1 Chronicles 2 23

1 Chronicles 2:23 kjv

And he took Geshur, and Aram, with the towns of Jair, from them, with Kenath, and the towns thereof, even threescore cities. All these belonged to the sons of Machir the father of Gilead.

1 Chronicles 2:23 nkjv

(Geshur and Syria took from them the towns of Jair, with Kenath and its towns?sixty towns.) All these belonged to the sons of Machir the father of Gilead.

1 Chronicles 2:23 niv

(But Geshur and Aram captured Havvoth Jair, as well as Kenath with its surrounding settlements?sixty towns.) All these were descendants of Makir the father of Gilead.

1 Chronicles 2:23 esv

But Geshur and Aram took from them Havvoth-jair, Kenath, and its villages, sixty towns. All these were descendants of Machir, the father of Gilead.

1 Chronicles 2:23 nlt

(But Geshur and Aram captured the Towns of Jair and also took Kenath and its sixty surrounding villages.) All these were descendants of Makir, the father of Gilead.

1 Chronicles 2 verses

1 Chronicles 2 23 Meaning

This verse from 1 Chronicles 2:23 describes a historical event where territories originally conquered and settled by the descendants of Machir, from the tribe of Manasseh, were subsequently taken by two Aramean entities, Geshur and Aram. Specifically, it states that "Geshur and Aram took from them Havvoth-jair, with Kenath and its villages." This signifies a loss of land that was once part of Israel's inheritance in the trans-Jordanian region, highlighting the ongoing challenges and conflicts Israel faced with its neighbors over its boundaries and control of its divinely appointed land. It serves as a reminder that Israel's possession of the land was not always secure or unchallenged, even over areas they had previously subdued.

1 Chronicles 2 23 Context

1 Chronicles chapter 2 is primarily dedicated to the meticulously detailed genealogy of the tribe of Judah, the royal line from which King David and ultimately the Messiah would come. However, within this broader Judahite focus, the Chronicler briefly interjects details concerning other tribes, reflecting his comprehensive interest in all Israel. This verse, 1 Chronicles 2:23, is found within a section enumerating the descendants of Machir, a son of Manasseh (specifically the Gilead branch). Historically, the region east of the Jordan River was often contested. While earlier biblical narratives (Numbers 32, Deuteronomy 3) recount the successful conquest and settlement of Havvoth-jair and Kenath by the Manassites, this verse from Chronicles introduces a significant reversal. It serves to acknowledge a historical reality of loss and encroachment by hostile foreign entities, reminding the post-exilic audience of the fragility of their inheritance when faced with powerful neighbors and possibly reflecting the consequences of spiritual failures (though not explicitly stated in this verse). The Chronicler’s selective inclusion of details serves not merely as a record but as a theological statement about the vicissitudes of Israel's national existence and the implications for their secure possession of the land.

1 Chronicles 2 23 Word analysis

• וְגֵשׁוּר (ve-Ge·shur): "And Geshur." Geshur (גְּשׁוּר), meaning "bridge" or "travel," was a small Aramean (Syrian) kingdom located in the basaltic region east of the Jordan, particularly in the northern Bashan near the Sea of Galilee. Its mention highlights an active external power bordering Israel's northern/eastern frontier. Historically, Geshur had significant ties to David's royal family through his wife Maacah, mother of Absalom (2 Sam 3:3), indicating complex relationships beyond mere conflict.
• וַאֲרָם (va-’A·ram): "and Aram." Aram (אֲרָם), meaning "highland," broadly refers to the Aramean people or region, essentially ancient Syria. This term can denote various Aramean city-states or kingdoms (e.g., Aram-Damascus, Aram-Zobah). Its inclusion with Geshur indicates a coordinated or at least joint encroachment, signifying broader regional pressure and a major external threat to Israelite territories, contrasting sharply with their initial claim to these lands.
• לָקְחוּ (la-qe·ḥu): "they took." The Hebrew verb laqach (לָקַח) is a versatile term meaning "to take," "to seize," "to capture," "to acquire," or "to appropriate." Here, the plural form indicates that Geshur and Aram jointly performed the action. The act implies a forceful or strategic annexation, denoting a loss of control for the Israelites rather than a peaceful exchange or gift.
• מֵהֶם (me-hem): "from them." This prepositive particle min (מִן) "from" with the third-person masculine plural suffix "-hem" (הֶם) "them," directly indicates the original possessors or victims of this appropriation. In context, "them" refers to the descendants of Machir/Manasseh who had previously settled these lands.
• אֶת־חַוֹּת יָאִיר (’eṯ-Ḥav·vōṯ Ya·’îr): "the Havvoth-jair." Havvoth (חַוֹּת) typically translates as "tent encampments," "villages," or "settlements." The phrase "Havvoth-jair" translates to "the tent-villages of Jair." This refers to a specific group of sixty villages/towns initially captured and named after Jair, a descendant of Manasseh, east of the Jordan (Num 32:41; Deut 3:14). Their loss highlights a rollback of earlier Israelite conquests.
• עִם־קְנָת (im-Qe·naṯ): "with Kenath." Im (עִם) means "with" or "along with." Kenath (קְנָת) was another significant city east of the Jordan, likely in Bashan, known for its strategic location. This city was also conquered by Nobah, another Manassite (Num 32:42), who renamed it Nobah, but the old name Kenath seems to have persisted. Its inclusion underscores the full extent of the territory lost in this historical reversal.
• וּבְנֹתֶיהָ (ū-ḇə·nō·ṯe·hā): "and its villages/daughter towns." The word banot (בנות), literally "daughters," is a common Hebrew idiom referring to dependent settlements, surrounding villages, or satellite towns associated with a main city (in this case, Kenath). Its use signifies that the appropriation included not only the main city but also all its surrounding smaller communities, representing a complete loss of the immediate regional control.

