Allan MacRae, Isaiah 40-56, Lecture 11
This is lecture 11 delivered by
Dr. Allan MacRae on Isaiah 40-56.
We’re looking at Isaiah 53. It’s interesting
that verse 13 of chapter 52 begins the section in the Targum,
that is, the Jewish translation into Aramaic that was used in the synagogues
among people who didn’t know Hebrew very well. They would read the Hebrew, and
then they would have someone translate it into Aramaic; and after a time these
translations came to be in a fixed form and eventually were written down.
That’s what we call a Targum, or translation. It’s
the translation made by the Jews quite early in Christian history. In the Targum, verse 13 begins, “See my servant the Messiah will prosper.”
It was specifically taken as a section describing the Messiah, the suffering
Messiah, by the Jews. We have no evidence of its being taken any other way
until the eleventh century. There was a great Jewish rabbi, Rashi,
who wrote commentary on the Old Testament, who suggested that it was not the
Messiah. But up till then it seems to have been the universal Jewish
understanding that from 52:13 on, it was about the Messiah. Now I suppose that
there was a reaction by this rabbi to the fact that Christians were pointing to
this as a prediction of the sufferings of Christ.
This passage, of course, has been used a great
deal for missions among the Jews to point out how the Old Testament points
specifically to Christ. So in recent
centuries, there has been a great effort to evade its natural interpretation. More
recently, a group of Jews, who are very active in opposing Christian missions
among the Jews, have published material attacking the idea that this is a
prediction of the Messiah. But the best they seem to be able to do is to take
the first half of chapter 53 as a description of a leper. Just how a leper
would get in here is a bit hard to see, but they take the first half as a
description of a leper. And there are two things that that is based on. One is
that it says he was stricken; and in Hebrew, in the Middle Ages, that is late
Hebrew--which was not then a spoken language, but was used for study by the
rabbis--in their writings this word “stricken” is used to mean “stricken with
leprosy”. "We thought he was stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."
But in the Old Testament, we find the word “stricken” used for the Philistines
who were stricken with hemorrhoids, as described in the book of Samuel (1 Sam.
5). So it is a word that could indicate some kind of a disagreeable situation
not necessarily from a disease. But it did not become specialized to leprosy
until that later time, hence the idea that it describes a leper. So they say that the first half refers to a
leper.
But
there are only two bases for this. One that the word "stricken" is
used that in later Hebrew, Medieval Hebrew, was used for one stricken with
leprosy, but which might conceivably be used in biblical times for being
stricken with leprosy, or for being stricken with hemorrhoids, or for being
stricken in the sense of suffering an accident or an injury in war, or
something like that.
The other basis for saying it’s a leper is the
phrase in verse 3, “Like one from whom men hide their faces.” There from the
Hebrew you can’t tell whether it’s like “one from whom men hide their faces,”
or, “one who hides his face from men.” Both are possible interpretations. "The
men hiding their faces" is slightly more likely of the two, but in either
case it might fit a leper who would try to hide his face from other people and
people who would try not to look at him because of his disfigurement. But that
is a mighty slim basis for taking this as a description of a leper. It
certainly wouldn’t have to be a leper of whom this can be said. It would fit
just as well with people turning their face away from seeing the terrible
suffering of Christ on the cross.
So, the first half they take in that way, and then
the second half they try to take as describing Israel, suggesting that Israel
suffers all these things. But to take Israel as actually bearing the sins of
the people and suffering for the nations and so on, it just doesn’t fit. It is
a chapter that fits very closely with what Christ did, and that is pretty hard
to interpret in any other way.
Now, we noticed how in 53 it begins with a king
speaking and saying, “Who would have believed what we’ve heard?” It’s not where
we would’ve expected to find the source of the explanation of the problems of
life. Not in this little land of Judea way off there in an obscure land never
heard of in Rome or in Greece. But then in verse 3, we stop reading what the
kings and the great men of distant lands say when they come to believe in
Christ as Savior. And then we turn to men who were right there and saw him. And
we see the changing perception of local observers. I gave you this last week, this
title, “The Changing Perception of Local Observers,” which is the next four verses.
Here are the people who were right there now speaking. They say, “He was
despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like
one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised and we esteemed him not.”
