Why does Luke mention Cainan son of Arphaxad, but Cainan is missing from the genealogies in Genesis and 1 Chronicles?

Son of Arphaxad and father of Sala. Luke 3:36. This is commonly called the 'second' Cainan (because of the earlier one mentioned in Luke 3:37) and is remarkable in that it does not occur in the Hebrew, Samaritan Pentateuch, Vulgate, Syriac, nor Arabic texts in Gen. 10:24; Gen. 11:12; 1 Chr. 1:18; but it is in the LXX, from which it may have found its way into the gospel of Luke, unless, as some suppose, it was added in the later copies of the LXX because of being found in Luke. In the genealogy of Matthew some names are omitted to make up the three times 'fourteen,' — equalling 6 times 7; so in Luke this name of Cainan may have been added from some list not recorded in the O.T., to make 77 names, 11 times 7.

Son of Shem, born two years after the flood, from whom Abraham descended. Gen. 10:22, 24; Gen. 11:10-13; 1 Chr. 1:17-18, 24. Stated as the father of Cainan in Luke 3:36. See CAINAN.

Son of Arphaxad and father of Eber. Gen. 10:24; Gen. 11:12-15; Luke 3:35. Called SHELAH in 1 Chr. 1:18, 24, which agrees with the Hebrew in Genesis.

The most important line of all Shem's stock, in its remote and even in its approaching consequences, through moral and divine associations, is the briefest in this genealogy; and this must now be noticed.

"And Arphaxad (Arpachshad) begot Shelah (Shelach) and Shelah begot Eber" (ver 24). Arphaxad was Shem's eldest son, born two years after the deluge.

It is to be observed that the inspiring Spirit led Moses to change his manner at this point, introducing Arphaxad and his family as a sort of fresh start. The same style is adopted also in 1 Chron. 1: It is no longer as before, "And the sons of -." As in evil a new departure was made for Cush and his descendants, so here for good where Arphaxad comes before us. Yet for the present little is said of the latter, unlike Nimrod who shot into immediate prominence, not content to be a mighty hunter before Jehovah, but thereon and after began to be mighty on the earth. Good is of rare occurrence here below and of slow growth, always excepting the One Who manifested its perfection, and all the more because He would not be designated by that which He claimed for God alone, unless indeed there was faith to see and own God in Him.

Nevertheless it is very possible that Arphaxad may be traced in the name of the region called Ἀῤῥαπαχῖτις mentioned twice by Cl. Ptolemy (Geog. ed. Wilberg, 387) in his account of Assyria, and in the City Ἄῤῥαπα in the list with which that first chapter of book vi. closes. So Bochart concludes in his Geog. Sacr. ii. 4. This region, south of Armenia, was the early home of the Shemites, as afterwards Asshur prevailed there. But there also the Cushites were strong in early days, and a Japhetic element was not wanting in self-assertion. But the Shemites unlike the others were ever disposed to stay at home, which made the subsequent crossing the more remarkable in the progenitor of the Hebrews at the call of God.

Of Salah or Salach little can be said with certainty, because the Bible is silent. He was the father of Eber in the direct line of the chosen patriarch Abram, the depositary of promise. The name signifies shoot or extension, but to regard it therefore as fictitious ought to be too absurd for the credulity of rationalism. It is known that a place with a similar name in the north of Mesopotamia occurs in Syrian writings; to which Knobel refers in his well-known book.

Verse 10 starts the fifth paragraph or division of the book; Genesis 10 began the generations of the sons of Noah. We now come to the generations of Shem, one of the shortest of these divisions. It extends only to the end of verse 26, and gives us names and ages of the patriarchs descended from Shem up to the time of Abraham. As to these we have only two things to remark; the first being that, as before noted in connection with the ages of the patriarchs before the flood, there is again discrepancy between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Septuagint, as explained when we considered Genesis 5. Any chronology that may be deduced as to the lapse of time between Shem and Abraham is rendered doubtful to the extent of 650 years.

