Eph. 5:21-33 from conservative but *not *dominionist POV

[MamaJunebug]

The pastor at the Lutheran church I usually attend has the off-putting habit of occasionally inserting a topical reference in otherwise solid, Law and Gospel sermons.

 

Thus one Sunday he out of nowhere lamented gay marriage.

 

A month or so later he mentioned abortion (not in a good way).

 

And then he spoke briefly about the sad fact of “disobedient wives.â€

 

When I mentioned that to a dear friend she surprised me by saying that she had heard a sermon from this guy, decades ago, in which he ranted on Eph.5:21-22, the “wives submit†passage.

 

She left his congregation after that, since she had quietly survived a physically abusive husband.

 

Blessedly, she later heard an excellent, balanced sermon by a different pastor on all of Ephesians 5:21-33, in which the message was delivered to the women and the men: Both our roles are to support the other. Neither of us is to lord it over the other. Both of us are to do for the other, before ourselves.

 

IOW like Christ. He was Love. He didn't lord it over anyone. He did for everyone before Himself, dying for everyone who ever had been or would be born.

 

This got me thinking about the book, “Love and Respect†by Eggerichs. He basically breaks Eph. 5:21-33 down into “women want to feel loved and men want to feel respected.â€

 

After several decades of thought on this, I have come to this conclusion: Men and women in marriage want the same thing. They want to know that they are safe with at least that one other person, their spouse. They want to know they are valued: loved, respected, -- the semantics matter, but they don’t.

 

Ephesians isn’t at all wrong in what’s written in 5:21-33. What's wrong is the mis-interpretation by cunning, craven, manipulative, power-hungry men (and a few women) who do wrong by emphasizing the direction given to women and especially by twisting that direction into something it's not.

 

Think about him before you think about yourself, bride.

 

Think about her before you think about yourself, groom.

 

That’s what the writer to the Ephesians was saying.

 

All that said, I am including this link to an interesting, pretty hopeful dialog on a board run by Lutherans who are orthodox in their beliefs. I don’t participate. And yes, the Hemingway woman is married to that Hemingway, the conservative one who was mentioned (without much fondness) in a 30 Rock episode. It was the first and only time I’ve heard of him, because I just don’t listen to commentary anymore. I know what I believe.

 

So anyhoo. This is hecka long and if you’ve gotten this far, gold star!!!! Enjoy the discussion, and if you decide to play with the Lutherans at “Brothers of John the Steadfast,†please be nice. Most of them seem to be thoughtful, non-dominionistic people.

 

steadfastlutherans.org/?p=15535

[deelaem]

I honestly don't mean to offend, but it strikes me that you're doing what a lot of other people do - looking for different interpretations on scripture till one suits what you want to believe. Granted, I prefer your version of this "scripture", but I think what this really points out is the utter ridiculousness of the Bible. Have you ever played that party game where someone starts a story, and by the time it gets around to everyone, the story has completely changed? That's what Bible interpretation reminds me of.

I mean, it was written by men, lots and lots of different ones, based on what they thought Jesus said. The NT was also written hundreds of years after Jesus died. The governments and churches were all intertwined at that time, so all kinds of different agendas were brought into what the Bible-writers chose to put in to it. And the OT is really just a book of mythology. I'm not trying to put you down for your religion, so maybe you can explain to me how one preacher's version of scripture is more right than another's, when there is no basis on which to prove that. Really, this sounds like one person's opinions over another's.

[maybeizfundie]

MamaJuneBug,

Yep, that's pretty much it. :) Also pretty much the essence of Jesus' life and the core of the "Christian ethic" taught throughout the epistles.

When two people in marriage do this, as a mutually agreed goal to strive for, it's gorgeous.

[MamaJunebug]

MamaJuneBug,

Yep, that's pretty much it. :) Also pretty much the essence of Jesus' life and the core of the "Christian ethic" taught throughout the epistles.

When two people in marriage do this, as a mutually agreed goal to strive for, it's gorgeous.

thanks, maybeizfundie. I'm glad you've seen the gorgeousness! :)

[MamaJunebug]

I honestly don't mean to offend, but it strikes me that you're doing what a lot of other people do - looking for different interpretations on scripture till one suits what you want to believe. Granted, I prefer your version of this "scripture", but I think what this really points out is the utter ridiculousness of the Bible. Have you ever played that party game where someone starts a story, and by the time it gets around to everyone, the story has completely changed? That's what Bible interpretation reminds me of.