That shows their watching him being crucified and seeing how many had turned
against him. Remember the story of the men on the road to Emmaus, and how they
did not recognize Christ. They said, “Are you a stranger that you have not
heard of these things that have happened?” He said, “What things?” “Why,” they
said, “about Jesus of Nazareth who performed great miracles, who did wonderful
things. We were hoping he would redeem Israel. But,” they said, “he has been
taken and crucified” (Luke 24). They
felt that all their hopes had ended because of his being destroyed. “He was
despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised and we esteemed him
not.”
But then in verse four, “surely
he took up our infirmities,” the King James says, “Surely he hath bourne our griefs and carried our
sorrows.” Most Bibles that have any kind of reference note will have references
here to two passages. There are references to a passage in Mathew and a passage
in 1 Peter. The passage in 1 Peter is a definite description of the atonement,
1 Peter 2:24. In that passage it says,
“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins
and live for righteousness, and by his wounds you have been healed.” That is
very clearly a reference to verse five. But as far as verse four is concerned,
there is only one word in common: the word “bore.” The word “sins” does not
occur back here, in Isaiah that occurs there in 1 Peter--it is a mistaken
reference to this verse. We’re
particularly clear that it is a mistaken reference because Matthew 8:17 does
not merely echo the phraseology of this verse; it specifically says that this
is what was spoken by the prophet. It specifically says that he is quoting. It
says this tells about Jesus’ wonderful miracles and says this was to fulfill
what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, “He took up our infirmities and carried
our diseases.”
Notice how different this is from
the statement in 1 Peter. The statement in 1 Peter is not a quotation of this
passage. These words “griefs and sorrows,” are much
too general an interpretation. The NIV, instead of saying “griefs,”,
says "infirmities," which is nearer in meaning; that is, “infirmities”
or “diseases” or “pains,” these words, may be used that way. There’s no
distinction in the Hebrew between the pain caused by a disease and the pain
caused by a wound. We separate between diseases and injuries, but the same word
will be used for both in the Hebrew.
So this is a description of Jesus’
healing ministry. It’s exactly what was said by the men on the road to Emmaus.
They said he performed these wonderful miracles, and we had hoped he would be
the one who would redeem Israel, but he’s been taken and crucified. So this pictures contemporaries who say,
“Look, this man took away diseases, he healed sicknesses, he did marvelous
works, and yet we thought him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted. We
thought that he couldn’t help himself, he was taken and crucified.” It’s as if
they say, "We should have had more sense; we should have realized that a
man who could do such works as he did is more than a man, and that he could
only be taken and crucified as he permitted it; that he was not one who
suffered God’s punishment for evil and sin, or one who suffered as a result of
circumstances he couldn’t help; that he voluntarily gave himself to die. There
was a reason and a purpose in it, or it could not happen." So this is a reference to his wonderful
works.
Now there are those who will
take this and say, “This proves that healing is in the atonement, and that we
have a right to expect if we are Christians, that all our sicknesses, all our
diseases, will be healed because it’s in the atonement.” But it is not talking
about the atonement; it is talking about the wonderful works that Christ did,
and how the people, seeing these works, should have realized that the
crucifixion was not an accident; it was not God’s wrath upon him, but was what
he performed for us. It says, “He bore
our sins.” Here, it says, “He carried (or took away) our diseases”--they’re
quite different things. The quotation
from Matthew is from verse four. Verse four is describing his wonderful
miracles. They said, "Surely he performed these marvelous miracles; he
took away our diseases; he did away with our sufferings; he showed these
wonderful works that no ordinary man could do; and yet when he was taken and
crucified, we thought him stricken of God and afflicted; we did not realize
that that could not have happened to one who could do such miracles except as
he permitted."
Then they go on and they say in
verse five, "But we see the real reason for it, for the crucifixion, 'He
was pierced for our transgressions'"; that is quoted in 1 Peter. See, that’s
the atonement, verse five, but not verse four.
Well, these verses are a unit, but there’s a
progress of thought within them: the progress from seeing the miracles and then
thinking, “Well, one who could do these wonderful works we shouldn’t have
thought as we did, that he couldn’t help himself. But we see the reason for it
now: he was crucified to bear our sins.”
