Luke - 3:36



36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

Verse In-Depth

Explanation and meaning of Luke 3:36.

Differing Translations

Compare verses for better understanding.
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,
the'son of Cainan, the'son of Arphaxad, the'son of Shem, the'son of Noah, the'son of Lamech,
son of Cainan, son of Arpachshad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech,
the son of Kenan, the son of Arpachshad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.


Historical Commentaries

Scholarly Analysis and Interpretation.

Of Cainan - This Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, and father of Sala, is not found in any other Scripture genealogy. See Genesis 10:24; Genesis 11:12; 1-Chronicles 1:18, 1-Chronicles 1:24, where Arphaxad is made the father of Sala, and no mention at all made of Cainan. Some suppose that Cainan was a surname of Sala, and that the names should be read together thus, The son of Heber, the son of Salacainan, the son of Arphaxad, etc. If this does not untie the knot, it certainly cuts it; and the reader may pass on without any great scruple or embarrassment. There are many sensible observations on this genealogy in the notes at the end of Bishop Newcome's Harmony.

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,

*More commentary available at chapter level.


Discussion on Luke 3:36

User discussion of the verse.






*By clicking Submit, you agree to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use.