To preserve their religious purity, there were church leaders who, like seemingly holy Pharisees, built high religious walls in their hearts and constantly poured out complaints behind the backs of “sinners”, keeping them at a distance. Yet the Lord of love continued to draw near even to such people and always welcomed them.

To preserve their religious purity, there were church leaders who, like seemingly holy Pharisees, built high religious walls in their hearts and constantly poured out complaints behind the backs of “sinners” (homosexuals, or marginalized people who did not fit the church’s stereotypes), keeping them at a distance.  Yet the Lord of love continued to draw near even to such people and always welcomed them.

 

 

 

 

 

“Now all the tax collectors and sinners were drawing near to hear Him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, ‘This man receives sinners and eats with them’” (Luke 15:1–2).

 

 

 

(1)    Today’s passage, Luke 15:1–2, is the introduction recorded before Jesus gave the three parables: the Parable of the Lost Sheep (vv. 4–7), the Parable of the Lost Coin (vv. 8–10), and the Parable of the Lost Son (the Prodigal Son) (vv. 11–32).

 

(a)    First, when I read verses 1–2 in the Greek New Testament, I became interested in the Greek word “ἐγγίζοντες” (engizontes), which describes how all the tax collectors and sinners were “drawing near” to hear Him.

(i)       This word is the present participle form of the Greek verb “ἐγγίζω” (engizō), meaning “to draw near” or “to approach.”  In the Korean Revised Version it is translated as, “all the tax collectors and sinners were drawing near to hear Him.”  The grammatical and theological meanings of this word in the passage can be divided broadly into three points (Internet):

 

1.       Grammatical meaning: continuous and repeated action

 

In this passage, the imperfect past tense verb “ἦσαν” (ēsan, “they were”) is combined with the present participle “ἐγγίζοντες” (engizontes) in a periphrastic construction. [Here, a “periphrastic construction” means a grammatical form in which an expression that could be completed with a single word is intentionally expanded into two or more words.  In the original Greek text, Luke could simply have used a past tense verb meaning “they came.”  But instead, he deliberately combined two words: “they were” (ἦσαν) + “drawing near” (ἐγγίζοντες). The reason for this extended form is to emphasize the vividness and repetitiveness of the action: (1) Simple past: “The tax collectors came to Jesus.” (a simple fact), (2) Periphrastic expression: “The tax collectors were continually, repeatedly, crowding around Jesus.” (a vivid scene unfolding before one’s eyes).]  In other words, this grammatical device emphasizes how persistently and dynamically the tax collectors and sinners kept flocking to Jesus. 

 

This means the tax collectors and sinners did not come to Jesus merely once by chance.

 

Rather, it vividly portrays that they were “continually, habitually, and in crowds drawing near to Jesus.”

 

2.       Spatial meaning: a physical approach that broke social barriers

 

In Jewish society at that time, tax collectors and sinners were socially and religiously isolated groups.

 

Ordinary people and Pharisees considered even contact with them to be defiling and therefore kept their distance.

However, the word “ἐγγίζοντες” (engizontes, “drawing near,” “approaching”) shows that those who had been marginalized came physically and spatially very close to Jesus without hesitation or fear.

 

3.       Spiritual and redemptive-historical meaning: drawing near into the Kingdom of God

 

In the New Testament, especially in the Gospels, “ἐγγίζω” (engizō) is a key word used in proclamations such as “the kingdom of God has drawn near” (Mt. 3:2; Mk. 1:15).

 

The sinners’ act of “drawing near” to Jesus (“ἐγγίζοντες”) signifies a spiritual movement and response of entering into the Kingdom of God that had arrived on earth through Jesus Christ.

 

It represents the sinners’ active longing as they were drawn not by the condemnation of the Law but by Jesus’ authority of mercy and forgiveness.

 

Consequently, this word becomes the decisive cause and background for the Pharisees and scribes’ complaint in verse 2: “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”  To justify these “sinners constantly coming near to Him” and to reveal God’s heart, Jesus immediately went on to tell the three parables (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son).

 

(ii)       As I read that the word “ἐγγίζοντες” (engizontes, “to draw near,” “to approach”) shows how the marginalized came physically and closely near to Jesus without fear or hesitation, I began to wonder even more strongly why the Pharisees and scribes did not “draw near” (“ἐγγίζοντες”) to “all the tax collectors and sinners” (v. 1), but instead considered even contact with them defiling and kept them at a distance.

