanness and profanation; to the end they might forget the laws, and change all the ordinances, 1 Macc. 1:44-49.

It was undoubtedly to these acts of Antiochus that the passage before us refers, and the event accords with the words of the prediction as clearly as if what is a prediction had been written afterward, and had been designed to represent what actually occurred as a matter of historical record. The word which is rendered daily sacrifice – the word sacrifice being supplied by the translators – tamyd – means, properly, continuance, prepetuity, and then what is continuous or constant – as a sacrifice or service daily occurring. The word sacrifice is properly inserted here. – Gesenius, Lexicon The meaning of the word rendered was taken away – huram (Hophal from rum – to exalt, to lift up) – here is, that it was lifted up, and then was taken away; that is, it was made to cease – as if it had been carried away. – Gesenius.

And the place of his sanctuary – Of the sanctuary or holy place of the, Prince of the host, that is, of God. The reference is to the temple.

Was cast down – The temple was not entirely destroyed by Antiochus, but it was robbed and rifled, and its holy vessels were carried away. The walls indeed remained, but it was desolate, and the whole service then was abandoned. See the passages quoted above from 1 Macc.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 11. Even to the prince of the host] They seemed, in this case, to fight against God himself.

The daily sacrifice was taken away] By the destruction of the city and temple; and has never been restored from that day until now.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Even to the prince of the host; not only against the high priest Onias, whom he put from his priesthood, and sold the high priesthood, 2Mac 4, but against God himself, which showed his daring insolence, and Gods patience and permission, for the sins of his people.

By him the daily sacrifice was taken away; for he so persecuted the people of God, that he forced them to omit the worship of God.

The place of his sanctuary was cast down; he took away the use of the temple as to the holy service and sacrifices, commanding that it should not be called the temple of God, but of Jupiter Olympus, whose image he set up in it, and gave the priesthood to wicked men, as Jason and Menelaus.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

11. to the prince of the hostthatis, God Himself, the Lord of Sabaoth, the hosts in heaven and earth,stars, angels, and earthly ministers. So Da8:25, “he shall stand up against the Prince of princes“;”against the God of gods” (Da11:36; compare Da 7:8). Henot only opposes God’s ancient people, but also God Himself.

daily sacrificeofferedmorning and evening (Exo 29:38;Exo 29:39).

taken awayby Antiochus(1 Maccabees 1:20-50).

sanctuary . . . castdownThough robbed of its treasures, it was not strictly “castdown” by Antiochus. So that a fuller accomplishment is future.Antiochus took away the daily sacrifice for a few years; the Romans,for many ages, and “cast down” the temple; and Antichrist,in connection with Rome, the fourth kingdom, shall do so again afterthe Jews in their own land, still unbelieving, shall have rebuilt thetemple, and restored the Mosaic ritual: God giving them up to him “byreason of transgression” (Da8:12), that is, not owning the worship so rendered [TREGELLES];and then the opposition of the horn to the “truth” isespecially mentioned.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince host,…. Either the high priest Onias, whom he disposed of his office, and put Jason a wicked man into it; or Judas Maccabeus, the prince of the Jewish nation; or rather, as Jacchiades, God himself, the Lord God of Israel, the King, Prince, Governor, and defender of them, whom Antiochus blasphemed; whose worship he puts stop to; and whose temple he profaned, and ill used his people; all which was against God himself, and is a proof of the pride and insolence of this king:

and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away; the lambs in the morning and evening were forbid to be sacrificed; or they could not be offered, because the altar was pulled down, or profaned; and so all other sacrifices were made to cease, as well as this, which is put for all: or, “from him” d, the prince, “the daily sacrifice was taken away”; either from the priest, who used to offer it; or from God, to whom it was offered:

and the place of his sanctuary was cast down: not that the temple was destroyed by him, but it was profaned and rendered useless; the worship of God was not carried on in it, but the image of Jupiter was set up in it, and it was devoted to the service of an idol; yea, the altar was pulled down, and all the vessels and ornaments of the temple were taken away and destroyed; in the Apocrypha:

“And the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crown, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off.” (1 Maccabees 1:22)

“Now Jerusalem lay void as a wilderness, there was none of her children that went in or out: the sanctuary also was trodden down, and aliens kept the strong hold; the heathen had their habitation in that place; and joy was taken from Jacob, and the pipe with the harp ceased.” (1 Maccabees 3:45)