*It may be worth while to observe in this and other genealogies not often the object of infidel attack, that the differences between Genesis, Numbers and Chronicles in their form are due to the motive for their introduction in each particular connection; that the difficulties clearly spring from the design, in no way from error in the writer, but in fact because of ignorance in such readers as misapprehend them; and that both the difference and the difficulties are the strongest evidence of their truth and inspired character, for nothing would have been easier than to have assimilated their various forms and to have eliminated that which sounds strange to western ears.

This table enumerates 32 of Leah, 16 of Zilpah, 11 of Rachel, 7 of Bilhah=66. But the head also goes with his house; and so with the larger list of Leah's children we see Jacob counted (verse 8), which is confirmed by the fact of 33 attributed to Leah, whereas no more than 32 literally are named, reckoning Dinah, and excluding Er and Onan who died in Canaan as we are expressly told. Objectors have failed to take into account the peculiarity in the mention of Hezron and Hamul in verse 12. It is merely said (and said only in their case) that the sons of Pharez "were" Hezron and Hamul, not that they were born in Canaan, where those had died for whom they were substitutes; next, that the Hebrew of verse 26 does not go so far as to say with the Authorised Version, "came with Jacob into Egypt," but of, i.e. belonging to, Jacob. It should be borne in mind that there is no reason, but rather the contrary from scriptural usage for construing <span style="font-family: 'H ebraica'">awhih' teB'</span> "at that time," of an isolated point of time, but rather of a general period, consisting as here of a number of events, the last and not the first of which might synchronize with the event recorded just before. It seems clear that Stephen ([Acts 7:14) cites the LXX. where 76 are given, as the Greek version (Gen. 46:20) adds five sons and grandsons of Manasseh and Ephraim. Is it not monstrous for a man professing Christianity and ostensibly in the position of bishop, to neglect elements so necessary to a judgment of the question, and to pronounce the Biblical account "certainly incredible," mainly on the assumption that Pharez's sons were born in Canaan, which is nowhere said but rather room left for the inference that it was not so in the exceptional form of Gen. 46:12? Yet after citing this verse we are told, "It appears to me certain (!) that the writer here means to say that Hezron and Hamul were born in the land of Canaan." Is scepticism only certain that its own dreams are true, and that scripture is false? There was a natural and weighty motive for selecting two grandsons of Judah, though no other of Jacob's great-grandsons are mentioned in the list. For they only were substitutional, as the very verse in which they occur implies. And it was of the deeper interest too, as one of them (Hezron) stands in the direct line of the Messiah, which was, as it appears to me, one chief reason for introducing the details of Judah's history and its shame in Gen 38. It is vain to quote Num. 3:17 to set aside the peculiar force of the allusion to the sons of Pharez in Gen. 46:12, with which there is no real analogy.

In Chronicles, it is a matter of man, and of the way in which in the course of his history God will realize His counsels in order to triumph in the person of Christ. We see too, as already mentioned, that the genealogy begins with Adam. Verses 1 to 4 agree with what is revealed in Genesis. Moreover, there are no gaps in this first chapter. As soon as we approach Israel's history in 1 Chronicles 2, gaps appear, for when Chronicles was written the genealogies of many members of this people remained undetermined since they could not be proven.

In Chronicles, it is a matter of man, and of the way in which in the course of his history God will realize His counsels in order to triumph in the person of Christ. We see too, as already mentioned, that the genealogy begins with Adam. Verses 1 to 4 agree with what is revealed in Genesis. Moreover, there are no gaps in this first chapter. As soon as we approach Israel's history in 1 Chronicles 2, gaps appear, for when Chronicles was written the genealogies of many members of this people remained undetermined since they could not be proven.

Moreover, if this first chapter contains, as we have seen, the voluntary omission of certain details, it agrees completely with the genealogical lists of Genesis. We repeat that we do not find gaps here. These gaps begin to appear only when we get to the genealogies of the twelve tribes.