The Genealogy of Yahshua The Messiah

In the first chapter of Matthew, the first 17 verses, we have what is called, in the KJV, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ.” It starts with Abraham and continues naming all the descendants of Judah through David down to a Jacob who begat Joseph, the husband of Mary.

The first impression one gets from this is: What does Joseph, the husband of Mary, have to do with Yahshua the Messiah as He was supposed to be born of a Virgin birth. If Joseph is not the bloodline father of Yahshua, why even take up the space to mention his genealogical data? This is a very long and complicated story which we hope to explain before the end of this study. In order to save space, we will first present an abbreviated chart of this genealogy as presented in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3-23-38:

Matthew 1:1-16:

Abraham > Isaac > Jacob > Judah > Pharez > Ezrom > Aram > Aminadab > Nashon > Salmon > Boaz > Obed > Jesse > David* > Solomon* > Rehobom* > Abijam* > Asa* > Jehoshaphat* > Jehoram* > Ahaziah* > Jotham* > Ahaz* > Hezekiah* > Manasseh* > Amon* > Josiah* > Jehoiachin* > Salathiel_ > Zorobabel_ > Abiud > Eliakim > Azor > Sador > Achim > Elias > Eleazor > Matthan > Jacob > Joseph, the husband of Mary. (* indicates 15 kings; _ not the same as Salathiel or Zorobabel, son and grandson of Neri as below in Luke’s genealogy)

A footnote from the “Emphatic Diaglott” says this on page 11 concerning the above genealogy:

“By reference to 2 Chronicles 22, and following chapters, it will be sen that the names of Ahazia, Joash, and Amaziah, the immediate descendants of Jehoram, are omitted in the text...Some manuscripts read, ‘Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jechoniah,’ probably inserted to make up fourteen generations, as mentioned in verse 17.”

Luke 3:23-38:

Yahweh > Adam > Seth > Enosh > Cainan > Mahalalel > Jared > Enoch > Methusalah > Lamech > Noah > Shem > Arphaxad > Cainan > Shalah > Eber> Peleg > Reu > Serug > Nahor > Terah > Abraham > Isaac > Jacob > Judah > Pharez > Ezrom > Aram > Aminadab > Nashon > Salmon > Boaz > Obed > Jesse> “David* > Nathan > Mattatha > Menan > Melea > Eliakim > Jonan > Joseph > Juda > Simeon> Levi > Matthat > Jorim > Eliezer > Jose > Joseph > Semei > Mattathias > Joseph > Janna > Melhi > Levi> Matthat > Heli > Mary (espoused of Joseph) > Yahshua the Messiah. (* indicates 1 king only, being David; and as stated above this Salathiel or “Zorobabel, son and grandson of Jehoiachin as in Matthew’s genealogy second paragraph above. The name Zerubbabel is shown by actual inscriptions from the time of Darius to have been a very common one in Babylon)

To this last genealogy of Mary the “Pictorial Bible Dictionary,” by The S0uthwestern Company makes the following comment on page 514:

“She (Mary) lived into the apostolic period, whereas Joseph seems to have died before the crucifixion of Yahshua, for there is no mention of him after the incident of Yahshua in the temple when He was twelve, and she could very well have told the story to the early leaders of the church, including Luke. She was the ‘kinswoman’ of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist (Luke 1:36), but the exact nature of this relationship is uncertain. Luke tells the story of Yahshua’s birth from Mary’s standpoint, describing her maidenly fears (Luke 1:26-35), her paean (song) of praise to Yahweh for the favor accorded her in being the mother of the Messiah. (Luke 1:39-55) Matthew on the other hand tells the story from the standpoint of Joseph, describing his reaction when he found she was with child, his determination to protect her from shame and contumely (rudeness) as much as possible, his obedience to Yahweh’s command that he marry Mary, his taking her and Yahshua to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. The two stories harmonize and dovetail perfectly.”

