Jim states--I brought up the Luke account where it states Jesus was the son of Joseph (as was supposed) meaning "by law". I was trying to document the tribes that were in His lineage and had to use Mary's name (Matt 1) to do it. Now it seems I've implied something that really isn't there. Where did I get the idea that Jesus's geneology was referred to by the "in law"?

Probably from either the Strong's or one of thestudies. In either case it is correct that the words 'as was supposed' NEVER mean to 'suppose', but "to determine, by custom or law".

The law being referred to is given several places, but one of the most clear examples is given in 1 Chr 23:22, where Elezar, a levitical priest, had no sons, but daughters. The daughters were given to the sons of Kish as wives, and the name of Eleazar effectively remained in the

Priesthood. The wives adopted the new name, as is the 'custom' today, and the joint 'estate',

(Eleazar's and Kish's) were passed on to the children of the marriage. The entire book of Ruth is a fine example of the law in action in tribes other than Levi. Yes, it was "according to law", and even to-day, the custom has taken on the name 'in-laws'. The children of the marriage inherit the joint estate of both grandparents, don't they? (they also pick up the 'skeletons' in TWO closets, don't they?) NOTICE that the 'as was supposed' is only used at the start of Lukes geneo. At the next 'son' there is no 'begat' as in Matt. Thus it is MARY's geneology given in Luke, as 'inherited' by Joseph, mary's husband, as his share of the "skeletons", as we inherit "in-laws" from our own spouse.

Now, Mary had no brothers, and may have not had even a sister. It is true, however that Mary's mother was full-blood Levite. How do I know? Well, Elizabeth was the wife of Zechariah, and was also Mary's cousin. Since Zechariah was a serving Levitical priest, it would have been unlawful (Lev 21:7-15, Deu 10:8, Eze 44:22, and the example in Ezra 10:28) for him to wed other than a full-blood Levite. Elizabeth would then have been the daughter of Mary's mothers' sister, making Mary's mother a full-blood Levite. Mary's father is named only in the book of Luke, as the 'in-law' of Joseph, Mary's husband. In the book of Luke, therefore, we find the linage of Mary's father, which was of Judah. Thus we find that Y'Shua's flesh body was the uniting (in the flesh) of the King line, Judah, and the Priest line, Levi, hence PRIEST AND KING. Of' course, Y'Shua's Father was our Father, too, making us His brothers and sisters as he stated.

You will notice 4 names, Joseph, Zorobabel, Salathiel and David are the same on either list. Zorobabel and Salathiel, a father and son pair, are about halfway down both lists. If Zorobabel and Salathiel are in both bloodlines, then how can their ancestors be different back to David?

There is nothing at all unusual about this. Look, we all have 2 grandfathers, right? 4 great grand fathers, 8 gg's and so on. One of your 8 GG fathers could have had the same father as my GG, especially if the gg had brothers... It's no big deal, it's just math..

Both lines were united in David, and other people too, so what? Did not Matt and Luke name different persons as sons of David? David probably had thirty or so kids. Matt continues the line thru Solomon, Luke thru Nathan. Both were sons of David.

In Yashua

Bob