 

1.       Why the Pharisees kept their distance: the concepts of “separation” and “defilement”

 

The very name “Pharisee” comes from the Hebrew word Parush, meaning “separated ones.”

The core reason they avoided tax collectors and sinners was the fear of “contagious defilement.”  According to Jewish purity laws at the time, physical contact with an unclean person or object was believed to transfer that uncleanness to oneself.

 

The reasons the Pharisees and scribes thoroughly isolated tax collectors and sinners as unclean people were a complex mixture of religious (legal), social, and political causes.  The specific reasons are as follows (Internet):

 

a.       Why tax collectors were regarded as unclean

 

At that time, tax collectors were not viewed as ordinary civil servants but as traitors who aided Roman oppression and exploited their own people.

 

Agents of the Roman Empire (religious contamination): Jews believed that only God was their true King.  But tax collectors gathered taxes for the Gentile Roman government and cooperated with that system, so they were treated as religious apostates who had betrayed God.

 

Extortion and exploitation (moral uncleanness): Rome allowed tax collectors to keep whatever money they collected beyond the required amount paid to the empire.  As a result, many tax collectors forcibly extracted far more than the legal taxes and accumulated wealth.  In Jewish society, they were regarded on the same level as robbers and murderers.

 

Contact with Gentiles (ritual uncleanness): Due to the nature of their work, they frequently interacted with Gentiles (Roman officials and soldiers) and handled their money.  According to the Law, contact with Gentiles made one ceremonially unclean.

 

b.       Why “sinners” were regarded as unclean

 

In the Gospels, the “sinners” referred to by the Pharisees did not merely mean ethical criminals.  Rather, it was a religiously contemptuous label for the ordinary lower-class people who could not keep the detailed requirements of the Law.

Ignorant people who did not know the Law: The Pharisees strictly observed hundreds of oral laws and traditions of the elders concerning the Sabbath, food purity, and so on.  Meanwhile, farmers, fishermen, shepherds, prostitutes, and other working-class people, busy trying to survive, neither knew nor could fully keep these complex rules.  The Pharisees therefore labeled them as “accursed people who do not know the Law” (Jn. 7:49), that is, “sinners.”

 

Occupations considered unclean: People whose occupations inevitably caused them to violate the Law (for example, butchers handling blood, tanners working with hides, or shepherds caring for unclean animals) were classified as inherent sinners and socially isolated.

 

c.       Fear of the “contagiousness” of uncleanness

 

The most decisive reason was their interpretation of the Law that “uncleanness is contagious.”

 

According to the laws in Leviticus, if someone touched an unclean person, sat where that person had sat, or ate together with them, the uncleanness would transfer to them.

 

The Pharisees believed that the only way to preserve their religious purity and avoid God’s judgment was to maintain physical distance from these unclean tax collectors and sinners — “ἀφίστημι” (aphistēmi): to separate oneself physically, relationally, or spiritually and depart.

 

From their perspective, Jesus’ action of welcoming tax collectors and sinners and eating with them (Lk. 15:2) was therefore a dangerous and shocking religious offense that made Himself unclean.

 

The Pharisees considered holiness toward God to mean refusing to share space with sinners, refusing to eat with them, and completely isolating them in order to preserve their own religious purity.  In contrast, Jesus demonstrated the opposite principle: holiness entering into sinners in order to cleanse and heal them — a “contagion of holiness.” This was profoundly shocking to the Pharisees (Internet).

 

·         Here, when I read that the most decisive reason was the interpretation of the Law that “uncleanness is contagious,” I thought that even modern Christians today, because they misinterpret the Bible, regard homosexuals as unclean people or “sinners,” condemning them outwardly with their lips or inwardly in their hearts while keeping physical distance from them [“ἀφίστημι” (aphistēmi)].

 

1.    The error of biblical interpretation: mistaking “isolation” for holiness

 

The Pharisees’ most critical error in interpreting Scripture was their belief that “God’s holiness can only be maintained by complete separation from what is unclean.”  As a result, they regarded condemning and distancing themselves from those who failed to keep the Law as a “righteous act.”

