〉   11
Daniel 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 the sanctuary was cast down. (Daniel 8:11)
Prince of the host.
 Verse 25 speaks of this same power standing up against the Prince of princes. The reference is to Christ, who was crucified under the authority of Rome. See on chs. 9:25; 11:22.
By him.
Heb. mimmennu, which may also be rendered “from him,” that is, from the “prince of the host.” The Hebrew of this passage presents certain difficult problems of translation. A very different reading is found in the Greek version of Theodotion. It reads as follows: “And [this shall be] until the chief captain shall have delivered the captivity: and by reason of him the sacrifice was disturbed, and he prospered; and the holy place shall be made desolate.” There is no way of determining to what extent, if any, this version reflects more perfectly the original text of Daniel. The Masoretic text as reflected by the KJV and RSV seems on the whole to be the more natural reading.
Daily sacrifice.
 Heb. tamid, a word occurring 103 times in the OT, used both adverbially and adjectivally. It means “continually” or “continual,” and is applied to various concepts, such as continual employment (Eze. 39:14), permanent sustenance (2 Sam. 9:7-13), continual sorrow (Ps. 38:17), continual hope (Ps. 71:14), continual provocation (Isa. 65:3), etc. It is used frequently in connection with the ritual of the sanctuary to describe various features of its regular services, such as the “continual bread” that was to be kept upon the table of shewbread (Num. 4:7), the lamp that was to burn continually (Ex. 27:20), the fire that was to be kept burning upon the altar (Lev. 6:13), the burnt offerings that were to be offered daily (Num. 28:3, 6), the incense that was to be offered morning and evening (Ex. 30:7, 8). The word itself does not mean “daily,” but simply “continual” or “regular.” Of the 103 occurrences it is translated “daily” only in Num. 4:16 and in the five occurrences of it in Daniel (chs. 8:11, 12, 13; 11:31; 12:11). The idea of “daily” was evidently derived, not from the word itself, but from that with which it was associated.
 In ch. 8:11 tamid has the definite article and is therefore used adjectivally. Furthermore, it stands independently, without a substantive, and must either be understood subjectively as meaning “continuance” or be supplied with a substantive. In the Talmud, when tamid is used independently as here, the word consistently denotes the daily sacrifice. The translators of the KJV, who supplied the word “sacrifice,” obviously believed that the daily burnt offering was the subject of the prophecy.
As to the meaning of tamid in this passage three main views have been held:
 1. That the “daily” refers exclusively to the sacrifices offered in the Temple in Jerusalem. Some expositors holding to this view apply the taking away of the “daily” to the interruption of the Temple service by Antiochus Epiphanes for a period of three years, 168-165 or 167-164 B.C. (see on ch. 11:14). Others apply it to the desolation of the Temple by the Romans in A.D. 70.
 2. That the “daily” stands for “paganism,” in contrast with “the abomination that maketh desolate” (ch. 11:31), or the papacy; that both terms identify persecuting powers; that the word for “daily,” correctly meaning “continual,” refers to the long continuance of Satan’s opposition to the work of Christ through the medium of paganism; that the taking away of the daily and the setting up of “the abomination that maketh desolate” represents papal Rome replacing pagan Rome, and that this event is the same as that described in 2 Thess. 2:7 and Rev. 13:2.
 3. That the term “daily”“continual”—refers to the continual priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1) and to the true worship of Christ in the gospel age; that the taking away of the “daily” represents the substitution by the papacy of compulsory unity in a visible church in place of the voluntary unity of all believers in Christ, of the authority of a visible head—the pope—in place of that of Christ, the invisible head of the church, of a priestly hierarchy in place of direct access to Christ by all believers, of a system of salvation by works ordained by the church in place of salvation by faith in Christ, and, most particularly, of the confessional and the sacrifice of the mass in place of the mediatorial work of Christ as our great high priest in the courts of heaven; and that this system quite completely diverted men’s attention from Christ and thus deprived them of the benefits of His ministry.
 Further, inasmuch as this third view maintains that the little horn is a symbol of imperial Rome as well as of papal Rome (see on vs. 9, 13), predictions concerning its activities may also be understood as applying to pagan Rome, as well as to papal Rome. Thus the “daily” may also refer to the earthly Temple and its services, and the taking away of the “daily” to the desolation of the Temple by Roman legions in A.D. 70 and the consequent cessation of the sacrificial services. It was this aspect of the activity of “the abomination of desolation” to which Christ referred in His delineation of future events (see on Dan. 11:31; cf. Matt. 24:15-20; Luke 21:20).
 In comment on these three views it may be said that the Antiochus view must be ruled out for the reason that Antiochus does not fit the time periods or other specifications of the prophecy (see on Dan. 9:25).
 Both the second and the third interpretations have been held by the various able expositors within the Advent Movement. Some devout Bible students have considered that the “daily” refers to paganism, and other equally devout Bible students, that the “daily” refers to the priestly ministry of our Lord. Perhaps this is one of the passages of Scripture on which we must wait until a better day for a final answer. As with other difficult passages of Scripture, our salvation is not dependent upon our understanding fully the meaning of Dan. 8:11.
On the historical development of the second and third views, see pp. 60-64.
Place.
 Heb. makon, “site.” Makon is used in the phrase “for the house of God to set it up in his place” (Ezra 2:68). The primary reference here may be to the destruction of Jerusalem (see Dan. 9:26).