First, the matter of why it is important to establish the 'House of Nun'? In this respect it ought to be noted that it is to Nun and his son Joshua which the Bible presents to be the Ephraimite line of inheritance in 1 Chronicals chapter 7. But before we note the line from Ephraim to Joshua, it ought to first be presented just what the rightful line of the Covenant is in scripture, which ought not surprise any one. Thus we begin with the 'Descent of the Covenant' beginning with Adam and down and until Ephraim. The following graphic summarizes this descent with appropriate scriptural references.

God first covenanted unto Adam that a way would be provided for man to be redeemed from the fall. This covenant was first presented as a part of the Plan of Redemption or Plan of Happiness in the preexistence. It was again made know to Adam after he was expelled from the Garden of Eden and the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was taught unto Adam and Adam's posterity (Moses 5:58-59 & Moses 6:50-68). Many did not belief but there were those who did. And one in particular group exercised their righteousness in the covenant to the point that they and their city was translated. This was the course of Enoch and his people and city. Enoch was promised that though the rest of the posterity of Adam which remained would also be provided for through the mission and administration of Jesus Christ (Moses 6 & 7). These promise and the gospel was also taught by Noah as Noah was heir of that covenant, the Everlasting Covenant of the Gospel Plan, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ was taught by him in his day as he called the people unto repentance but they did not respond unto it (Moses 8 espcially 8:19-24). The ancient generations of the covenant father from Adam to Noah are presented in Genesis chapter 5.

Shem is called the 'great high priest' in the account given in D&C 138 verse 41. In fact the Bible after giving the generations of Adam in Genesis chapter 5 next gives the generations of the covenant in Genesis 11:10-26 as being the 'Generations of Shem'. Shem was the son of Noah to whom the Everlasting Covenant fell and thus the generations of Shem are given from him down unto Abram or Abraham, who was the heir of the Covenant in his day. Now Jewish tradition will tell you that Shem was the same as Melchezidek, which John Taylor confirms. Others State that though Melchezidek was of the covenant linage, he was not Shem but was like Enoch in relation to Adam; a later high priest who he and his city obtained that state of righteousness to be translated.

From Shem, the great high priest and heir of Noah, the linage of the covenant does fall unto Abraham as the scriptural account given in Abraham 1:1-4 records that Abraham sought after the covenat blessings of the fathers including those concerning 'the seed', which is the ancestry of Jesus Christ (See Bible Dictionary 'Abrham, Covenant of'). In the Bible Dictionary it particularly points out that the Covenant of Abraham, the Everlasting Covenant of the Fathers, included (1) That Christ, 'the seed', would come through his lineage, and (2) that certain promised lands would be given as an eternal inheritance. It also included (3) the 'Gospel' and the promised covenant of salvation, (4) the covenant of the higher priesthood of God, and (5) the covenant of celestial marriage which is the covenant of exaltation. It is also in the Bible Dictionary under the Entry of 'Jacob' where it states that, 'It was through Jacob that the covenant of Abraham continued' and that 'it was then passed on to Joseph and Ephraim'. Nothing is ever said about the Covenant of Abraham ever being passed on and down and through Judah, though Judah would lay claim to it as having outlasted the other tribes in the land of promise and through the Lord's covenant with King David concerning the Messiah to come of his seed. This matter of King David covenant promise of the Messiah through him will be more closely reviewed in this section and it will be found that David inherited it as being the legal and rightful heir of Ephraim and not through Judah.

As already noted Abraham sought after the 'Covenant Blessings of the Fathers' as presented in Abraham 1:1-4. And as the Bible confirms he obtained them. From Abraham they passed through Isaac and from Isaac to Jacob as also taught in the Bible in the book of Genesis. There is little question concerning this. But as the Bible Dictionary confirms as to what was 'constituted in the covenant in the entries of 'Abraham, Covenant of' and under 'Jacob', that covenant consisted of 5 particular matters, the gospel, the priesthood, eternal marriage unto exaltation, an everlastion inheritance of lands and the ancestry of Jesus Christ; and that this covenant of Abraham was passed from Jacob unto Joseph and Joseph's son Ephraim. This is confirmed by such scriptural references of D&C 27:10 where it states that the 'promises of the fathers', that is the covenant, did remain through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. It is further confirmed in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2 where it states clearly that the 'birthright' of the covenant was Joseph's though the Jews contrived to prefer to give the genealogy through Judah, that being the Jewish blood line of David back through Boaz, thoug Boaz was but the surrogate parent of Obed unto Mahlon under the covenant of the Law of Moses. And finally in the days of King Zedekiah it is confirmed that Ephraim is considered by the Lord to be the rightful 'firstborn of Israel', that is the heir of the covenant (Jeremiah 31:9).