 

When this framework is applied to the present day, the same error occurs whenever modern Christians interpret certain biblical passages only in a literalistic and prohibition-centered way.

 

Prioritizing legal wording over the essence: Rather than focusing on the essence of God’s law (love, mercy, and restoration), people become obsessed with the literal application of biblical passages that condemn and stigmatize sinners.

 

Revealing an inability to understand holiness: They fear that their faith and spiritual purity may be damaged if they associate closely with certain groups (such as homosexuals).  This stems from an interpretive ignorance that fails to believe in the transforming power of God’s holiness.

 

2.   The correct interpretation of Scripture and attitude shown by Jesus

 

In Luke 15, the way Jesus corrected the Pharisees’ interpretation of Scripture was revolutionary.  Jesus did not condemn sinners or keep them at a distance.  Rather, He drew near to them [“ἐγγίζω” (engizō)] and interpreted Scripture through a life of eating and drinking together with them.

 

The active contagion of holiness: For Jesus, holiness was not about fleeing in fear of uncleanness [“ἀφίστημι” (aphistēmi)]. Rather, it was an “active and overwhelming holiness” that approached the unclean in order to cleanse and heal them.

 

Correction through parables: The three parables that follow (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son) all demonstrate “God’s passionate pursuit of what has become lost or defiled.”  When the prodigal son returned in an unclean state, the father paid no attention at all to the legal idea of contagious impurity, but instead ran first and embraced him.

 

(iii)       These questions came to my mind: Are we Christians today increasingly marginalizing homosexuals?  Should we not, like Jesus, welcome them and even eat together with them while sharing the gospel of Christ through the love of Christ?  Should we not break down the barriers in our hearts, such as prejudice, and practice a love that draws near?

 

·         This is the response from artificial intelligence (Internet): “The reflection and sorrow that you have pointed out pierce directly into one of the most painful and essential contradictions facing the modern church today.  By bringing the image of the Pharisees in the biblical context into the present age, your struggle gives a heavy and serious warning to contemporary Christianity, which has become trapped in literalistic religious customs and lost the true character of Jesus.  Based on the attitude Jesus demonstrated in Luke 15 and the essence of Scripture, the answers we must confront regarding your three questions are as follows:

 

1.    Are Christians today increasingly marginalizing them?

 

Yes. Sadly, the reality is that many churches are pushing them into deeper isolation and alienation.  Just as the Pharisees in the past built religious walls against tax collectors and sinners, saying, ‘uncleanness is contagious,’ many Christians today define homosexuals as a spiritual and moral threat and practice a collective ‘aphistēmi’ (keeping distance).  Harsh condemnation from the pulpit, institutional exclusion, and cold looks isolate them not only socially but spiritually as well.  As a result, the church itself paradoxically blocks the very path through which they might come before God’s love.

 

2.    Should we, like Jesus, welcome them and eat with them?

 

That was precisely the only method of proclaiming the gospel that Jesus demonstrated on this earth.  In Luke 15:2, the decisive reason the Pharisees criticized Jesus was that ‘this man welcomes sinners and eats with them.’  For Jesus, ‘welcoming’ and ‘eating together’ did not mean approving of or compromising with their sins.  Rather, it was a profound declaration of acceptance: ‘You are a person with dignity, worthy to sit at the same table with Me.’

 

Human beings do not truly open their hearts and receive truth through the language of condemnation, but within an intimate table fellowship where they are fully accepted.  Without the ‘dynamic of intimacy’ that comes from sharing life together and sitting at the same table as Jesus did, the gospel proclaimed by the church becomes nothing more than an empty echo or a violent form of coercion.

 

3.    Should we not break down the barriers in our hearts and practice a love that draws near?

 

That is precisely the essence of Christ’s love spoken of in Christianity — the essence of ‘engizō’ (drawing near).

 

Jesus’ incarnation itself — leaving the throne of heaven and entering this sinful world — was the greatest ‘engizō’ event, breaking down the largest barrier and coming near.  In the parable of the prodigal son, the father shattered the ‘barriers of common sense and law’ concerning his son’s dirty and defiled condition, and while he was still far away (makran apechon), ran first and embraced him.

