_And the Lord was pleased_--This pleasure of the Lord is not such an one as proceeds from caprice. The ground on which it rests has already been minutely exhibited in what precedes. By the vicarious influence of this suffering, peace is to be acquired for mankind; and since this object is based upon the divine nature, upon God's mercy, the choice of the means also, by which alone it could be attained (for, without a violation of the divine character, sin could not remain unpunished), must be traced to the divine character. _Here_ the ground on which the pleasure rests is stated in the words immediately following,--a connection which is clearly indicated by the obvious relation in which the חפץ יהוה of the close stands to יהוה חפץ of the beginning; so that the sense is: It was the pleasure, &c., and this for the purpose that, after having made an offering for sin, He should see seed, &c. Hence the pleasure of the Lord has this in view:--that the will of the Lord should be realized, His Servant glorified, and the salvation of mankind promoted. _Painfully to crush Him._ חלה "to be sick," "to suffer pains." In this sense the _Niphal_ occurs in Amos vi. 6, and the participle נחלה in the signification "painful," "grievous," in Nah. iii. 19; Jer. xiv. 17, and other passages, In _Hiphil_ it means: "to make painful," Mic. vi. 13. The common explanation, "The Lord was pleased to crush Him, He has made Him sick," has this against it, that Copula and Suffix are wanting in החלי, and that the word would come in unconnected, and in a very disagreeable manner. And then the passage in Micah, which we have quoted, decides against it.--_When His soul hath given restitution._ There cannot be any doubt that, in a formal point of view, it is the soul which gives restitution. _Knobel's_ explanation: "His soul gives itself," is not countenanced by the _usus loquendi_; שים is not a reflective verb. As little can we suppose with _Hofmann_ that תשים is the second person, and an address to Jehovah. In opposition to this view, there is not only the circumstance that Jehovah is spoken _of_ before and afterwards, but, in a material point of view, the circumstance also, that offerings for sin, and, generally, all sacrifices, were never offered up _by_ God, [Pg 299] but always _to_ God. The fact also, that according to the sequel, the Servant of God receives the reward for His meritorious work, proves that it is He who offers up the sacrifice. But, on the other hand, it is, in point of fact, the soul only which can be the _offering_, the _restitution_; for it could scarcely be imagined that, just here, that should be omitted on which everything mainly depends. It is sufficiently evident, from what precedes, _who_ it is that offers the restitution; what the restitution was, it was necessary distinctly to point out. _Farther_--In the case of sacrifices, it is just the soul upon which every thing depends; so that if the soul be mentioned in a context