The covenant linage from Ephraim is presented in 1 Chronicles chapter 7. Having established that the rights and heirship of the covenant of the fathers did fall upon Ephraim, it is now paramount to show that the House of Nun or the House of Fish is the rightful heir of the covenant from Ephraim to Nun and from Nun to Joshua. The chart below summarizes that descent from Ephraim to Joshua with such generations denoted by astricks which are not mentioned by name though they are listed in 1 Chronicles 7:20-27.

Here is a presented the heirship descent from Ephraim to the 'House of Nun' or the 'House of Fish', Nun being the father and Joshua being the son of that House. It is important to note that this is the linage presented by the Bible of the heritage lineage of Ephraim despite the fact that there are many descendants of Ephraim by the time of Nun and Joshua. And it is this lineage of 'covenant' heirship which is above any and all others so established by the Biblical record. Simply there is no other birthright lineage of Ephraim given but that which descends to Nun and his son Joshua.

Now there are those who are identified as 'Ephraphites', the Book of Jasher identifies Nun and Joshua as being Ephrathite or of the tribe of Ephraim, the Book of Ruth identifies Elimelech and Mahlon as being 'Ephrathites' and the Book of I Samuel identifies Jesse and David as being 'Ephrathites'. The Book of I Samuel also identifies Samuel ancestry of Samuel the prophet as 'Ephrathite' (1 Samuel 1:1) but we know that Samuel and his ancestry was Levite. So in the matter of them being Ephrathite is only concerning their assigned ministry unto the tribe of Ephraim as it likewise states of an ohter Levite who was assigned to the tribe of Judah that he was of Judah (Judges 17:7).

"And they carried on a great and severe battle against Israel, and the Lord delivered Amalek and his people into the hands of Moses and the children of Israel, and into the hand of Joshua, the son of Nun, the Ephrathite, the servant of Moses." ~ The Book of Jasher 81:54
* * * * "And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there." ~ Ruth 1:2
* * * * "Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man went among men for an old man in the days of Saul." ~ I Samuel 17:12

Coincidence, irony, evidence or happenstance; it is a fact that each of the families of Nun, of Elimelech and of Jesse have been identified as being 'Ephrathites' meaning descended from Ephraim. This is particularly of interest in relation to Nun, the father of Joshua, who was born in Egypt, likely died in the wildernes and never did step foot upon the promised land, little alone Ephrath or Bethlehem. In his case the term 'Ephrathite' could only mean being descended of Ephraim and not the Jewish traditional contrived meaning being a resident of Ephrath, Ephrathah or Bethlehem. In fact in all instances the Biblical term 'Ephrathite' can be logically determed to mean Ephraimite as so shown in a previous item in this text.

Now, under the logical presumptions that the families of Nun, Elimelech and Jesse were all Ephrathites and knowing and understanding that the 'Covenant' rights came down to and through Joseph and Ephraim which included the right to the ancestry of Christ; and that King David did so receive of God that promise of the covenant that his lineage would be that of which the Messiah would come, there is nothing left to do but to determine an ancestral descent of the Covenant Nun and Joshua to Jesse and David as we have already presented that covenant lineage from Adam, Noah, Abraham down to Jacob, Joseph and Ephraim and from thence on to Nun and Joshua. To this end the following chart is a logical suggested ancestral descent from Nun and Joshua to Jesse and David which runs through the family of Elimelech and his son Mahlon.

" . . . (for he [Reuben] was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah revailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler, but the birthright was Joseph's:)" 1 Chronicles 5:1-2

And just what and whose 'genealogy' and 'birthright' was being discussed and disputed in the condensed and compiled chronicle history written by the Jewish scribes at that later date when such was created? Now the Chronicles were but the historical genealogy from Adam down to and including the time of the reign of King David. In fact when the first nine chapters of the genealogies end and the actual 'history' kept by the Chroncle record begins, it is with the recounting of the death of Saul in chapter 9 and the anointing of King David in chapter 10. From there the full history of the Chronicles really begins with the history of the kings from King David with King David's own history taking up the next 14 chapters, 10-23 give the details of that 'chief ruler' King David until King David turns over his kingdom to Solomon his son. Thus one is but left to conclude that the dispute betwix 'genealogy' and 'birthright' was that determination from the very Jewish perspective as to which, the 'birthright' or 'genealogy' should take presidence, both being applied to and carried forth in King David. The proof in that 'pudding' is to be found in what the birthright covenant blessings did consist of from Abraham, which did include the right of ancestry to the Messiah to come. And since King David inherited that 'birthright' covenant blessing of the ancestry to the Messiah and that that birthright was 'Joseph's' and given to Joseph's sons, we are left to conclude that though the Jews determined to recognize King David's genealogy from the surogate parent Boaz, that in fact the 'birthright' to the ancestry of the Messiah was carried to David from the family of Elimelech and Mahlon to whom Obed the firstborn son of Ruth by Boaz was so born unto the dead Mahlon and that family's ancestral inheritance of that 'birthright' from Ephraim the son of Joseph as given unto Ephraim under the very hand of Jacob. And thus though the Kingdom of Judah had 'prevailed' in the land after the Babylonian captivity, it was in deed the 'covenant birthright' in King David from Ephraim and those Ephrathite ancestors of legal right from Ephraim to Nun and Joshua and from thence to Elimelech and Mahlon and thus on to Obed and Jesse who himself was so denoted as Ephrathite/Ephraimite; he being the father of David who became king.

