l point of view the sanctuaries of the Lord had become "high
places."

Ver. 10. "_And the Lord was pleased painfully to crush_ [Pg 298] _Him:
when His soul hath given restitution, He shall see seed, He shall
prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper through
His hand._"

_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 [Hebrew: HpC ihvh] of the close stands to [Hebrew: ihvh HpC] 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._ [Hebrew: Hlh]
"to be sick," "to suffer pains." In this sense the _Niphal_ occurs in
Amos vi. 6, and the participle [Hebrew: nHlh] 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
[Hebrew: hHli], 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_; [Hebrew: wiM] is
not a reflective verb. As little can we suppose with _Hofmann_ that
[Hebrew: twiM] 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_ befo