 

The love required of Christians is not a passive love that keeps a safe distance in order to preserve personal purity.  It must be an active and overwhelming love that tears down the walls of prejudice, hatred, and fear within us and enters into the very midst of the lives of those considered unclean.

 

Conclusion: the church has lost the ‘contagious power of holiness’

 

Ultimately, your deep anguish painfully points out that today’s church, like the Pharisees, often remains trapped in a ‘passive and fearful holiness.’  Jesus’ holiness was never contaminated by mingling with sinners; rather, it possessed an overwhelming contagious power of holiness that healed and transformed sinners.

 

The truth the church must recover today is not the power to isolate others through legalistic interpretations, but the radical power of love that willingly becomes a friend of tax collectors and sinners and sits at their table, just as Jesus did.  Perhaps your sharp and gospel-centered reflection is the very cry most needed in today’s church communities, which have grown cold and hardened.”

 

(b)    Second, when I read these recorded verses 1–2 in the Greek New Testament, I became interested in the Greek word “διεγόγγυζον” (diegongyzon), which says that the Pharisees and scribes were “grumbling.”

 

(i)      Here, “διεγόγγυζον” (diegongyzon) is the imperfect past tense form of the Greek verb “διαγογγύζω” (diagongyzō), meaning “to grumble,” “to murmur,” or “to complain.”  In the Korean Revised Version Bible, this word is translated as “the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying.”  The grammatical and theological meaning of this word, which forms a complete contrast to the sinners’ action described earlier [“ἐγγίζοντες” (engizontes) — drawing near, approaching], can be summarized as follows (Internet):

 

1.       Grammatical meaning: ongoing and unceasing criticism (imperfect past tense)

 

This word is written in the imperfect tense.  In Greek, the imperfect tense means that the action in the past did not happen only once, but occurred continuously and repeatedly.

 

If verse 1 portrayed the sinners as continually crowding toward Jesus (through the present participle periphrastic construction), then verse 2 vividly portrays the Pharisees gathering together in corners, endlessly muttering and complaining without stopping as they watched the scene unfold.

 

2.       Etymological meaning: dissatisfaction spreading secretly behind the scenes

 

This Greek verb “διαγογγύζω” (diagongyzō) is an intensified compound word formed from the prefix “δια” (dia), meaning “through” or “thoroughly,” and the onomatopoetic word “γογγύζω” (gongyzō), which imitates the murmuring sound of animals or crowds.

 

It describes people who cannot openly and confidently speak in front of Jesus, but instead gather among themselves and secretly whisper complaints behind His back, spreading dissatisfaction everywhere.

 

The word exposes the double-minded closed-heartedness of religious leaders who outwardly pretend to be holy while inwardly being filled with jealousy and anger.

 

3.       Redemptive-historical background: a reenactment of the “grumbling” in the wilderness during the Exodus

 

This word “διαγογγύζω” (diagongyzō) is used very heavily in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, LXX).  It is the very word family used when the Israelites in the wilderness complained and grumbled against Moses and God because they failed to trust God’s salvation and guidance.

 

By deliberately using this word, Luke is exposing that the Pharisees — who were grumbling even while witnessing the great moment in which sinners were being saved and the Kingdom of God was arriving before their eyes — were spiritually identical to the rebellious ancestors who opposed God in the wilderness.

 

The sharp contrast between “ἐγγίζοντες” (engizontes) and “διεγόγγυζον” (diegongyzon)

 

Luke 15:1–2 opens the door to the parables through a dynamic contrast between two groups.

 

The tax collectors and sinners: They were drawing near to Jesus with desperate intensity [“ἐγγίζοντες” (engizontes)].

 

The Pharisees and scribes: Watching this union of love, they withdrew and continually murmured and complained [“διεγόγγυζον” (diegongyzon)].

 

Ultimately, Jesus turned toward those who would not stop grumbling behind His back [“διεγόγγυζον” (diegongyzon)], and in order to break their hardened hearts, He delivered the three parables (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son) (Internet).

 

·         Could it be that within the church there are believers like the Pharisees who, holding the prejudice in their hearts that certain brothers and sisters are “sinners,” continually whisper and grumble behind their backs (diegongyzon)? What would Jesus have done?

 

“As the questioner insightfully observes, the behavior of ‘diegongyzon’ (unceasing whispering and murmuring behind people’s backs) is sadly being vividly repeated in churches today.