I mean, it was written by men, lots and lots of different ones, based on what they thought Jesus said. The NT was also written hundreds of years after Jesus died. The governments and churches were all intertwined at that time, so all kinds of different agendas were brought into what the Bible-writers chose to put in to it. And the OT is really just a book of mythology. I'm not trying to put you down for your religion, so maybe you can explain to me how one preacher's version of scripture is more right than another's, when there is no basis on which to prove that. Really, this sounds like one person's opinions over another's.

daelem, I'll try not to be offended at your description of my holy book as "utterly ridiculous," just as I tried to accede to a friend's request to "forgive me!" when she, at the last minute, let me know she was taking back her RSVP to my party in favor of two others on the same day. ;)

It's going to take me a little while to compose my response to you, but I will post it, I hope sooner than later. Pax for now.

[apple1]

I need a "Like" button for MJB's OP.

[Joykins]

the problem with Eph. 5:21-33 is that most people think it starts with Eph. 5:22. It doesn't. 22ff is an elaboration on 21, and subordinate to it, as evidenced by the fact that 5:21 carries the verb for the whole passage in the original Greek.

[MamaJunebug]

the problem with Eph. 5:21-33 is that most people think it starts with Eph. 5:22. It doesn't. 22ff is an elaboration on 21, and subordinate to it, as evidenced by the fact that 5:21 carries the verb for the whole passage in the original Greek.

Oo, Joykins, welcome and thank you for that insight. I'll be sure to remember that in case Pastor and I ever wind up in a dialog over this. Which I'm pretty sure we will if (when) he brings up "disobedient wives" again.

Funniest thing is, I've chatted very briefly with Mrs. Pastor and watched her at church gatherings -- my spider-sense tells me that theirs is a marriage of great respect, good humor and equality. But what do first impressions count? ;)

daelem, you're not forgotten.

[deelaem]

daelem, I'll try not to be offended at your description of my holy book as "utterly ridiculous," just as I tried to accede to a friend's request to "forgive me!" when she, at the last minute, let me know she was taking back her RSVP to my party in favor of two others on the same day. ;)

It's going to take me a little while to compose my response to you, but I will post it, I hope sooner than later. Pax for now.

Never mind. I was hoping for an analysis, not sanctimony.

[demgirl]

Mamajunebug -- I actually have a question. Why do you continue going to a church with a leader that says these things? Presumably with tithing you are also financially supporting the pastor and his work. Does that give you pause, or do you separate the things the pastor says from the church community as a whole, or...???

[aubrietta]

The sermon at my church last week was on this passage. When I saw the passage on the program, I cringed. My husband and I have been so damaged by the complementarian teaching at our old church that just seeing the scripture reference brought up a rush of horrible feelings.

However, I was refreshed and pleasantly surprised to hear a message that did start with verse 21, and then went on to discuss cultural context and the fact that women at that time were property with few, if any rights, and the command for husbands to love their wives was revolutionary and meant a great improvement in the lives of women. This shift in relationship would have been a great testimony to others around them. Paul was calling husbands and wives to have marriages that stood out in their culture as exemplary. The pastor went on to say that while this was not a revolutionary concept to our lives in the Western world, if this passage was to be read today in countries or cultures where women had similar lack of rights, it would have similar effect what it did in Paul's day. His challenge to the congregation was to work hard, with love, devotion and mutual submission to have marriages that were exemplary in OUR culture, not to try to re-live arcane gender roles.

In relation to the Love & Respect book, my husband and I went to a four week course based off it. After the second session, my husband looked at me with the most pathetic puppy dog face I have ever seen and said "I want to be loved too!" which was closely followed by my response "I need respect too!" although we stuck it out for the next two sessions for appearances (don't get me started on that one) we stopped listening.

Mamajunebug -- I actually have a question. Why do you continue going to a church with a leader that says these things? Presumably with tithing you are also financially supporting the pastor and his work. Does that give you pause, or do you separate the things the pastor says from the church community as a whole, or...???