It is true that as a result of Christ’s
atonement there is the answer to all the problems of life. The Christian meets
all his problems through Christ’s atonement, but whether in a particular case
God chooses to heal us, or whether he chooses in that particular case to let us
glorify him by enduring the suffering, that is for the Lord to decide. We have
no right to demand here, but we have the right to pray for it, if it be his
will. Paul had a thorn in the flesh; he prayed three times that the Lord would
take it away, and the Lord did not.
So we have here then in
verse five, we have the atonement; we have vicarious suffering very clearly
expressed in verse five, and expressed many times in the rest of the chapter.
We have at least eight or ten cases in the rest of the chapter where there is a
specific statement of the vicarious atonement. There is no place in the Old Testament
where there are as many references to vicarious atonement as in this chapter
from this point on. It refers to it over and over.
Verse six continues the
people’s recognition of the true situation. “We all like sheep have gone astray.
Each of us has turned to his own way and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity
of us all.” There is atonement clearly expressed again. Twice in verse five and
again in verse six.
Then in verses seven to nine
we have a statement of "The Perfect Servant's Silent Submission."
Verses seven to nine simply describe how he submitted himself to death for our
sake: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was
led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.”
The beginning of verse eight is rather
difficult: “He was taken from prison and from judgment,” the King James says.
The word is not a common word for "prison," but it can be used for
something that is “held in tightly” or “oppression,” and from that it is a
natural and easy jump to the idea of prison, but the word is never used to mean
a prison. It is not a bad guess at the meaning, but I am quite sure it’s an
incorrect guess in this case. In this case "oppression and judgment"
together express one thought by an "oppressing judgment": a judgment that was not proper, not just, not
legal. I knew a man, a lawyer who had a talk he used to give on the trial of
Jesus. He pointed out how many illegal things there were in connection with his
trial. He was seized there in the night, taken off, brought before different
bodies, and Pilate said, “I see no fault in him.” He was going to release him,
but he gave in to the cries of the mob and permitted that he be crucified. It
was an "oppressive judgment,"--not a fair trial at all.
The next thing in the verse there has been some
disagreement on. The King James says: "Who shall declare his generation?"
The NIV says: "Who can speak of his descendants?" The word "generation"
is not exactly equivalent to "descendents,"
but it is close enough that it is certainly a possible interpretation; and
along with the rest of the chapter, it seems a very reasonable one. Now there
are those who wish to take it in quite a different way. The RSV says: “As for
his generation, who can consider,” instead of “Who shall consider his
generation.” The idea seems in the context to be: here is this one who seemed
like such a wonderful teacher and such an influential person and then he was
cut off. At a fairly young age he was cut off, and what result is he going to
have? Will he have any descendants? Will he have any continuation of his
teaching? Will there be any effect left on the world? Who can declare any
succession, any generation resulting from what he did? Now that is a possible
interpretation of the phrase, and, I think, much better than, "As for his
generation, who would say that he was cut off." I think it is a much
better interpretation than the other that we find in some translations, and that
is in the footnote in the NIV as another possibility, especially as we find
further down in verse ten. The King James says: “He will see his seed.” Here in
the NIV it is: “He will see his offspring and prolong his days.” But we see the
result that he was actually raised from the dead. Actually, his teaching
continues; actually, there were multitudes who were born again through what he
had done through the age’s succession. So he would see the continuing result of
what he did. So: “Who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the
living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.”
Then verse 9 is one that you rarely see
translated accurately. This is very strange because when it is looked at
carefully, I believe that the translation is quite simple and quite clear. I don’t
know who it was at an early time who translated the beginning of it: “He made
his grave with the wicked.” And there’s no “made” in the verse at all. The
Hebrew is; “He gave”. Well, the “he gave” prompts the question: who gave? You
can, in such a case, look in the context to see who is described as having
given. Well it hardly refers to him, that he gave a grave; it hardly refers to
that, but in most languages other than English, there is a very common form of
language which we would call the impersonal. In German you don’t say: "I
am cold," you'd say: "It is cold to me." There is an impersonal
use of the third singular verb. Quite common in our language we are more apt to
express it by the plural form: “They assigned.” Who are the “they? Just
anybody. The people on the side. “They
assigned,” or “it was assigned.” An absolutely accurate translation is: “his
grave was assigned” or “he was assigned a grave.” That is absolutely accurate, though
not directly literal. The directly literal would be that “one assigned a grave
to him” followed by “with wicked ones”-- there is no "the" at all.