“And lo, the heathen are assembled together against us to destroy us: what things they imagine against us, thou knowest.” (1 Maccabees 3:52)

d “ab eo”, Pagninus, Montanus, Cocceius, “ab ipso”, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Michaelis.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Daniel announces something still more atrocious here, namely, the exaltation of the little horn against God. Some take “the prince of the army” for the high priest, as princes are sometimes called כוהנים, kuhnim, as well as שרים, serim; but that is too forced. The true sense of the passage imputes such arrogance and folly to Antiochus as to urge him to declare war with the stars of heaven, implying not only his opposition to God’s Church, which is separate from the world, but also his daring defiance of God himself and his resistance to his power. He not only exercised his cruelty against the faithful, but profaned the temple itself, and endeavored to extinguish all piety, and to abolish the worship of God throughout Judea, as we shall explain more fully in other passages. As, therefore, Antiochus not only raged against men, but used his utmost endeavors to overthrow religion, Daniel relates how that horn was raised up even against the prince of the army God is deservedly entitled to this appellation, because he defends his Church, and cherishes it under his wings. This expression ought to be explained not only of God’s glory and empire, but also of his paternal favor towards us, as he deigns to manifest his care for us as if he were our Prince.

From him, says he, was the perpetual sacrifice utterly snatched away, and the place of his sanctuary cast down These words are horrible in their import; God was thus spoiled of his rights, since he had chosen but a single corner in the world for his special worship. What heathen, then, would not despise this forbearance of God, in permitting himself to be deprived of his legitimate honor by that sordid tyrant? As we have already stated, Antiochus had neither greatness of mind nor warlike courage, being skillful only in cunning and in the basest acts of flattery. Besides, granting him to have comprised a hundred Alexanders in his own person, what can be the Almighty’s design in allowing his temple to be polluted, and all true sacrifices to cease throughout the world? One corner alone, as we have lately mentioned, was left where God wished to be worshipped, and now Antiochus seizes upon the temple, and profanes and defiles it with the utmost possible indignity, thus leaving no single place sacred to the Almighty. For this reason I have asserted the prophecy to appear very harsh. The Prophet now increases the indignity when he speaks of the perpetual sacrifice For God had often borne witness to his temple being his perpetual “rest,” or “station,” or “seat;” yet he is now ejected from this spot, as if exiled from the earth entirely. The temple could not exist without sacrifices, for the whole worship under the law was a kind of appendage to the temple. As God had promised the sacrifice should be perpetual and eternal, who would not assert, when Antiochus destroyed it, either all the promises to have been deceptive, or all authority to have departed from God, who failed to defend his right against that impious tyrant. Surely this must have been a distressing calamity, overwhelming all the faithful! And when even at this moment we read the prophecy, all our senses are horrified by its perusal. No wonder, then, that God forewarned his servant of such sorrowful events, and such incredible evils, to admonish his whole Church in due season, and to arm them against the severest temptations, which might otherwise strike down even the most courageous. The sacrifice, then, says he, was snatched away from God himself, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down or dissipated. It afterwards follows: —

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(11) Prince of the hosti.e., Jehovah Himself. (Comp. Dan. 8:25, Dan. 11:36.)

The dailyi.e., everything permanent in the worship of God, such as sacrifices, &c. (See Note on Lev. 6:13.) On this conduct of Antiochus see 1Ma. 1:39; 1Ma. 1:45, &c., 1Ma. 3:45.

Place of his sanctuaryi.e., the Temple. (Comp. 1Ki. 8:13.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

11, 12. The R.V. translates these difficult verses: “Yea, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host; and it took away from him the continual burnt offering, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt offering through transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it did its pleasure and prospered.” It is absolutely impossible to reach certainty in regard to some of these words and phrases; but it seems clear that the “prince of the host” is either the “Ancient of days” (Dan 7:9; Dan 8:25), or else the Son of man to whom he gave the kingdom (Dan 7:13). It was because of the “transgression” of the Jewish people that the host of holy ones (Dan 8:10), and even the holy temple itself, was given into the power of this great transgressor, Antiochus Epiphanes. (See note Dan 8:9; compare Job 1:12.) “Any such triumph of a heathen power over the representatives of the true religion is a casting down of the truth to the ground.” Terry.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Yes it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host, and it took away from him what is done continually (religious worship including the offerings and sacrifices), and the place of his sanctuary was cast down, and the host was given up together with the continual (rites) because of transgression. And it cast down truth to the ground, and it acted and prospered.’

This would seem to confirm that the ‘host of heaven’ is the people of God. Antiochus, by his behaviour set himself against God and those who served Him.