[Joykins]

Oo, Joykins, welcome and thank you for that insight. I'll be sure to remember that in case Pastor and I ever wind up in a dialog over this. Which I'm pretty sure we will if (when) he brings up "disobedient wives" again.

Funniest thing is, I've chatted very briefly with Mrs. Pastor and watched her at church gatherings -- my spider-sense tells me that theirs is a marriage of great respect, good humor and equality. But what do first impressions count? ;)

daelem, you're not forgotten.

Incidentally, the passage doesn't really end at 5:33, it ends at 6:9 if you look at organic structure.

The Greek goes something like this:

[Christians are to ] Submit to each other out of reverence for Christ--

* wives to your husbands as to the Lord...(the word SUBMIT is not repeated here in Paul's original! the verb is from 5:21 and carries by implication throughout the passage)

* husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church...

* children, obey your parents

* fathers, don't provoke your children...

* slaves obey your masters

* And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Everyone already felt to be by the patriarchal order of the day in an authortarian system is given a characteristics way to submit to each other, and the burden of greater love and submission is placed more on the person in more authority--but they are all expounding on 5:21.

I hate hate hate the way this passage has been perverted, often by sticking little "wives and husbands" headers right before 5:22 so as to separate it from 5:21, or ignoring 5:21 completely when talking about what wives must do.

[Joykins]

I mean, it was written by men, lots and lots of different ones, based on what they thought Jesus said. The NT was also written hundreds of years after Jesus died. The governments and churches were all intertwined at that time, so all kinds of different agendas were brought into what the Bible-writers chose to put in to it. And the OT is really just a book of mythology. I'm not trying to put you down for your religion, so maybe you can explain to me how one preacher's version of scripture is more right than another's, when there is no basis on which to prove that. Really, this sounds like one person's opinions over another's.

The geniune Pauline letters were actually written quite early; about 50-60 AD and certainly within living memory of Jesus.

[demgirl]

The geniune Pauline letters were actually written quite early; about 50-60 AD and certainly within living memory of Jesus.

And, correct me if I'm wrong Joykins, but the Pauline letters don't purport to be so much what Jesus said, but rather what Paul thought the best and most natural ways to carry out Jesus' mission were -- is that right?

[Joykins]

And, correct me if I'm wrong Joykins, but the Pauline letters don't purport to be so much what Jesus said, but rather what Paul thought the best and most natural ways to carry out Jesus' mission were -- is that right?

More or less. The earliest gospel (with the stories/teachings of Jesus directly) is roughly contemporaneous with Paul, dating from the 60s AD. However, Ephesians is written by Paul. Paul would still have been living among some people who would have known Jesus personally (his conflicts with Peter seem well-substantiated, for example).

I'm taking issue with the statement that "the NT was written hundreds of years after Jesus died"-- this isn't true, all of the NT was, as far as modern scholarship can tell, written between 20 and 100 years of Jesus's lifetime. It is true that the NT wasn't canonized until hundreds of years after Jesus died, but the books were in common use centuries before that.

[MamaJunebug]

She's ba-ack!

daelem, you were never forgotten. I've thought several times about how to answer you.

And later in this post, I do.

I do want to tell you that I'm smiling at the idea that I delivered "sanctimony." One thing I can clearly remember not being called in the past 60+ years is sanctimonious or any of its related terms, so wowzers, it's true: you can teach an old dog new tricks! ;)

The only thing I dislike about this bulletin board is the inability to get to older posts when one is signed in. And then, when one has signed out, found a post and hits "reply," one can only see the most immediate post preceding.

Because of that quirk, I'm not sure who asked why i continued to support that church.

Believe me, I ask myself that. The answers I come up with are these:

1. The pastor's anti-feministic attitude is not the sum total of the pastor. He is otherwise a good teacher, fabulous preacher, enjoyable company.

2. The congregation is not only the pastor. The people I've met - roughly half the membership, since it's a very small church - are cordial, have a variety of political leanings, can't be described as "all" this or that, just as the pastor can't.

3. I generally don't share this, but my personal contributions go elsewhere than the congregation. My The Spousal Unit contributes to the congregation.

4. I do have a very hard time knowing that a good portion of the Lutheran group with which this congregation is allied is on the patriarchal spectrum, refusing to ordain women. The thing is: I don't expect it to change to suit me.