The word is a simple plural form with no article: “with wicked men.” “He was
assigned a grave with wicked men” would be the literal translation. When a man was crucified the expectation
would be that he would be thrown into a common grave. That was the normal way
in which criminals who were crucified were treated. He was assigned a grave
with the wicked. So that would be the normal expectation.
Many hold that you must have
an exact parallelism. Now, in Hebrew, parallelism is very common. You express a
thought and then you express it again in similar language. But there are a
great many poetic passages that, instead of having a parallelism, have a
thought of something going beyond the first phrase. So you don’t have to have a
parallelism. Now, those who try to find a parallelism here say, “that he was
assigned a grave with the wicked and with evildoers.” And in order to get “evildoers” out of the
next word, you have to assume that one or two letters have been left out. We
won’t have time to go into the precise Hebrew here, but with a slight change in
the Hebrew, lengthening the word, that is here, which is ordinarily translated "the
rich," though there’s no "the" in the original, you can get
“doers of evil.” But all the manuscripts agree with saying "with a rich
man." There’s no “the” and it is
singular; singular as compared to the plural of the word “wicked.” “He was assigned
a grave with wicked men,” and, or “but”--the conjunction is very often
translated "but"--but was "with a rich man in his death." The modernist translations say, “with
evildoers”. “He gave him a grave with
wicked men and with evildoers in his death.”
Yet all the manuscripts say “with a rich man.”
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were
found, somebody said here is evidence that it should be “with evildoers,” because
the word for “rich” has an erasure at the end of it. But Professor Miller
Burrows of Yale, in his discussion of the Isaiah scrolls, said: “It is
interesting to note that there is a letter that has been erased at the end of
the word ‘rich.’ But there’s no space in
there as if it was ‘doers of evil.’” I
mean, he didn’t specifically mention that, but that’s a fact. But he said the omission, the fact that a
letter has been erased, is very easily explained. Because he said, the scribe
copied “then with wicked men,” the plural, and then with the word “rich” he got
the plural ending off. And then looking
back at what he was copying he saw there was no plural ending and simply erased
it. All the manuscripts have the singular here: “He was assigned a grave with
wicked men, but he was with a rich man in his death.”
Now
that is a most remarkable thing and precise prediction of exactly what happened
when Christ was crucified. Otherwise
there’s no sense to it at all. Why is it
important? Was it a sign of his exaltation that he was put in a rich man’s
tomb? No. Was it a humiliation to be put in a rich man’s tomb? Did it increase
the efficacy of His atonement? No. It is a little incidental evidence that this
one who was crucified is the one who was predicted in Isaiah 53. It is a remarkable evidence of the accuracy
of the Hebrew manuscripts. All our manuscripts, most of which come from the 10th
century A.D. and were copied and recopied and recopied (our earliest copies aside
from the Dead Sea Scrolls, are from the 10th century A.D.) they all
have “with a rich man.”
Then the word “in his death”
is in plural form, which is very strange: “In his deaths.” Is there a figure
there of the idea that he is dying on behalf of all of us? Why should it be plural? It is a problem
which I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to, but there are those who say
that the words “in his death” could be a form for “high place.” "High
places with his." “His high place,” and the "high place" could mean
"tomb." And so, some say, “and
with a rich man his tomb.” Well, the
strange thing is that the Jewish translation made by Professor Margolis of Dropsie College in Philadelphia translates this “with a
rich man his tomb.” Professor Margolis, in the Jewish Publication Society’s
translation, says “with a rich man his tomb.”
Well now, that makes it even more explicit than “with a rich man in his
death.” But there’s slight difficulty in both cases. But I think it’s quite
clear what the general meaning of the passage is. It’s an exact description of
what happened in this case.
Now, of course, we can see a
reason in the plan of God, why he would be put Christ's body in a rich man’s
tomb. It was God’s will that Joseph of Arimathea
should come and ask for his body and should bury it, should put it in the tomb.