For ‘the prince (sar) of the host’ compare Jos 5:14, ‘as sar of the host of Yahweh have I come’ where the thought is probably of the divine Angel of Yahweh (Jdg 2:1). See also ‘the prince (sar) of princes’ in Dan 8:25 in this chapter. ‘Yahweh of Hosts’ was after all a regular name for God. In Isa 9:6 the coming king is called ‘the Prince (sar) of peace. But in Dan 10:21 we have reference to ‘Michael your sar’ and in Dan 12:1 to ‘Michael — the great sar who stands for the children of your people’. However, neither are directly linked with God’s host.

So in the light of reference to the ‘taking away’ from him of what is ‘done continually’ (the sabbaths and feasts, the offerings and sacrifices) and the reference to ‘his’ sanctuary we must surely see this prince of the host as meaning God Himself or the Angel of Yahweh. The ‘host of heaven’ is then certainly the true Israel.

By his religious restrictions, forbidding sacrifices and circumcision, banning the sabbath, and the reading of the Scriptures, and by the desecration of God’s temple, he basically took away from God what was His, and in the course of it cast down the sanctuary (compare 1Ma 1:44-47 ).

An alternative is to see the prince of the host as the true High Priest who had had taken from him the privilege of partaking in the continual rites of worship, and had also seen the sanctuary which was his responsibility, desecrated.

‘What is done continually’ (religious worship including the offerings and sacrifices). This is literally ‘the continual.’ It probably includes all the continually repeated aspects of Israelite worship; morning and evening sacrifice, other regular sacrifices, the keeping of the sabbath, circumcision, the reading of Scripture, and so on (compare again 1Ma 1:44-47 ).

‘And the place of his sanctuary was cast down.’ ‘The place’ means that which has been set up. It may refer mainly to the altar, which was replaced by Antiochus with an altar for the worship of Zeus, or it may mean that the whole of the sanctuary which had been set up for the worship of God was rendered useless for its purpose because of the desecration. Notice that the stars (God’s true people?) were cast down to the ground, literally ‘were made to fall’ (Dan 8:10), the place of His sanctuary was cast down (Dan 8:11) and truth was cast down to the ground (Dan 8:12), a threefold casting down denoting completeness.

The ‘giving up’ up may mean given up by God because of the transgressions of His people. Such humiliations of His people as this are usually traced to sin in Scripture, and at this time there was much sin and apostasy in Israel due to the worst aspects of Hellenisation. It will shortly be depicted as the latter part of the whole period of God’s indignation against Israel. Alternately it may signify that Antiochus gave them up, and the continual rites, to punishment, cessation and retribution because they had transgressed against him.

‘Because of transgression.’ Compare Dan 8:23, but see also Dan 8:13.

‘And it cast down truth to the ground, and it acted and prospered.’ This is expressing what has already been said in another way. As a result of his activities it was truth that was the victim. It was rejected and tossed to the ground. People were being turned from the way of truth by persecution. And in the face of it Antiochus prospered. There was judgment waiting to happen.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

Ver. 11. Yea, he magnified himself. ] He extolled or extended himself, such was his insolence.

Even to (or against) the prince of the host.] Christ, the captain of his people’s sufferings, and of their salvation. Heb 2:10 He bare a hostile spirit against the God of the Jews – such a hell hound hardly ever was born – casting him out of his place, and setting up in his room Jupiter Olympus – that is, the devil; he defaced also and burned up the books of the law, all he could light on. 1Ma 1:54-59

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

to = against.

the Prince of the host. God Himself, the Creator and Ruler of the starry host, verses Dan 10:11 are “difficult” only if Antiochus Epiphanes is assumed to fulfil them. There is no difficulty arising from “the state of the text”.

Prince = Ruler. Hebrew. sar. See note on Dan 10:13.

by him . . . was taken: or, it took away from Him: i.e. God.

daily sacrifice = the continual [burnt offering]: i.e. the morning and evening sacrifice (Num 28:3. 1Ch 16:40. 2Ch 29:7). This belongs to the time of the end, and was not fulfilled by Antiochus. His career was a foreshadowing of it, to show that the fulfillment will yet be exhausted by him who is “the little horn”. See App-90; and note all the references there given (Dan 8:11, Dan 8:12, Dan 8:13; Dan 9:27; Dan 11:31; Dan 12:11). Reference to Pentateuch (Exo 29:38. Num 28:3). App-92.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Dan 8:11

Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnifiedH1431 himself even toH5704 the princeH8269 of the host,H6635 and byH4480 him the dailyH8548 sacrifice was taken away,H7311 and the placeH4349 of his sanctuaryH4720 was cast down.H7993