5. Following from #4: When/if the time comes that my moral support, and my TSU's financial support of the little congregation is too cognitively dissonant, I quietly will leave. Until then, I focus on the good the pastor does and on the good I can do with and for my fellow/sister congregants.

This isn't a glib thing for me. Lutheranism is in my DNA. More importantly, IMO & experience, in the essentials, Lutheranism gets the truth of the Law and the Gospel (two things that cannot be separated from the other) way more right than any other ism. Catholicism coming close.

Now to my friend daelem's question, which IIRC was, "isn't this all just mythology and why do you even care what the Bible says on anything?"

The answer may seem very "out there," but trust me, sanctimonious it ain't.

1. As I said before, having the fabulous luck to be born and raised Lutheran, I was introduced to the world and the big questions (why are we here? what's the point?) in a loving way that blended the physical and the spiritual seamlessly.

2. So when people/institutions bearing the name "Lutheran" interpret parts of Scripture in a way that sounds like the man-worshipers (Phillips, Brown, Gothard, Botkin, Duggar, et.al.), it's troubling to my core.

3. So when I see Lutherans "getting it," I'm in-balance. And that's where I was when I began this topic.

So, daelem, that pretty much is the short answer to your very valid question.

What follows is the long form, and I won't be at all offended to know you didn't read further. Thank you for reading this far!

For anybody else, and maybe for me to find later on, here's the long explanation.

---

Now, what lies behind this? Again ... having come up Lutheran. The following article also appeared on that steadfast Lutheran website. It has to do wtih liturgical worship. For the newbies, liturgical worship follows one or more orders of service. In everyday terms, you might call them 'meeting agendas.'

Unlike non-liturgical church services, where people meet with a generally accepted idea of what's going to happen (sing songs for about 20 minutes, pray for as long as there are petitions, listen to a sermon, sing more songs and depart), liturgical churches meet and follow one of several written plans of service.

One isn't better than the other so long as Law and Gospel are preached and Jesus, not man, receives the glory.

But I was raised from a newborn hearing the Word in the liturgy, and that's still what I choose when I have a choice.

I've never met the pastor who wrote the following, don't know a thing about him, but reading his "10 reasons" why we use the liturgy, I realized that this was the long-form A to daelem's Q, why at my age it's still important for me to know that yes, the Bible does all make sense; even when the learned ones around me make it seem otherwise.

(There's probably no logic to the above and the following for lots of people, and that's okay. As I said, this is as much for me as it is for those who wonder about me. [And believe me, you are not alone in that! :D ])

Oh, also: the original site for these 10 reasons is higherthings.org, the website of a rather inspired organization for Lutheran youth.

Higher Things — Top Ten Reason Why We Use the Liturgy

by The Rev. William Cwirla

((Found by a friend’s facebook posting on higherthings.org))

Why the Liturgy? First a definition and a disclaimer. By “liturgy†I mean the western catholic mass form as it has been handed down by way of the Lutheran Reformation consisting of the five fixed canticles – Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. Pardon the Greek and Latin, but it sounds cool and we still use ‘em. “Liturgy†also includes the assigned Scripture texts for the Sundays, feast days, and seasons. Most of what I will say about the liturgy of the Divine Service will pertain to “liturgical worship†in general.

Now, why do we worship according to the western, catholic liturgy?

1. it shows our historic roots. Some parts of the liturgy go back to the apostolic period. Even the apostolic church did not start with a blank liturgical slate but adapted and reformed the liturgies of the synagogue and the Sabbath. The western mass shows our western catholic roots, of which we as Lutherans are not ashamed. (I’d rather be confused with a Roman Catholic than anything else.) We’re not the first Christians to walk the face of the planet, nor, should Jesus tarry, will we be the last. The race of faith is a relay race, one generation handing on (“traditioningâ€) to the next the faith once delivered to the saints. The historic liturgy underscores and highlights this fact. It is also “traditionable,†that is, it can be handed on.

2. It serves as a distinguishing mark. The liturgy distinguishes us from those who do not believe, teach, and confess the same as we do. What we believe determines how we worship, and how we worship confesses what we believe.

