Luke 3:36

Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Benson Commentary

Luke 3:36-37. Which was the son of Cainan — “There is no mention made of this Cainan in either of the genealogies which Moses gives, Genesis 10:24; Genesis 11:12; but Salah is there said to be the son of Arphaxad. Cainan must therefore have been introduced here from the translation of the Seventy interpreters, who have inserted him in both these places in the same order as we find him here; and as this translation was then commonly used, and was more generally understood than the Hebrew, it is probable that some transcriber of this gospel added Cainan from that version. Unless we suppose that Luke himself might choose, in writing this genealogy, to follow the LXX., as he appears to do in several other passages that he has quoted from the Old Testament.” The evangelist’s design was only to present us with the genealogy of Christ in its ascent to Adam, and this is equally clear, whether we reckon Salah as the immediate descendant of Arphaxad, or whether we consider him as his grandson by Cainan.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

3:23-38 Matthew's list of the forefathers of Jesus showed that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and heir to the throne of David; but Luke shows that Jesus was the Seed of the woman that should break the serpent's head, and traces the line up to Adam, beginning with Eli, or Heli, the father, not of Joseph, but of Mary. The seeming differences between the two evangelists in these lists of names have been removed by learned men. But our salvation does not depend upon our being able to solve these difficulties, nor is the Divine authority of the Gospels at all weakened by them. The list of names ends thus, Who was the son of Adam, the son of God; that is, the offspring of God by creation. Christ was both the son of Adam and the Son of God, that he might be a proper Mediator between God and the sons of Adam, and might bring the sons of Adam to be, through him, the sons of God. All flesh, as descended from the first Adam, is as grass, and withers as the flower of the field; but he who partakes of the Holy Spirit of life from the Second Adam, has that eternal happiness, which by the gospel is preached unto us.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

See, on this genealogy, the notes at Matthew 1:1-16.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

24-30. son of Matthat, &c.—(See on [1563]Mt 1:13-15). In Lu 3:27, Salathiel is called the son, while in Mt 1:12, he is called the father of Zerubbabel. But they are probably different persons.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

See Poole on "Luke 3:24"

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Which was the son of Cainan,.... This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in Genesis 11:12 nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in 1 Chronicles 1:24 where the genealogy is repeated; nor is it in Beza's most ancient Greek copy of Luke: it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence, but seems to be owing to some early negligent transcriber of Luke's Gospel, and since put into the Septuagint to give it authority: I say "early", because it is in many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them; but ought not to stand neither in the text, nor in any version: for certain it is, there never was such a Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, for Salah was his son; and with him the next words should be connected,

which was the son of Arphaxad; Genesis 11:12

which was the son of Sem, or Shem, Genesis 11:10

which was the son of Noe, or Noah, Genesis 5:32

which was the son of Lamech,

Geneva Study Bible

Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Luke 3:36. Τοῦ Καϊνάν] In Genesis 10:24; Genesis 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:24. Shalach (שָׁלַה) is named as the son of Arphaxad. But the genealogy follows the LXX. in Gen. (as above); and certainly the name of Kenan also originally stood in Genesis, although the author of 1 Chronicles may not have read it in his copy of Genesis. See Bertheau on 1 Chron. p. 6.

REMARK.

The genealogy in Luke, who, moreover, in accordance with his Pauline universalism carries on the genealogical line up to Adam, is appropriately inserted at this point, just where the Messianic consecration of Jesus and the commencement therewith made of His ministry are related. Hence, also, the genealogy is given in an ascending line, as Luke did not intend, like Matthew, to begin his Gospel just at the birth of Jesus, but went much further back and started with the conception and birth of the Baptist; so in Luke the proper and, in so far as the historical connection was concerned, the right place for the genealogy could not have been, as in Matthew, at the beginning of the Gospel. Comp. Köstlin, p. 306.