And now further, before we continue our ancestry of the covenant discussion and while we are still here at this last proposed ancestral chart, we ought to speak briefly to the matter of Rahab, which will be covered more fully in another section of this text under her name, Rahab was contemporay with Joshua and Jericho at the beginning of the reign of the Judges, Joshua being the first such Judge. Boaz and Ruth were contemporay with the ending of the reign of the Judges and it was the last Judge Samuel who first anointed Saul the first King of Israel and later anointed a youthful David as the second King of Israel. It is not feasible that the mother of Boaz toward the end of the long period of the reign of the judges could be the same as that Rahab who was contemporay with Joshua at the very beginning of the reign of the judges. And even though Matthew and Christian tradition make the Rachab of Christ linage so stated in Matthew chapter 1 the same as Rahab, it is much more feasible that she was a daughter of Rahab and not the same person as Rahab. And this indeed would provide the maternal kinship between Elimelech as a descendant of Joshua with Boaz a descendant of Rahab. For indeed Jewish tradition holds that Rahab did marry Joshua and did become the ancestor to many Biblical notibles such as Jeremiah a Levite, yet himself by a maternal marriage link also a descendant of a daughter of Joshua and Rahab. Now with that summary which will be covered in greater depth under the item entitled 'Rahab', we now continue our current discussion.

And so, it is of a particular interest the addition to meaning which such a chart of lineage showing both the 'covenant birthright' and the 'bloodline lineage' into the House of David, given to 1 Chronicles 5:1-2. That from the Jewish perspective of which the Bible is derived, that though the 'birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright'. Now this from the perspective of the Jews who were the only Kingdom and tribe of Israel left in tact at the time of the compilation of the Chronicles histories. And as stated, this is because 'Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's.' What other perspective coul the Jews have taken? The other ten tribes of the Kingdom of Israel had been destoryed, scattered and lost. And certainly only Judah remained, and even King David, had in his latter days choosen Judah over Israel (Ephraim), though Israel (Ephraim) in consideration of the 'Covenant' held the greater right in David (I Samuel 19:41-43).

Now one will point out that these verses speak of David's selection of Judah over Israel though Judah had fought against Judah while Ephraim had supported and fought with David against his son Absolom. And they will point out that it speaks of Judah being 'near kin to David', that David is of the tribe of Judah. With this there is little argument. Of a truth in the bloodline David was a Jew descended from Boaz. But Israel is also promoting thier claim on David, that it is more than just being that they were 10 of the tribes or ten parts in the king of Israel, but that 'also' they had the 'more right' in terms of covenant ancestry than so touted by the Jews in their blood relationship to David. This 'greater right' would have been due to the Law of Moses, that Boaz had raised up seed, that is Obed, unto the House of Mahlon and Elimelech, Ephrathites. And it was through that God ordained and sanctioned kinship by which Obed was the heir to the Covenant of the Fathers, the Covenant of Abraham and the right to the ancestry to the Messiah. Is that not a 'greater right' than mere blood kinship?

Was it merely that naming of Jesus Christ with the promised name of Jehoshua/Joshua the son of Nun by which the early Christian church selected the symbol of the kingdom, the church, to be the same as the meaning of the name of Nun, the ancient father of Joshua/Jehoshua? Or was and is there more to it in the actual factual reality that Jesus was indeed that Son of the Covenant who had come down according to his linage from Abrham to Ephraim and from Ephraim to the House of Nun and unto Joshua his son, unto the House of Fish/Nun? By itself alone the coincidence of the symbol of Christianity being the 'fish' and the fact that anciently Joshua's father's name Nun meant 'fish' may be disgarded as a little thing. But in concert with all the other evidences the selection of the 'Fist' the symbol of the House of Nun, the very possible symbol of the 'Covenant' family ought to weigh much more heavily upon one's consideration in understanding this matter.

Now, in the process of deliniating the particulars of eveidence to the fact that Jesus was of the House of Ephraim, it is impossible to excussively state one item of evidence without relating other such particulars of evidence which so tightly relate to it that it can not be so isolated from them in such a discussion. Such is the fact in relationship to the 'House of Nun'. Many of the matters of evidence will have been and will be so stated in other sections as will as this in terms of the House of Nun, that is the linial house of those who descended from 'Nun' and would become to be know as being a part of the 'House of the Fish'. Jesus Christ and his early Christian Church even went so far as to use the symbol of Nun, the fish, to so itentify membership in the Chruch of Jesus Christ. And it is the 'mountain of evidence', circumstancial as it may be, which surmounts the strong case that Jesus Christ is both Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph, one and the same.