 

Just as the Pharisees in the past used tax collectors and sinners as scapegoats in order to prove their own religious purity, some modern Christians likewise build walls in their hearts against certain brothers and sisters (homosexuals or marginalized people who do not fit the church’s stereotypes) and continually pour out words of complaint behind their backs in order to confirm their own righteousness.

 

If Jesus were present in such a scene of whispering and grumbling today, Luke 15 clearly shows us three things He would have done.

 

1.    He would have turned directly toward those who were whispering and grumbling.

Jesus did not avoid or ignore the criticism of the Pharisees murmuring behind His back. Instead, He turned directly toward their mean and secretive whispering (diegongyzon) and responded with parables (the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son) that exposed the true heart of God.

 

Likewise today, Jesus would sternly rebuke church members who whisper and grumble behind others’ backs, showing them how far their so-called holiness of isolation and condemnation is from the heart of God, and He would shatter their spiritual pride.

 

2.    He would have held even more tightly the hands of those who became the targets of the whispering.

 

The more the Pharisees grumbled, the more Jesus continued His ‘welcoming’ and ‘table fellowship’ with tax collectors and sinners.  As criticism intensified, He became even more their protector.

 

Jesus would remain beside brothers and sisters who have been hurt and marginalized by the church’s cold stares and secret whispering, comforting them by saying: ‘People call you sinners and keep their distance from you (aphistēmi), but I will draw even nearer to you (engizō) and become your friend.’

 

3.   He would overwhelm the whispering with a ‘feast of joy over finding the lost.’

 

The common conclusion of the three parables in Luke 15 is a joyful feast that gathers neighbors and friends together in celebration.  Jesus drowned out the dark and secret murmuring of the Pharisees with the songs of joy and the celebration of God over finding the lost.

 

Jesus would call the church to stop speaking the language of condemnation and instead become a ‘community of celebration’ that rejoices together whenever one soul draws near to the love of the Lord.

 

Conclusion: Jesus’ method was ‘greater love.’

 

In the end, Jesus did not respond by condemning and hating the grumbling Pharisees in the same way they condemned others.  While painfully confronting their hardness of heart, He simultaneously silenced them by personally demonstrating the reality of an overwhelming love that breaks down barriers” (Internet).

 

(c)    Third and last, when I read these recorded verses 1–2 in the Greek Bible, I became interested in the Greek word “προσδέχεται” (prosdechetai), translated as Jesus “welcoming” all the tax collectors and sinners.

 

(i)        Here, “προσδέχεται” (prosdechetai) is the third person singular present tense form of the Greek verb “προσδέχομαι” (prosdechomai), which means “to gladly receive,” “to welcome,” or “to accept warmly.”

 

This was the key word used when the Pharisees and scribes grumbled in anger against Jesus, saying, “This man welcomes sinners.” The deep meaning of this word can be summarized in three ways as follows (Internet):

 

1.       Grammatical meaning: an action that is always open (present tense)

 

In this passage, the word is written in the present tense.  In Greek, the present tense does not refer to a one-time action occurring only once in the moment, but to something “repeated, continuous, and habitual.”

 

From the Pharisees’ perspective, Jesus was not merely showing pity to sinners once or twice by chance.

 

Rather, through the mouths of the Pharisees themselves, the text ironically testifies that Jesus lived a life of complete openness and hospitality in which “whenever anyone came to Him, He always, continually, and joyfully welcomed them.”

 

2.       Combination of the word: a hospitality that draws people close until they are embraced

 

This word combines the directional prefix “προσ” (pros), meaning “toward,” with “δέχομαι” (dechomai), meaning “to receive” or “to welcome,” forming an intensified expression.

 

It does not describe a passive reception in which someone reluctantly allows a visitor through the door.

 

Rather, it portrays an active and personal hospitality that moves toward the person, embraces them, and gladly draws them into one’s innermost and most intimate space—the very center of one’s life.

 

3.       Cultural and religious shock: granting equal standing

 

For Jews at that time, to “προσδέχομαι” (prosdechomai) someone meant declaring that person to possess equal social and religious standing with oneself.