In its contents the genealogy is extremely different from that in Matthew, since from Joseph to David, Luke has far more and almost throughout different links in the genealogy; since Matthew gives the line of Solomon, while Luke gives that of Nathan (2 Samuel 5:14; 1 Chronicles 3:5), although he introduces into it from the former Σαλαθιήλ and Ζοροβάβελ. Seeking in several ways to get rid of this last-mentioned difficulty (see on Luke 3:27), many have assumed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives that of Mary. To reconcile this with the text, τοῦ Ἡλί has been taken to mean: the son-in-law of Eli, as, following many older commentators (Luther, also Chemnitz, Calovius, Bengel), Paulus, Olshausen, Krabbe, Ebrard, Riggenbach, Bisping, and others will have it; but this, according to the analogy of the rest of the links in the chain, is quite impossible. The attempt has been made to connect with this the hypothesis of Epiphanius, Grotius, Michaelis, and others, that Mary was an heiress, whose husband must therefore have belonged to the same family, and must have had his name inscribed in their family register (Michaelis, Olshausen); but this hypothesis itself, while it is equally objectionable in being arbitrary, and in going too far in its application, leaves the question altogether unsolved whether the law of the heiress was still in force at that time (see on Matthew 1:17, Rem. 2), even apart from the fact that Mary’s Davidic descent is wholly without proof, and extremely doubtful. See on Luke 1:36, Luke 2:4. Another evasion, with a view to the appropriation of the genealogy to Mary, as well as that of Wieseler, is already refuted[79] at Luke 3:23. See also Bleek, Beitr. p. 101 f.

Hence the conclusion must be maintained, that Luke also gives the genealogy of Joseph. But if this be so, how are we to reconcile the genealogy with that given in Matthew? It has been supposed that Joseph was adopted (Augustine, de consens. evangel. Luke 2:3; Wetstein, Schegg), or more usually, that he sprang from a levirate marriage (Julius Africanus in Eusebius, H. E. i. 7), so that Matthew adduces his natural father Jacob, while Luke adduces his legal father Eli (Julius Africanus, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Augustine), or vice versâ (Ambrosius, Grotius, Wetstein, Schleiermacher). But what a complication this hypothesis, in itself quite arbitrary, involves! In this way Eli and Jacob must be taken to be mere half-brothers, because they have different fathers and forefathers! So in respect of Salathiel’s mother, we must once more call in the help of a levirate marriage, and represent Neri and Jechonia as in like manner half-brothers! In addition to this, the obligation to the levirate marriage for the half-brother is not authenticated, and the importing of the natural father into the legal genealogy was illegal; finally, we may make the general remark, that neither Matthew nor Luke adds any observation at all in citing the name of Joseph’s father, to call attention to any other than the ordinary physical paternal relationship. No; the reconciliation of the two genealogical registers, although they both refer to Joseph, is impossible; but it is very natural and intelligible that, as is usual in the case of great men, whose descent in its individual steps is obscure, no anxiety was felt to investigate his ancestry until long after the death of Jesus—until the living presence of his great manifestation and ministry no longer threw into the shade this matter of subordinate interest. The genealogical industry of the Jewish Christians had collected from tradition and from written documents several registers, which, appearing independently of one another, must have given very different results, as far back as David, in consequence of the obscurity of Joseph’s genealogy. The first evangelist adopted a genealogy in accordance with the David-Solomon line; but Luke adopted a totally different one, following the David-Nathan line.[80] But that Luke, as a matter of fact, rejected the genealogy of Matthew, is according to Luke 1:3 to be regarded as a result of his later inquiries, as in general the great and irreconcilable divergence of his preliminary history from that of Matthew suggests the same conclusion. Only the motives of his decision are so completely unknown to us, that to concede to his genealogy the preference (v. Ammon, L. J. I. p. 179) remains unsafe, although the derivation of the Davidic descent of Jesus from the Nathan (therefore not the royal) line presupposes an investigation, in consequence of which the derivation of that descent through Solomon, which doubtless had first presented itself, was abandoned in the interest of rectification (according to Köstlin, indeed, in the Ebionitic interest, in opposition to the royal line stained with crime, and in opposition to worldly royalty in general).

As the genealogy in Matthew is arranged in accordance with a significant numerical relation (three times fourteen), a similar relation is also recognisable in the genealogy by Luke (eleven times seven), even although no express reference is made to it. See already Basil. M. III. p. 399 C.