3. It is both Theocentric and Christocentric. From the invocation of the Triune Name in remembrance of Baptism to the three-fold benediction at the end, the liturgy is focused on the activity of the Triune God centered in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Worship is not primarily about “me†or “we†but about God in Christ reconciling the world to HImself and my baptismal inclusion in His saving work.

4. It teaches. The liturgy teaches the whole counsel of God – creation, redemption, sanctification, Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, and reign, the Spirit’s outpouring and the new life of faith. Every liturgical year cycles through these themes so that the hearer receives the “whole counsel of God†on a regular basis.

5. It is transcultural. One of the greatest experiences of my worship life was to be in the Divine Service in Siberia with the Siberian Lutheran Church. Though I spoke only a smattering of Russian, I knew enough to recognize the liturgy, know what was being said (except for the sermon, which was translated for us), and be able to participate knowledgeably across language and cultural barriers. I have the same experience with our Chinese mission congregation.

6. It is repetitive in a good way. Repetition is, after all, the mother of learning. Fixed texts and annual cycles of readings lend to deep learning. Obviously, mindless repetition does not accomplish anything; nor does endless variety.

7. It is corporate. Worship is a corporate activity. “Let us go to the house of the Lord.†The liturgy draws us out of ourselves into Christ by faith and the neighbor by love. We are all in this together. Worship is not simply about what “I get out of it,†but I am there also for my fellow worshippers to receive the gifts of Christ that bind us together and to encourage each other to love and good works (Heb 10:25). We are drawn into the dialogue of confession and absolution, hearing and confessing, corporate song and prayer. To borrow a phrase from a favored teacher of mine, in church we are “worded, bodied, and bloodied†all together as one.

8. It rescues us from the tyranny of the “here and now.†When the Roman world was going to hell in a hand basket, the church was debating the two natures of Christ. In the liturgy, the Word sets the agenda, defining our needs and shaping our questions. The temptation is for us to turn stones into bread to satisfy an immediate hunger and scratch a nagging spiritual itch, but the liturgy teaches us to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

9. It is external and objective. The liturgical goal is not that everyone feel as certain way or have an identical “spiritual†experience. Feelings vary even as they come and go. The liturgy supplies a concrete, external, objective anchor in the death and resurrection of Jesus through Word, bread, and wine. Faith comes by hearing the objective, external Word of Christ.

10. It is the Word of God. This is often overlooked by critics of liturgical worship. Most of the sentences and songs of the liturgy are direct quotations or allusions from Scripture or summaries, such as the Creed. In other words, the liturgy is itself the Word of God, not simply a packaging for the Word. Many times the liturgy will rescue a bad sermon and deliver what the preacher has failed to deliver. I know; I’ve been there.

Ten is one of those good numbers in the Bible signifying completeness, so I’ll stop at ten. I’m sure there are more.

Peace.

[Austin]

More or less. The earliest gospel (with the stories/teachings of Jesus directly) is roughly contemporaneous with Paul, dating from the 60s AD. However, Ephesians is written by Paul. Paul would still have been living among some people who would have known Jesus personally (his conflicts with Peter seem well-substantiated, for example).

I'm taking issue with the statement that "the NT was written hundreds of years after Jesus died"-- this isn't true, all of the NT was, as far as modern scholarship can tell, written between 20 and 100 years of Jesus's lifetime. It is true that the NT wasn't canonized until hundreds of years after Jesus died, but the books were in common use centuries before that.

Just guessing here since I'm not deelaem, but I'm thinking the point really wasn't if the NT books were written 50 or 100 or 150 years after Christ. I think it was more that none of them were even written within a decade or two of his lifetime. Mark, probably the first gospel, was written 30 or more years after Jesus, and the gospels supposedly record the work and words of Jesus, so it does beg some questions (that no one can ever answer with anything more "profound" than "Well, God said so" [inspired]).

[Guest Anonymous]

My uncle when I posted something snarky about this on my FB posted the exact interpretation you did mamajunebug!