That was God’s will because if he was simply thrown in an unmarked grave along
with others, there would not be as clear evidence of the resurrection as when
he was put alone into a fine tomb that had not been used by anyone else. And
then the stone is rolled away from the door of the tomb and he appears to the
disciples. So it was part of God’s plan to give us clear evidence of the fact
of the resurrection. But this verse is the most wonderful prediction of exactly
what happened in the case of Christ. Why on earth they should, so many, even
including the NIV, say, “with the wicked” and “the rich,” when there’s no “the”
in either case, and “wicked” is definitely plural, and “rich” is definitely
singular, and that exactly fits with the New Testament fulfillment: I can’t understand
why they don’t just translate it literally, for then you have the facts of
exactly what happened.
Then the next says, in the
King James, the rest of verse 9 says, “Because he had done no violence,” the
NASV and the RSV say, “Although he had done no violence.” Actually, it is the
word that simply means "upon." “Upon his having done no
violence.” Now that word "upon"
would suggest "because," and it is used in quite a few cases in the
Old Testament to mean "because."
But all the recent translations render it "although." There are only two cases--including this one--where
it’s ever been suggested that it means "although," and both of them
are quite questionable. Literally, of
course, it is "upon." I don’t
see how, “He was put in a rich man’s grave although he had done no violence,” makes
any sense. But "because" seems to me to make perfect sense there, and
it is the more likely meaning of the word. “Because he had done no violence, nor
was any deceit in his mouth.” Joseph of Arimathea
recognized his wonderful character and buried him in his tomb, not allowing him
to be treated as you would expect one who was crucified as a malefactor.
Then from verse 10 to 12 we
have the fulfillment of God's purpose described: “Yet it was the Lord's will to
crush him and to cause him to suffer.” It was God's will this be done. It was
not an accident; it was not that he just couldn't help himself. God gave his
only begotten son. God, the Father, sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
It was God's will to crush him and cause him to suffer. "And when his soul
shall make an offering for sin, he will see his seed and prolong his days."
There is the prediction that there will be continuing results of what he has
done for many centuries afterwards. And there is the statement, “He will
actually prolong his days.” He was raised from the dead; he lives--a very
definite prediction of the resurrection.
“And the will of the Lord will
prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see of the travail
of his soul and shall be satisfied. After the suffering of his soul he will be
satisfied by the knowledge of him, [or, by his knowledge.”] "Him" is in
the genitive. In English the word “by” sometimes is objective and sometimes
subjective. "By what he knows" is a subjective genitive, whereas "by
what is known about him" is an objective genitive. In the context, we
surely take it as what is known about him; though, of course, his omniscience
enters in to all that he did.
"By the knowledge of (or
about) him, my righteous servant will justify many." And this is the last
reference to the servant in the Book of Isaiah. We have had all these
references before to the Servant of the Lord. This is the last reference to the
servant. After this we have the "servants of the Lord." We have
plural of "servant," but we do not have the singular like this
anymore. This chapter finishes the description of the atoning work of the
servant. Then we have the followers of the Servant of the Lord who are his
servants in later chapters.
"By the knowledge of him, my righteous
servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will
give him a portion among the great." Satan is the prince of this world. We read in the New Testament that the whole
world lies in control of the evil one. Satan has taken over this world as a
result of man's sin. There has never been a perfect society. There's never been
a town in which everyone was saved. There’s never been any sizable group that
all were living in accordance to the will of Christ. Satan is the prince of
this world now. Satan holds in his hands
those many who must suffer eternally for their sins. "But I will give him
a portion with the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong."
Satan cannot hold those who received Christ as Savior. He will have a portion; he
will have a division of the spoils. Many will be saved through him, but it does
not promise that all will be. But much of Satan's spoils will be taken away
from him, and taken away because Satan's power has been destroyed in principle
by what Jesus did on the cross.
"He poured out his soul unto
death, and was numbered with the transgressors, and bore the sin of many."