[79] That Eli was the father of Mary is also inferred by Delitzsch on Hebr. p. 290, who suggests that after the premature death of his father Jacob, Joseph was adopted, namely, by this Eli as his foster son, and brought up along with Mary; that thus, therefore, Eli was Joseph’s foster father, but Mary’s actual father. What groundless devices! And yet the passage itself is “as simple as possible until we want to force it to say what it does not say,” Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 112.

[80] This variation in the Davidic descent of the Messiah occurs also in the later Jewish theology. See Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1860, 3, p. 460 f.

Bengel's Gnomen

Luke 3:36. Τοῦ Καϊνὰν, Kainan) Let some, as best they can, furnish out a plausible array of some MSS. which are without the name Cainan: one is without it, viz. Cantabrigiensis, called also Stephani β, and also codex Bezæ [[37]]; which, as being a MS. containing the Latin as well as the Greek, deserves the title, not so much of a codex, as of a rhapsody comprising various readings of fathers.[38] “Even supposing that in countless copies of the New and Old Testaments,” as Voss rightly remarks, “the name of this Cainan were wanting, which however is not the case, yet no argument could be derived from that circumstance. For the reason of the omission would be evident from the fact that the Church approved of and followed the calculation of Africanus and Eusebius; and therefore I wonder that more copies are not found, in which the name of Cainan is expunged.”—c. Horn., p. 13. Nevertheless so many in our time disapprove of the Cainan here, that there is a risk of its being ere long thrust out from Luke; a judgment which betrays great rashness, as Rich. Simon on this passage properly remarks, and so also Gomarus. Besides Cainan is retained in Luke by J. E. Grabius, John Hardouin, Jac. Hasæus, G. C. Hosmann, to whom are to be added thes. phil. p. 174 of Hottinger, Glassius, etc. Among the ancients is Ambrose, who, on Luke 7, says, “The Lord was born of Mary in the seventy-seventh generation.” That this Cainan was mentioned in the LXX. Version made before the nativity of Christ (See Genesis 10:24; Genesis 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, [in which passages Cainan’s name is passed over]) the Chronicon of Demetrius in Eusebius, B. ix. præp. Ev. page 425, proves. Moreover many documents attest that Theophilus, to whom Luke wrote, was at Alexandria. There is no doubt but that ‘Cainan’ was read at least in the LXX. version at Alexandria, that I may not say that it was in that city the insertion of his name took place. Wherefore it was not suitable that ‘Cainan’ should already at that early time [the first sending of the Gospel to Alexandria] be either omitted by Luke or marked openly with the brand of spuriousness. Elsewhere also Luke made that concession to the Hellenistic Jews, that he followed the LXX. translators in preference to the Hebrew text. Acts 7:14. And so here he did not expunge ‘Cainan,’ whose name was inserted in their version. And yet he did not thereby do any violence to truth; for the fact of the descent of Jesus Christ from David, though some fathers have been passed over in Matthew, and similarly on the other hand Cainan has been retained in Luke, still remains uninjured. Nay, even he took precaution for the exactness of the main truth by that prefatory observation, as was accounted, Luke 3:23, where see the note. In fine, it is not the province of those who discuss the New Testament to warrant the infallible accuracy of readings of the LXX. translators. In the chronology the question concerning Cainan is of especial moment. Therefore we have said something concerning that person in the Ordo Temporum, p. 52 (Ed. ii., p. 44, 45), Lightfoot read Cainan in the Accusative form (‘Cainanem’).[39]

[37] Bezæ, or Cantabrig.: Univ. libr., Cambridge: fifth cent.: publ. by Kipling, 1793: Gospels, Acts, and some Epp. def.

[38] A very unjust judgment. D was presented to Cambridge University by Beza in 1531. Its readings are very peculiar, and belong to a different class from the Alexandrine MSS. Tischend. thinks it can be irrefragably proved to be as old as the sixth century.—ED. and TRANSL.

[39] Tischend. reads Καϊνὰμ with BL. Lachm. with Aabc Vulg. Rec. Text, Καϊνάν.—ED. and TRANSL.

Luke 3:36