Luke 3:36

Having related our Lord's baptism, he next enters upon the generation of the Lord, not bringing it down from the higher to the lower, but beginning with Christ, he carries it up to God Himself. Hence he says, And Jesus Himself began. For when He was baptized, and had Himself undergone the mystery of the second birth, then He is said to have begun, that thou also mightest destroy this first birth and be born in the second. The Lord descending into the world took upon Him the person of all sinners, and was willing to be born of the stock of Solomon, (as Matthew relates,) whose sins have been written down, and of the rest, many of whom did evil in the sight of God. But when He ascended, and is described as being born a second time in baptism, (as Luke relates,) He is not born through Salomon, but Nathan, who reproves the father for the death of Uriah, and the birth of Solomon.

And the descent and ascent of the genealogy are not through the same persons. For the one who brings him down with the word brings him down also through sinful women, mentioning only those with faults, but the one genealogizing the baptized does not mention women in his genealogy: Tamar, who unlawfully came together with her father-in-law; Ruth the Moabitess; Rahab, whom we do not even know; and the one of Uriah. For since he came to take the sins of men, and "he who knew no sin, for our sake was made sin" by God, thus descending he took on sinful persons and is born through Solomon, whose sins are recorded, and Rehoboam, whose failings are mentioned in the Kings, and the others of whom many "did evil in the sight of the Lord."

What do you say about the sacred words of Luke When he the genealogy repeats, The fleshly line retracing through old sires? Up generations seventy-two Christ mounts—so many teachers into the world He sent—and by the steps down to his birth Goes back to Adam, …

(Hom. 31, in Ep. ad Rom.) But because this part of the Gospel consists of a series of names, men think there is nothing valuable to be derived therefrom. Lest then we should feel this, let us try to examine every step. For from the mere name we may extract an abundant treasure, for names are indicative of many things. For they savour of the Divine mercy and the offerings of thanks by women, who when they obtained sons gave a name significant of the gift. (Hom. in Matt 1.) Matthew, who wrote as for the Jews, had no further object than to show that Christ proceeded from Abraham and David, for this was most grateful to the Jews. Luke however, as speaking to all men in common, carried his account beyond as far even as Adam. Hence it follows, Who was the son of Thara.

Luke rightly thought, seeing that he could not embrace more of the sons of Jacob, lest he should seem to be wandering from the line of descent in a superfluous course, that the ancient names of the Patriarchs though occurring in others far later, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, and Levi, should not be omitted. For we recognise in these four kinds of virtue; in Judah, the mystery of our Lord's Passion prophesied by figure; in Joseph, an example of chastity going before; in Simeon, the punishment of injured modesty; in Levi, the priestly office. Hence it follows, Who was the son of Melchi, i. e. "my King." Who was the son of Janna, i. e. "a right hand." Who was the son ofJoseph, i. e. "growing up;" but this was a different Joseph. Who was the son of Mattathias, i. e. "the gift of God," or "sometimes." Who was the son of Amos, i. e. "loading, or he loaded." Who was the son of Naum, i. e. "help me." Who was the son of Matthat, i. e. "desire." Who was the son of Mattathias, as above. Who was the son of Simei, i. e. "obedient." Who was the son ofJoseph, i. e. "increase." Who was the son of Judah, i. e. "confessing." Joanna, "the Lord, his grace," or "the gracious Lord." Resa, "merciful." Zorobabel, "chief or master of Babylon." Salathiel, "God my petition." Neri, "my lanthern." Melchi, "my kingdom." Addi, "strong or violent." Cosam, "divining." Her, "watching, or watch, or of skins." Who was the son of Jesus, i. e. "Saviour." Eliezer, i. e. "God my helper." Joarim, i. e. "God exalting, or, is exalting." Matthat, as above. Levi, as above. Simeon, i. e. "He has heard the sadness, or the sign." Juda, as above. Joseph, as above. Jonah, a dove, or wailing. Eliachim, i. e. "the resurrection of God." Melchi, i. e. "his king." Menan, i. e. "my bowels." Mattathias, i. e. "gift." Nathan, i. e. […]

The name and generation of Cainan, according to the Hebrew reading, is found neither in Genesis, nor in the Chronicles, (dierum Vulg. verbis.) but Arphaxad is stated to have begot Sala his son, without any one intervening. Know then that Luke borrowed this generation from the Septuagint, where it is written, that Arphaxad at a hundred and thirty-five years old begot Cainan, but he at a hundred and thirty years begot Sala. It follows, Who was the son of Arphaxad.