                             The Betrothal of Mary to Joseph

The “Wycliffe Bible Commentary,” has the following to say about this on page 932:

“Among the Judeans, marriage vows were said at the betrothal, and required divorce to end them. Custom decreed an interval, usually a year, before the bride should take residence in her husband’s house and physical union being consummated. During this interval Mary was found with child, and circumstance usually punishable by death. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) Apparently Mary did not explain he situation to Joseph but chose to leave this delicate matter in the hands of Yahweh. She could hardly have expected Joseph to accept her story without some divine authentication.”

We are told in “The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten books of Eden,” The Protevangelion 10:1‑10:

"And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned form his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face ca I look up to the Lord my God? Or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God! And have not preserved her such! Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? IS NOT THE HISTORY OF ADAM EXACTLY ACCOMPLISHED IN ME? FOR IN THE VERY INSTANT OF HIS GLORY, THE SERPENT CAME AND FOUND EVE ALONE, AND SEDUCED HER. JUST AFTER THE SAME MANNER IT HAS HAPPENED TO ME. Then Joseph arising from the ground, called her, and said, O thou who hast been so much favoured by God, why hast thou done this. Why hast thou debased thy soul, who wast educated in the Holy of Holies, and received thy food from the hand of angels? But she, with a flood of tears, replied, I am innocent, and have known no man."

The “Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible,” abridged by Ralph Earle, comments thusy on page 766:

“Espoused to Joseph. The word refers to the previous marriage agreement to which the parties mutually bound themselves to each other, without which no woman was ever married among the Judeans. Before they came together: The woman was espoused at her own or her father’s house, and generally some time elapsed before she was taken home to the house of her husband. (Deuteronomy 22:7; Judges 14:7-8)

Among the Judean Israelites the espousal, though the marriage had not ben consummated, was considered as perfectly legal and binding on both sides; hence a breach of this contract was considered as a case of adultery, and punished in exactly the same way. (Deuteronomy 22:25-28) SHE WAS FOUND WITH CHILD. Her situation was the most distressing and humiliating that can be conceived. Nothing but the fullest consciousness of her own integrity and the strongest confidence in Yahweh could have supported her in such a trying circumstance, where her reputation, her honor, and her life was at stake. What conversation passed between her, and Joseph on this discovery we are not informed (unless the above out of the Books of Eden is true); but the issue proves that it was not satisfactory to him, nor could he resolve to consider her as his wife till Yahweh had sent His angel to bear the most unequivocal testimony to the Virgin’s innocence. (The Protevangelion 10:1-10, which as stated above records Joseph’s reaction to this discovery)...He might at once have taken the advantage of the law, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, and had her stoned to death.”

Back to “The Wycliffe Bible Commentary,” page 932:

“Joseph ended the period of betrothal by taking Mary to live in his home so that Yahshua at His birth WOULD BE HIS LEGITIMATE SON AND HEIR TO THE THRONE. However, he knew her not, sexually, prior to the birth. Neither ‘till’ nor ‘firstborn’ (Matthew 1:25) necessarily indicates what happened afterward. However, one would naturally infer that the normal relationship of marriage would follow, unless one is committed to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary. Matthew betrays no such inclination.”

                           The Curse of Jeconiah

To understand what the curse of Jeconiah was and is all about, we are going to quote from the “Believer’s Bible Commentary,” by William MacDonald, page 1204:

“Of interest, too, is the mention of a king named ‘Jeconiah.’ In Jeremiah 22:30 Yahweh pronounced a curse on this man:

Thus says Yahweh:

‘Write this man down as childless,

A man who shall not prosper in his days;

For none of his (male) descendants shall prosper,

Sitting on the throne of David,

And ruling anymore in Judah.’

If Yahshua had been the REAL son of Joseph, He would have come under this curse. Yet He had to be the legal son of Joseph in order to inherit the rights of the throne of David. The problem was solved by the miracle of the virgin birth: Yahshua was the LEGAL heir to the throne through Joseph. He was the REAL Son of David through Mary. The curse on Jeconiah did not fall on Mary or her child since she did not descend from Jeconiah.”