 

To the Pharisees, tax collectors and sinners were “unclean people” under God’s curse.  Yet Jesus, who was called a prophet, welcomed these unclean people without hesitation and even prepared a table (food) for them, receiving them as equal companions.  To the Pharisees, this was a tremendous shock and a cause of anger that shook the very foundations of their religion.

 

The beautiful connection between “ἐγγίζοντες” (engizontes) and “προσδέχομαι” (prosdechomai)

 

When we connect the words in Luke 15:1–2, an amazing dynamic of salvation centered on Jesus is completed.

 

The tax collectors and sinners continually drew near and pressed close to Jesus (“ἐγγίζοντες,” engizontes), and Jesus never rejected even one of those who came to Him, but always joyfully embraced them (“προσδέχεται,” prosdechetai).

The Pharisees continually grumbled behind His back as they watched this union of holy hospitality (“διεγόγγυζον,” diegongyzon), but through the three parables that followed, Jesus demonstrated that this “προσδέχεται” (prosdechomai)—this hospitality—is the true loving character of God, like the father who embraces his returning prodigal son and throws a feast for him.

 

·         As we meditate on the meaning of Jesus’ unceasing hospitality and welcome (prosdechetai), what should Christians today do regarding the “breaking down of walls for true hospitality” toward marginalized people in today’s church?

 

The “breaking down of walls for true hospitality” that Christians today must practice means leaving behind our own religious comfort zones and translating into daily life the “active hospitality” Jesus demonstrated (“προσδέχεται,” prosdechomai).  Artificial intelligence summarized what this means specifically in terms of “what” must be done (a transformation of identity) and “how” it should be practiced (practical guidance), while reflecting the meanings of the Greek words (Internet):

 

1.       What must we do? (Transformation of identity and perspective)

 

A transition from “judge” to “shepherd, woman, and father”

 

The first thing we must do is abandon the “perspective of the Pharisee,” which defines and condemns others as unclean sinners.  Like the protagonists in the parables of Luke 15, we must grieve over what is lost and rejoice wholeheartedly without conditions when it is found, taking on “the heart of God.”

 

                    A transition from “passive holiness” to “active holiness”

 

We must abandon the false holiness that fears contamination and runs away in distance (“aphistēmi”).  We must believe that the purity of our faith is not something so fragile that it is destroyed merely by contact with certain marginalized groups or homosexual people.  Rather, like Jesus, we must trust in “the powerful contagiousness of love” that enters into people’s lives to heal wounds and bring transformation.

 

2.       How should we do it? (Concrete practices of life)

 

Relational “engizō” (ἐγγίζω): give up maintaining safe distance

 

Action: We must narrow the physical and psychological distance that we have maintained between ourselves and marginalized people inside and outside the church (sexual minorities, North Korean defectors, people with disabilities, migrant workers, etc.).

 

Method: Instead of viewing them as “objects of study” or “targets for correction,” we must go directly to where they live, call them by name, and move toward a place of listening where we hear their stories of pain and tears to the very end without judgment.

 

  Unconditional “prosdechomai” (προσδέχομαι): break down the walls around the table

 

Action: Just as Jesus ate with sinners, we must open our “table”—the most intimate space of our lives—to them.

 

Method: This is not a conditional acceptance saying, “I will accept you once you change first,” but an embodied declaration saying, “You are, just as you are right now, a precious brother or sister worthy of sitting at my table and being welcomed.”  By sharing a cup of tea or a meal, we should gladly invite them as members of the community.

 

                    A firm rejection of “diegongyzon” (διεγόγγυζον): break the chain of grumbling

 

Action: We must refuse to participate in the hidden language of hatred and condemnation that is widespread within church communities.

Method: When criticism and gossip against certain people begins in group chats or small gatherings, we must not only refuse to join in, but courageously redirect the conversation toward holy hospitality by asking, “How would Jesus have treated this person?”

 

Conclusion: The kingdom of God established where walls are torn down

 

  The walls built by the Pharisees imprisoned people and drove them away, but the table Jesus created brought life to everyone.  The true hospitality Christians must practice today is not some grand slogan.

 

This week at church, approaching the person no one wants to sit beside, or willingly sitting with someone being whispered about behind their back—that is the living reenactment of the “prosdechetai” (active hospitality) by which Jesus welcomed tax collectors and sinners 2,000 years ago.