Words-group analysis:

• "Geshur and Aram took from them": This phrase clearly identifies the aggressors and the victims, pinpointing an act of territorial appropriation by foreign powers against Israelite possessions. It speaks to the perpetual external pressures on Israel's boundaries, emphasizing the insecure nature of their hold on parts of the promised land due to the constant threat from surrounding nations.
• "Havvoth-jair, with Kenath and its villages": This specifies the precise geographical locations that were lost. These territories, originally conquered and settled by the Manassites (descendants of Machir), held significance as part of Israel's tribal inheritance east of the Jordan. Their mention underlines a specific setback in Israel's historical claim to and control over these strategic and agricultural regions, showing a reversal of initial success.

1 Chronicles 2 23 Bonus section

• Contested Geopolitics: The Trans-Jordanian region (Gilead, Bashan) was a strategically vital and agriculturally rich area. It often served as a buffer or battleground between various ancient Near Eastern powers. This verse perfectly illustrates the ongoing geopolitical struggle for control over these lucrative lands, showcasing Israel’s persistent challenges in securing its eastern borders against encroaching Aramean expansion.
• Chronicler's Silence on Cause: While this verse details a loss, the Chronicler, unlike in other instances of judgment, does not explicitly state the reason for this specific territorial concession (e.g., Israel's sin or disobedience). This suggests it might be presented more as a factual historical challenge inherent in living amidst powerful neighbors, or a partial fulfillment of curses for covenant unfaithfulness in the broader sense that the Chronicler elsewhere highlights as leading to exile and suffering.
• Significance in Genealogy: Placing this event within a detailed genealogy underscores the Chronicler's emphasis on lineage and tribal identity, even amidst territorial loss. It demonstrates that while the land boundaries might fluctuate due to historical circumstances, the lineage of Israel and their connection to the land remained a key aspect of their identity and continuity as a people, despite setbacks. The mention keeps the full history, good and bad, as part of the people's record.
• Link to Absalom's History: The specific mention of Geshur is particularly striking given its later biblical significance in the narrative of David's son Absalom. Absalom's mother was a princess of Geshur (2 Sam 3:3), and Absalom himself fled there for three years after assassinating Amnon (2 Sam 13:37-38). This connection reveals a long-standing relationship between Israel and Geshur, involving not only conflict over land, but also royal intermarriage and complex political asylum, painting a richer picture of ancient diplomatic and family ties.

1 Chronicles 2 23 Commentary

This concise genealogical entry in 1 Chronicles 2:23 carries profound historical and theological weight. While previous records (Numbers 32, Deuteronomy 3) highlight the initial triumph and settlement of the Manassite tribes over Havvoth-jair and Kenath in the trans-Jordanian region, the Chronicler's statement reveals a later, contrasting reality. "Geshur and Aram took from them Havvoth-jair, with Kenath and its villages" details a loss, an encroachment by foreign powers on land that was part of Israel's promised inheritance. This isn't merely a passive historical notation; it underscores the volatile and often challenging experience of Israel's nationhood.

For the Chronicler’s original audience, returning from exile and seeking to understand their past and divine promises, this verse would serve as a sober reminder. It communicated that the possession of the land, though divinely granted, was conditional and faced continuous external threats. It silently implies that unfaithfulness or internal weaknesses could lead to territorial shrinkage, offering a subtle contrast to the triumphs of God's covenant blessings when Israel was obedient. The strategic location of Havvoth-jair and Kenath in the rich agricultural and pasturelands of Bashan made them desirable and frequently contested territories, explaining the persistent attempts by Aramean kingdoms like Geshur and Aram to assert control. This loss serves as a historical precursor to the larger issues of foreign dominance and eventual exile, emphasizing the constant need for divine reliance and steadfast covenant loyalty to maintain Israel's territorial integrity and spiritual well-being.