Three more statements of the vicarious suffering of Christ; we have many of
them in this chapter. It is a most remarkable chapter. But why is it that in
practically every translation they translate the last four parts of this verse
as parallel? I cannot see this. Any
translator would certainly know that the first three statements have the
perfect tense and the last one has the imperfect tense, which is ordinarily
rendered as future in our translations from the Hebrew. And so literally it
says, “He will divide spoils with the strong because he poured out his soul
onto death; he was numbered with transgressors. He bore the sin of many, and he
will make intercession for the transgressor.” Some Jews say it is a description of Israel's
suffering, which in some way is propitiatory for the world. But it’s pretty
hard to take, to work it out in detail that way, but that's what they now say.
But in the first 1000 years they recognized it was about the Messiah. You can
say that, but it would seem that there's more reason than that for having the
perfect in three clauses in a row and then switch to imperfect. The natural,
simple explanation would be that this is what he has done and this is what he's
going to do. We find it clearly taught in the New Testament that Jesus not only
died for our sins and was raised from the dead for our justification but he
went back to heaven to sit on the right hand of God and continues to make
intercession for our sins. For our weaknesses we have an intercessor at the
right hand of God. If you take this strictly, literally, you have here a
prediction of the intercessory work of Christ.
I don't know why none of the translations that I've seen bring out the
fact that there is a marked change of tense there. He bears the iniquities of
all who believe in his name. The death of Christ is sufficient for all;
efficient for those who receive him; efficient for those whom God from all
eternity were the ones who would be saved through Christ. But it is sufficient
for all.
As for the servant in verse 11:
"The righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their
iniquities." And what’s the result of that? "Therefore I will give him," the
servant, "a portion with the great." The strong man whom the New
Testament speaks of--where someone binds the strong man and takes away his
possessions--Jesus binds the power of Satan by his death on the cross. Satan
has power over all who have sinned. They deserve eternal punishment for their
sin, but Jesus bears their sins on the cross and this destroys the power of
Satan's hold on them. Therefore, he is to have a portion among the great. And
he will divide spoils with the strong. Satan cannot hold all who have sinned
because many of them will receive Christ and be saved by him.
It’s hard to speak specifically about how all
the Jews have interpreted this because there are long periods where we have
little evidence as to how any particular group of Jews interpreted this. But we
do have that in the, say, the 3rd Christian century or the 4th,
whenever the Targum was written down, they took this
as being about the Messiah. “Behold my servant the Messiah.” We know that, and
we have no evidence of any other view among them until, I believe, it was about
1050 A.D. when Rashi, a famous Jewish commentator,
advanced the theory that it’s describing the sufferings of Israel rather than
the sufferings of the Messiah. Since
that time, as Christians use this for Jewish evangelization, among those who
have strongly opposed these efforts, there is the attempt to interpret it this
way: the first half is being of a leper because they don’t know any way to
relate that particularly to Christ; the second half as being Israel’s suffering
in some way for the good of the world.
The next chapter begins with a very interesting
verse. “‘Sing, O barren woman, who never bore a child; burst into song. Shout
for joy you who were never in labor because more are the children of the
desolate woman than of her who has a husband,’ says the Lord.” Now, what does that describe as following the
death of Christ, following his atonement?
Who is being spoken to here? This certainly is not talking to two women;
I mean it is figurative, certainly. They stand for something. They are figures
for something. There is the woman who has been barren, who has never borne a child.
There is the woman who is spoken of as she who has a husband. The Old Testament sometimes speaks of Israel
as the wife of Jehovah, and speaks of his goodness to her. We know "who
has never born a child”; we know that there were many in Israel who were very
loyal to the Lord, many whom he used in a wonderful way, and we know that there
were many who were brought into the kingdom of God from Israel; we know that. So Israel certainly is not "the woman who
never bore a child," but she can be considered to be the one who had a
husband, the one who has the Lord as the husband. Through Israel, as Paul points out in Romans
9-12, came many blessings into the world.
Through them God kept alive the knowledge of himself through the ages;
through them, many came to glory through him. We have the great account in
Hebrews 11 of the great blessings that Israel brought. But here we are told of
blessings to come "to the one who had not born children."
Well we’ll have to stop here
for today. Next time we will complete this section.
Transcribed
by: Taylor Migner (editor), Victoria Chandler, Hannah Becker, Maya Bam,
Ellen Hartshorne,
Stephanie Muth, Colleen McAuley
Rough edit by Ted
Hildebrandt
Final
edit by Dr. Perry Phillips
Re-narrated by Dr. Perry
Phillips