How does Luke 3:36 align with the genealogies in Genesis and Matthew? LUKE 3:36 AND THE GENESIS–MATTHEW GENEALOGIES Text Under Discussion Luke 3:36 : “son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech.” Corresponding Old Testament verses: • Genesis 10:24 : “Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and Shelah was the father of Eber.” • Genesis 11:12 : “When Arphaxad was 35 years old, he became the father of Shelah.” • 1 Chronicles 1:18 : “Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and Shelah was the father of Eber.” Matthew’s list bypasses the Flood generations entirely, picking up at Abraham (Matthew 1:2–17). Immediate Observations Genesis and 1 Chronicles record Arphaxad → Shelah with no second “Cainan.” Luke inserts an extra link: Arphaxad → Cainan → Shelah. The apparent discrepancy centers on this additional Cainan. Explanations Offered 4.1. Scribal Addition to LXX Later Borrowed by Luke Critics suggest an early LXX scribe accidentally repeated the name Cainan from Genesis 5, and Luke copied the mistake. This fails on two counts: • The repetition theory does not explain why the LXX also adds precise life-span numbers for this Cainan that harmonize with the rest of Genesis 11. • Luke writes under inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16) and is historically rigorous (Luke 1:3), making wholesale adoption of an error improbable. 4.2. Original Presence in Primeval Genealogy but Lost in MT • Before the standardization of the MT (first millennium AD), Hebrew manuscripts varied (cf. Jeremiah’s two editions, Jeremiah 36). • The LXX was translated from Hebrew ca. 250 BC. Its inclusion of Cainan means at least one authoritative Hebrew exemplar then contained him. • Genesis exhibits telescoping elsewhere (e.g., Matthew compresses kings); the omission could stem from a scribal error of homoeoteleuton—skipping one line where the end of Arphaxad’s and Cainan’s sentences matched. • Luke, using a tradition preserved in the LXX and validated by the Spirit, restores the full list. 4.3. Telescoping—Ancestral Rather than Immediate “Sonship” Hebrew “yalad” and Greek “huios” allow for “descendant of.” Luke could legitimately insert a known intermediary to make the chain explicit. Telescoping is common: Matthew drops several Judean kings (e.g., Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah) and compresses his list into three sets of fourteen. Genesis may have telescoped for stylistic symmetry (ten names from Adam to Noah, ten from Noah to Abraham in the LXX). Luke unfolds the compressed segment. The explanatory weight favors options 4.2 and 4.3, both of which keep all Scripture inerrant and harmonized. Chronological Impact Using Ussher-type chronology we date the Flood at 2348 BC. Including the second Cainan adds 130 (LXX) years between Arphaxad’s birth and Shelah’s, extending the post-Flood period from Noah to Abraham by that amount. Whether one follows MT or LXX numbers, the difference does not meaningfully alter a young-earth timeline (≈ 6000 years) but instead fine-tunes the Antediluvian–Abrahamic gap. Theological Significance 6.1. Universality of the Messiah Luke’s Gentile-oriented Gospel traces Jesus back to Adam (Luke 3:38), emphasizing a Savior for all humanity. Including every known link underscores the historical rootedness of that universality. 6.2. Veracity and Preservation God promises to preserve His word (Psalm 12:6-7). Dual textual lines—Hebrew and Greek—show His providence in safeguarding the data. Apparent discrepancies invite deeper study, rewarding believers with a more robust confidence. 6.3. Legal vs. Natural Descent Matthew gives the royal/legal line through Solomon to demonstrate Jesus’ Davidic kingship. Luke gives the biological line (through Nathan, likely via Mary), stressing true flesh-and-blood descent. Disparity in minor pre-Abrahamic details does not affect either purpose. Archaeological and Extra-Biblical Corroboration • Tablet traditions from Ebla (≈ 2300 BC) list names akin to pre-Abrahamic genealogy (e.g., Arpaxad-like “Ar-pa-sa-ad”), confirming antiquity of the sequence. • The Mari king list shows dynastic telescoping identical in technique to OT genealogies, supporting the legitimacy of compressed lineages. • Ancient Sumerian king lists contain parallel post-Flood family structures featuring lifespan abbreviations matching Genesis’ pattern shift (hundreds of years to ≤ 200), supporting scriptural historicity of a real global Flood dividing pre- and post-diluvian ages. Practical Takeaways • Discrepancies drive investigation; investigation reinforces trust. • Young believers should learn both MT-based and LXX-based chronologies, seeing how they reconcile without undermining doctrine. • The lineage issue presents an evangelistic bridge: the meticulous record-keeping of Scripture stands in stark contrast to myth, highlighting Jesus as a verifiable historical person within a traceable human family. Conclusion Luke 3:36 aligns with Genesis and Matthew when we recognize (1) legitimate textual streams, (2) the common ancient practice of telescoping genealogies, and (3) the divine intent of each writer. Far from contradiction, the added Cainan enriches our understanding of God’s providential preservation of history and of the Messiah’s authentic human heritage. |
    |