Dan 8:11

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

He stood up against God Himself. Dan 8:25, “he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes” and “against the God of gods” (Dan 11:36). Antiochus not only opposed God’s people, the host, but also God Himself. The “daily sacrifice” that “was taken away” is a key element in the identification of Antiochus with the little horn that came up from among the other four. Jerusalem, being in the Seleucid Empire, Antiochus was the only historical figure that can be matched up with the little horn. None of the other three empires had the opportunity to produce a suitable candidate. History positively identifies Antiochus IV as the Seleucid king who did indeed take away the daily sacrifice by forbidding the Jews to worship God in the temple, later desecrating the temple by building an alter to Zeus and sacrificing swine on the alter.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

he magnified: Dan 8:25, Dan 5:23, Dan 7:25, Dan 11:36, 2Ki 19:22, 2Ki 19:23, 2Ch 32:15-22, Isa 37:23, Isa 37:29, Jer 48:26, Jer 48:42, 2Th 2:4, Rev 13:5-7

to: or, against

the prince: Jos 5:14, Jos 5:15, Heb 2:10, Rev 17:14, Rev 19:13-16

by him: or, from him

the daily: Dan 8:12, Dan 11:31, Dan 12:11, Exo 29:38-42, Num 28:3, Eze 46:14

and the place: Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27, Luk 21:5, Luk 21:6, Luk 21:24

Reciprocal: Exo 29:42 – a continual Psa 74:3 – all Psa 94:4 – boast Jer 14:21 – disgrace Jer 51:51 – for strangers Eze 46:13 – Thou shalt daily Dan 8:13 – the vision Dan 8:26 – the vision of Dan 9:25 – the Prince Dan 11:22 – also Hos 3:4 – without a sacrifice Heb 9:6 – the priests Heb 10:11 – daily

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Dan 8:11. The daily sacrifice was presided over by the priest, hence we know that in this passage the prince of the host refers to the priest.. The meaning of the prediction is that Epiphanes would stop the offering of the daily sacrifice, Place of the sanctuary cast down. Not only was the sacrifice to be stopped, but the altar and temple were to be desecrated. The fulfillment of prophecy is to be seen in the events of history, hence it will be appropriate for me to quote some now: At the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy [one of the kings of Egypt] about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be suhject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the highpriests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea, The king being thereto disposed beforehand. complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy and sent out his soldiers to plunder them, without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a dally sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the highpriest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place for him in the Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple; concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter. “Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking of fhe city, or with pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of the country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine’s flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death, Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction; till at length he provoked the poor sufferers, by the extremity of his wicked doings, to avenge themselves.” -Josephus, Wars, Book 1, Chapter 1, Sections 1, 2,

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

8:11 Yea, he magnified [himself] even to the {q} prince of the host, and by him the {r} daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

(q) That is, God, who governs and maintains his Church.

(r) He laboured to abolish all religion, and therefore cast God’s service out of his temple, which God had chosen as a little corner from all the rest of the world to have his name there truly called upon.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

By desecrating the temple, Antiochus (lit. illustrious one) effectively exalted himself to a position of superiority over Yahweh, the commander (or prince) of the host (the Jews). Pentecost interpreted this verse as indicating that the horn called himself the prince of the host. [Note: Pentecost, p. 1356.] There may be some confirmation of this in history, but I have not been able to find it. Antiochus did take to himself the boastful name "Epiphanes," which means "[divine] manifestation." The Jews changed his name slightly to Epimanes, meaning "madman."

"An attack on the place set aside for worship of God is tantamount to an attack on God Himself." [Note: Baldwin, p. 157.]

Antiochus temporarily terminated the constant sacrifices (Heb. tamid) in the temple, including the daily morning and evening sacrifices, thereby depriving Yahweh of His people’s worship (cf. 1Ma 1:44-49, RSV). [Note: Montgomery, pp. 335-36; Young, p. 172.]

"Apparently Antiochus did not actually tear down the temple, although eventually he desecrated it to such a point that it was hardly fit for use [cf. 1Ma 4:48]." [Note: Ibid.]

"Its overthrowing consists in its being prevented from functioning as a place of worship of the true God." [Note: Goldingay, p. 211.]

Some interpreters believe that this verse also previews another literal fulfillment of the destruction of the temple, which is still future (cf. Dan 9:27). [Note: E.g., Walvoord, Daniel . . ., pp. 186-88.] Antiochus’ actions anticipated what the Antichrist, the little horn of chapter 7, will do in the future (cf. Dan 7:8; Dan 7:20).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)