For another reference from Jeremiah 22:24-30, concerning Jeconiah’s curse, we will now quote from the “Believer’s Bible Commentary,” by William MacDonald, page 1011:

“Prophecy against King Jehoiachin...Coniah (also called Jeconiah and Jehoiachin), the fourth (son of) king (Josiah), would be taken captive by the Babylonians and would die in Babylon. None of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of David. No offspring of Jeconiah succeeded him to the throne. His replacement, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, was his uncle. Charles H. Dyer comments: This prophecy also helps explain the genealogies of Yahshua in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Matthew presented the legal line of Yahshua through his stepfather, Joseph. However, Joseph’s line came through Shealthel who was a son of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Matthew 1:12; cf. 1 Chronicles 3:17) Had Yahshua been a physical descendant of Joseph and not virgin-born, He would have been disqualified as Israel’s King. Luke presented the physical line of Yahshua through Mary, who was descended from David through the line of his son Nathan (Luke 3:31) In that way Yahshua was not under the ‘curse’ of Jehoiachin.

At this point, it is important to notice the curse of Jeconiah didn’t fall on Zedekiah or his daughters who eventually went to Ireland. Being Jeconiah’s uncle, Zedekiah would be a generation order. To amplify on the above two passages, we will quote from “The International Bible Commentary,” by F.F. Bruce, page 1122:

“Humanly speaking Yahshua’s claim to the Davidic throne depended on the willingness of Joseph, the legal heir, to accept Him as his son. Hence Matthew gives only Joseph’s version of the story...Here let us note that apart from the divine activity in conception, Yahshua’s birth was completely normal. He was not conceived until Mary was married; betrothal was legally marriage.”

Returning now to quote again from the “Believer’s Bible Commentary,” by William MacDonald, page 1204:

“This (Matthew’s) genealogy traces the ‘legal’ descent of Yahshua as King of Israel; the genealogy in Luke’s Gospel traces His ‘lineal’ descent as Son of David. Matthew’s genealogy follows his ‘royal’ line form David through his son, Solomon, the next king; Luke’s genealogy follows the ‘blood’ line from David through another son, Nathan. This genealogy concludes with Joseph, of whom Yahshua was the ‘adopted’ Son, the genealogy in Luke 3 probably traces the ancestry of Mary, of whom Yahshua was the ‘real’ son. A millennium earlier, YAHWEH HAD MADE AN UNCONDITIONAL AGREEMENT WITH DAVID, PROMISING HIM A KINGDOM THAT WOULD LAST FOREVER AND A PERPETUALLY RULING LINE (Psalm 89:4, 36, 37)...Yahshua united in His Person the only two basis for claims to the throne of Israel (the legal and the lineal)...”

Quoting now from the “Commentary On The While Bible,” by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, page 881:

“And yet it is here studiously proclaimed that Joseph was not the natural, but only the legal father of our Master. His birth of a virgin was known only to a few; BUT THE ACKNOWLEDGED DESCENT OF HIS LEGAL FATHER FORM DAVID SECURED THAT THE DESCENT OF HIS LEGAL FATHER FROM DAVID SECURED THAT THE DESCENT OF YAHSHUA HIMSELF FROM DAVID SHOULD NEVER BE QUESTIONED.”

If you will return to the genealogy charts in the first column, you will notice there are 15 kings in Joseph’s line and only one in Mary’s line, and that being David himself.

                   Further Information on Mary’s Line

In the “Lost Books of the bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden,” in “The Gospel of the Birth Of Mary,” starting with page 17 and continuing through page 24, there is more information of the lineage of Mary. In chapter 1, verse 2, it names Coachim as Mary’s father and Anna as Mary’s mother. Actually Mary’s father was called by four different names, Heli, Eli, Heliachim and Joachim. You can find this information in the “Adam Clarke’s Commentary,” abridged by Ralph Earle, on pages 863 and 864. But at this point, we want to give you additional information about Mary’s mother, Anna.