I was snarking because I had been told I was an "idle, evil woman whose husband had no respect for her because I was not being forced to submit" And apparently, I had basically sniped my husband to death. O_O. (my husband's response to this: "dear, there's no force in nature that could make you submit to me, or really anything" "what about G-d?" "Even he lacks the strength to stand up to your stubborn nature dear. I married a firecracker, if you got all coy and submissive, I'd check you into the nearest mental hospital or assume you wanted to be kinky...." it goes without saying, I LOVE MY HUSBAND )

[Joykins]

30 years later allows for the Old Guys who knew Jesus back in the Old Days to shake their canes at a gospel writer and say "Sonny, you got it all wrong!" Also I presume Q was from this period but it is may have only been oral or lost.

[Joykins]

I was snarking because I had been told I was an "idle, evil woman whose husband had no respect for her because I was not being forced to submit"

Yeah, um, there isn't anything in the Bible saying "Husbands, force your wives to submit." I've read it several times and it just isn't there.

[browngrl]

I have deleted this post because I did not think my response added anything once I had read all the posts.

[Austin]

30 years later allows for the Old Guys who knew Jesus back in the Old Days to shake their canes at a gospel writer and say "Sonny, you got it all wrong!" Also I presume Q was from this period but it is may have only been oral or lost.

Given that life expectancy was about 28 years in the Iron Age, and rarely did anyone live past 45, I'm finding these gospel writer scenarios 30 and 40 years after the death of Jesus to be less believable all the time. I blame Bart Ehrman. ;)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10516562

http://www.ehow.com/about_4598218_life-iron-age.html

[Joykins]

Given that life expectancy was about 28 years in the Iron Age, and rarely did anyone live past 45, I'm finding these gospel writer scenarios 30 and 40 years after the death of Jesus to be less believable all the time. I blame Bart Ehrman. ;)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10516562

http://www.ehow.com/about_4598218_life-iron-age.html

Life expectancy at birth can be very low due to infant mortality; people older than 45 may have been rare but they did exist; Ovid and Catullus survived into their 30s, Virgil lived to be 50 or so, Cicero lived into his 60s, Herod the Great and Tiberius lived to be in their 70s, etc., which suggests old age was achievable for a prominent person such as a leader of a religious community in the early Empire. Peter's estimated date of martyrdom is roughly contemporaneous with Mark's gospel. Paul, undeniably a real person, apparently lived into his 70s. The Council of Jerusalem was in ~ 50 AD, contemporaneous with Paul's first writings. We are talking about a community with some continuity. (I take the given dates for John with a grain of salt, though).

[Austin]

Well, you sound like a true believer. Good for you. I have been one, but am no longer.

We're not just talking about one person or the exception to the rule (of which there are always some). Even today, some people live to be 104, but I we don't see whole religious communities living lifespans which are exceptions-to-the-rule, and certainly not with such incredible recall of the exact words a person said 30 or 40 years prior. Oh, yes, I know: inspiration.

[Joykins]

Well, you sound like a true believer. Good for you. I have been one, but am no longer.

We're not just talking about one person or the exception to the rule (of which there are always some). Even today, some people live to be 104, but I we don't see whole religious communities living lifespans which are exceptions-to-the-rule, and certainly not with such incredible recall of the exact words a person said 30 or 40 years prior. Oh, yes, I know: inspiration.

I just don't think 20-30 years is sufficient for the stories to be mostly made up or garbled--in a community where some of the leaders were living to witness some of the events occurred--compared to 100 or even, as the post I disagreed with claimed, "hundreds of" years (and that the texts were manipulated by the church becoming intertwined with government--which didn't happen until the 300s).

I mean, you see the rather tight consistency of the synoptics and then John has real significant differences because it is alonger divergence--twice as long, and probably both temporal and geographic.

And I wouldn't say "inspiration" or "exact words"--I think it was an oral tradition. Of course much of my knowledge comes from Crossan's _The Birth of Christianity_ (fascinating, fascinating book, I highly recommend it if you have a few months to spare) which actually looks at important incident-recall issues a certain number of years later (faultier than expected, actually), and how good oral tradition is at preserving wording and narrative (better than I would have thought--however, sequence is not always preserved, which also appears as an issue in the gospels).

IOW, I think the Jesus Seminar was an interesting approach to try to find out what teachings were genuine, and I do think a lot of the teachings were genuine (i.e. originated with Jesus). But I don't think by the time the synoptics were written that the stories / teachings were "hundreds of" years old or hijacked by the Roman Imperial system. That happened later, and it's important to note that.