Third, he adds the degrees of the processions, when he adds: Who was of Heli, etc. — But this seems to be contradicted by Matthew one, where it is said that "Jacob begot Joseph," who descends through Solomon. If therefore it is impossible that someone …

Who was Sela, who was Cainan, who was Arphaxad. The name and generation of Cainan, according to Hebrew truth, is found neither in Genesis nor in the Words of the Days; but it is claimed that Arphaxad begat Sela or Sale as a son without …

(ubi sup.) i. e. "humility, or striking, or struck, or humble." Who was the son of Mathusalem, i. e. "the sending forth of death," or "he died," also "he asked."

(ubi sup.) i. e. "healing the laying waste." Sem, i. e. "a name," or being "named." Who was the son of Noe, i. e. "rest."

For this reason he closes the generations in God, that we may learn that those fathers who intervene, Christ will raise up to God, and make them sons of God, and that it might be believed also that the birth of Christ was without seed; as if he said, If thou believest not that the second Adam was made without seed, you must come to the first Adam, and you will find that he was made by God without seed.

The Lord was baptized, being thirty years old, because this age is the most perfect, and in it a man appears honorable or unworthy. Luke presents the genealogy of the Lord in reverse order, compared to the evangelist Matthew (Mt.1, 1–16), to show that the …

But, as to that, it is sufficient to say that the Seventy Interpreters, who, before our Saviour's time, translated the Old Testament into Greek, for reasons best known to themselves inserted that Cainan; and St. Luke, writing among the Hellenist Jews, was obliged to make use of that translation, and therefore to take it as he found it.

Which was the son of Cainan,....

Of Cainan - This Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, and father of Sala, is not found in any other Scripture genealogy. See Gen 10:24; Gen 11:12; 1Ch 1:18, 1Ch 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.

We see in the passage before us — the high honor the Lord Jesus has put on baptism. We find that among others who came to John the Baptist — the Savior of the world came, and was "baptized." An ordinance which the Son of God was pleased to use, and afterwards to appoint for the use of His whole Church — ought always to be held in peculiar reverence by His people. If Christ Himself was baptized — then Baptism cannot be a thing of slight importance.

We see in the passage before us — the high honor the Lord Jesus has put on baptism. We find that among others who came to John the Baptist — the Savior of the world came, and was "baptized." An ordinance which the Son of God was pleased to use, and afterwards to appoint for the use of His whole Church — ought always to be held in peculiar reverence by His people. If Christ Himself was baptized — then Baptism cannot be a thing of slight importance. The use of baptism would never have been enjoined on the Church of Christ — if it had been a mere outward form, incapable of conveying any blessing. It is hardly necessary to say that errors of every sort and description abound on the subject of baptism. Some make an idol of it — and exalt it far above the place assigned to it in the Bible. Some degrade it and dishonor it — and seem almost to forget that it was ordained by Christ Himself. Some limit the use of it so narrowly, that they will baptize none unless they are grown up, and can give full proof of their conversion. Some invest the baptismal water with such magic power — that they would like missionaries to go into heathen lands and baptize all people, old and young indiscriminately, and believe that however ignorant the heathen may be, baptism must do them good. On no subject, perhaps, in religion — have Christians more need to pray for a right judgment and a sound mind. Let it suffice us to hold firmly the general principle, that baptism was graciously intended by our Lord to be a help to His Church, and "a means of grace" — and that, when rightly and worthily used, we may confidently look upon it for a blessing. But let us never forget that the grace of God is not tied to any sacrament — and that we may be baptized with water, without being baptized with the Holy Spirit.