                        Mary’s Mother Anna (Ann)

We will be taking this information from the book St. Joseph of Arimathea At Glastonbury, appendix 3, pages 155-157:

“Kinship Of The Holy Family.”“It will surprise most people to know that in the English College of Arms, the Heralds’ Office, there is a pedigree of Christ (Yahshua) and His relatives from Adam downwards. It is both a chart and narrative form. The pedigree of Our Master’s immediate family is startling. It is strange to find it there. It is Roll 33, Box 26. Interest centres in St. Ann and her sister Bianca. Ann had three husbands: first Joachim, by whom she had the Blessed Virgin Mary; second Cleophas, by whom she had another Mary who married Alphaeus and who was the mother of St. James the Less. Symeon (St. Simon), St. Jude or Thaddaeus, and Joseph Barsaba, who are generally called ‘the Brethren of our Messiah,’ thus making them cousins of the half-blood. It is very startling that the third husband attributed to St. An is Salome (usually the name of a woman). By him she had a third Mary, and it is equally startling that she is said to have married Zebedee and was the mother of St. John the Divine and St. James the Great, thus making them also cousins of the half-blood of our Messiah. Bianca, St. Ann’s sister, had a daughter Halsbert (our Elizabeth) who married Zacharias and who was the mother of St. John the Baptist, thus making him second cousin to Our Messiah, as in the Bible. There was evidently some tradition...that St. John and St. James were half-cousins of Our Messiah, as in the Bible. There was evidently some tradition...that St. John and St. James were half-cousins of Our Messiah, and that his ‘brethren’ were really half-cousins...

“But one must record that the narrative of that same Roll shows a somewhat different pedigree. It makes ‘the brethren’ of Our Messiah half brothers, St. Mary (not St. Ann) marrying Cleophas after St. Joseph’s death. St. Ann is only given two Marys as daughters, she marrying only Joachim and Salome, but St. John and St. James, the sons of Zebedee and Mary, are still half-cousins of Our Messiah...

“In the Harl. MMS. In the British Museum, 38-59, f. 193b, there is a descent of both the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph from David, making Heli, the father of the Blessed Virgin, and Jacob, father of St. Joseph, to be brothers, thus making St. Mary and St. Joseph first cousins. (Note: We know that Matthan was the father of Jacob, Joseph’s father; and Matthat was the father of Heli, Mary’s father; so they could have been only cousins through a common mother of Jacob and Heli, thus not passing on the curse of Jeconiah to Yahshua)...But besides this attempt to reconcile the Biblical genealogies by making the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph first cousins, it makes St. Joseph of Arimathea uncle of them both, and his daughter Anna Consobrina or cousin of the Blessed Virgin...

“Another MS. In Jesus College, MS. 20, makes Anna mother of Penardin (a somewhat Cornish name) who married King Lear, and so was mother of Bran the Blessed and grandmother of caractacus, thus linking the Holy Family with the ancient British Royal Family...

“To sum up, the Heralds’ College MS. Throws light on the relationship of that little band of Yahshua’s followers that changed the history of the world. The Harleian MS. Supports the claim that Joseph of Arimathea was uncle of the Blessed Virgin, and making St. Joseph and St. Mary first cousins makes him uncle of them both. It also claims that he had a daughter Anna, calling her consobrina, or cousin, or the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

For additional information and another segment in the story of Anna, the mother of Mary, we will go to page 63 of this same book:

“Anna was born in Comouaille of royal blood. Brutally treated by a jealous husband, when with child, she fled toward the sea; an angel caused her to enter a vessel, and took her to Asia to Jaffa, where she landed, and whence she reached Nazareth. There she gave birth to a little girl, whom she named Mary. When she (Mary) was fifteen years old, she was married to a carpenter, named Joseph, and Anna then prayed to Yahweh to take her back to Comouaille. The same angel again took her over the waves. Anna found that her husband was dead, divided her property among his vassals...”

With this genealogy, you can clearly see that Mary was Elizabeth’s 1st or 2nd cousin, that Mary, on her mother’s side was of the tribe of Levi. This is important, for not only was Yahshua the “natural” and “legal” son of David, he was also the natural son of Levi. This is what qualified Him to be both priest and king. Never before did such a combination of events bring about such a unique unparalleled individual. Though He was born to be king, He has yet to be crowned as such, It is recorded however, that He took the office of priest at about thirty years of age, Luke 3:23.

                         Yahshua Born To Be King

                        of An Everlasting Kingdom

 When David took the throne, his throne was to last forever and always be occupied by one of his descendants. There are hundreds of references in Scripture to verify this. According to Bible history, there was no Davidic throne or anyone to occupy it for a period of approximately 600 years in Palestine. Throughout this period, Judah was continually a vassal state under other powers and never once did a descendant of David that that throne as such. It is evident we must look elsewhere for David’s throne. If there is no longer a Throne of David for Yahshua to occupy, all His genealogy of birth, ministry, death and resurrection are in vain.

                             The Covenant of Salt

2 Chronicles 13:5 likens Yahweh’s promise to David as a “covenant of salt:”

“Ought ye not to know that Yahweh El of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, ‘even’ to him and his sons BY A COVENANT OF SALT?”

The International Bible Commentary,” by F.F. Bruce, page 468:

“A COVENANT OF SALT WAS A PERPETUAL COVENANT THAT COULD NOT BE BROKEN. (Numbers 18:19; Leviticus 2:13) This reference to an eternal dominion for the Davidic dynasty is independent of (the books of) Samuel and (the) Kings.”

The (abridged) “Adam Clarke’s Commentary,” pages 154 and 191 say the following concerning a salt covenant:

“It is a covenant of salt.’ That is, an incorruptible everlasting covenant. As ‘salt’ was added to different kinds of viands (pieces of food), not only to give them relish, but to preserve them from putrefaction and decay, it became the emblem of incorruptibility and permanence. Hence, ‘a covenant of salt’ signified AN EVERLASTING CONVENT...SALT WAS THE OPPOSITE TO LEAVEN for it preserved from putrefaction and corruption, and signified the purity and persevering fidelity...It was called the ‘salt of the covenant of thy EL,’ BECAUSE AS SALT IS INCORRUPTIBLE, SO WAS THE COVENANT made with Abram, Isaac, Jacob, and the patriarchs relative to the redemption of the (Israel) world by the incarnation and death of Yahshua.”

“Commentary On The Whole Bible, Jamieson, Fausset & Brown,” pages 86 and 126:

“...NO INJUNCTION IN THE WHOLE LAW WAS MORE SACREDLY OBSERVED than this application of salt...It is a common phrase among Oriental people, who consider the taking of salt a pledge of fidelity, BINDING THEM IN A COVENANT of friendship.”

                Yahweh Has Preserved David’s Throne

through the Throne of David was non-existent for nearly 600 years in Palestine, during the inter-testament period, it was alive and well in Ireland, and Yahweh was true to His covenant of salt with David. The curse of Jeconiah was not on Zedekiah and his descendants, though Nebuchadnezzar killed all his sons who were eligible for the throne. But in Israel, the daughters can inherit the throne if there remain no living male heir (Numbers 27:6-11) Jeremiah took the two daughters of Zedekiah to a new land. Isaiah 37:31 prophesied that:

“And the remnant that is escaped, of the house of Judah, shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward.”

                         The Restoration of David’s

                              Throne in The Isles

Purposely written in the riddle form of a parable so that few would understand it, the Throne of David was relocated in Ireland (Ezekiel 17:22-24):

“Thus saith Yahweh, I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar (royal family) and will set ‘it:’ I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one (a daughter), and will plant it upon a high mountain (the isles) and eminent: in the mountain (the isles) of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs (family branches), and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar (strong family tree): and under it shall dwell all foul of every wing (‘Jews’ and other races); in the shadow of the branches (of government) thereof they shall dwell (infiltrate). And all the trees of the field (all people) shall know that I the Almighty have brought down the high tree (Pharez royal line), and have exalted the low tree (Zerah royal line), have dried up the green tree (Pharez royal line), and have made the dry tree (Zerah royal line) to flourish: I Yahweh have spoken and have done it.”

No sooner than Jeremiah arrived in Ireland with Tea Tephi (Zedekiah’s daughter of the Pharez royal family) than he arranged for her marriage to Eochaidh, the Heremonn, a prince of the Tuatha de Danaans on his mother’s side and a direct descendant of Fenesia Farsa, and thus of the line of Zerah, twin brother of Pharez of the Royal House of Judah, thus uniting the Royal House of Pharez and the Royal House of Zerah.

                      David to Rule Over All of Israel

                                 Not Just Judah

Had Yahshua taken the Crown at His First Advent, He would have been King of only Judah. Had He taken the Crown over all of Israel, He would have had to make a journey to Britain to dethrone whoever was king there at that time for there could not be two kings holding the position at the same time. If He had become King, at that time, He would have to have dethroned Herod. Had He taken Herod’s place, He would have found Himself a vassal under Roman rule, and Yahshua is never going to be subservient to any earthly king! When asked by Pilate if He were King. He answered in John 18:36:

“My kingdom is not of this (#2889, present world order), if my kingdom were of this (present world order), then would my servants fight.”

We know this fighting did not happen at His First Advent, and hasn’t happened since. We know Yahshua didn’t receive the sceptre from the “Jewish” nation, as they were under Rome before He was born, and forty years after He was gone, they were still under Rome. If the first coming of Yahshua was His Shiloh coming, then He failed miserably; for the people did not gather to Him as prophesied in Genesis 49:10. It would have been impossible for the Israelites to gather to Him for they were scattered all over Europe from the Black Sea to the British Isles.

Yet the Jews were afraid that He would regather them to him because their high priest said:

“And ONE OF THEM, NAMED CAIAPHAS, BEING THE HIGH PRIEST that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole (Jewish) nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, BUT THAT ALSO HE SHOULD GATHER TOGETHER IN ONE THE CHILDREN OF GOD THAT WERE SCATTERED ABROAD.” (John 11:49-52)

So we see here, that is usually overlooked by most Judeo-Christians and especially the Judeo-Christian clergy (or they don’t want to see it), is proof positive that the Jews are not the Israelites, other wise the Jewish High Priest would not have made the statement “He should gather together in one the Children of God that were scattered abroad.” If the Jews were Yahweh’s people, he would not have said this at all. He would have said gather together our brothers and sisters. But he did not because he knew they, the Jews, were not Israelites.

Yahweh declared, “Judah is My Lawgiver.” According to accepted evidence, Judah as Lawgiver departed from the nation of Judea 588 years before the One acceptable to eventually become Shiloh in the future came, thus leaving an unbridged chasm of time like a gaping void which cannot be easily plastered over. All who claim that Yahshua has already come as Shiloh are compelled to resort to inexcusable distortions of Scripture to fill up this gaping breach of 588 years from the overthrow of Zedekiah until the time of Our Redeemer.

                           He Did Become Priest

                    But Not King At His First Advent

From the 18th verse above, it would appear that, somehow, if it were true, it would still be necessary to have a priesthood killing animals and offering sacrifices. While animal sacrifice has been discontinued, it is still very much in effect inasmuch as the priesthood was conferred upon Yahshua at His First Advent. Actually he became both the priest and the sacrifice inasmuch as He offered Himself to be the Lamb. Up until His Priesthood, the Levitical priesthood was kept intact.

For proof of this, we will quote Hebrews 7:15-17:

“And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest. Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of and endless life. For he testifieth, Thou ‘art’ a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” (Hebrews 5:6; 5:10; 6:20; 7:17; 7:21)

There is a possibility that Yahshua inherited the priesthood legally at John the Baptist’s death through Zacharias. As we documented here before, Mary the mother of Yahshua was related to Elisabeth who was a Levite. If it were necessary for Yahshua to receive the legal kingship line through Joseph, it is only reasonable that He legally inherit the priesthood in some similar manner. (Taken, in part, from an article “The Genealogy of Yahshua The Messiah,” by Clifton A. Emahiser’s Teaching Ministries, 1012 N. Vine Street, Fostoria, Ohio 44839, (419) 435-2836)