Who was Chedorlaomer / Kedorlaomer?

King of Elam in the time of Abram. Gen. 14:1-17. In punishing some of his tributaries he carried away Lot, but was pursued by Abram and was apparently killed. The name of KHUDUR-LAGAMAR king of Elam, has been met with in the inscriptions, which is supposed to be the same as Chedorlaomer. He had subdued the five kings near the Dead Sea, some 700 miles across the desert, or 1000 by the Euphrates and traversing the land of Canaan. He returned by this latter route, for he was near Damascus when Abram overtook him.

We can have little doubt that the confusion of tongues at Babel, and the consequent division of mankind into nations, must soon have given rise to fightings and regular warfare, but we have no record of a battle in the Scriptures until we reach Genesis 14, when four kings from the Mesopotamian district made an expedition towards the Dead Sea, ravaging cities as they marched, and ultimately defeating the five kings of the cities of the plain. The "kings" mentioned were mostly, if not all, the leaders of various cities, what we should now call petty chiefs. Chedorlaomer was apparently the suzerain of the kings associated with him, and he had extended his sway over the region of Sodom. The repudiation of his suzerainty was the reason for the expedition.

It is an interesting fact that at this point in the Scripture narrative we come to names of persons that the archaeologists believe they can identify as the result of their researches in digging up the past. Some of these greater kings, such as Amraphel and Chedorlaomer, left their mark on very ancient records, whereas no mark of that nature would be left by Abram the pilgrim, who years before had severed himself from their cities and their whole way of life.

In the days of Abraham we hear of Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, with his three allies coming 2,000 miles to punish his vassal kings in the vale of Siddim: a plain proof of early power, though signally chastised by the father of the faithful. It seems that subsequently the Hamites, who earlier still rose to power in the east as well as south-west, gave the name of Cissim to this district, as Herodotus (v. 49) and Strabo let us know. They were Cossaei, and Cushites.

Son of Shem. He settled in a highland district east of Babylonia, which became the seat of a powerful monarchy. The district was also called ELAM. Gen. 10:22; 1 Chr. 1:17. In the days of Abraham Chedorlaomer king of Elam was able to make war as far off as the Dead Sea. Gen. 14:1, 9. It subsequently became subject to the great power of the Chaldeans and Assyrians. When Assyria declined, Elam was conquered by its Persian neighbours, and reigned over by the Achaemenian Dynasty. Cyrus was king of Anshan, or Anzan (Elam) as well as of Persia: hence the close connection, and almost identification of Elam with Persia. In scripture Elam often designates Persia. In Isa. 21:2-10 Elam and Media were to destroy Babylon. It afterwards became a part of the Medo-Persian empire. Daniel was at Shushan, which was in the province of Elam. Under the name of Susiana, Elam is represented by the historians as one of the most ancient regions of the East. There are many prophecies against it. Isa. 11:11; Isa. 21:2; Isa. 22:6; Jer. 25:25; Jer. 49:34-39; Ezek. 32:24; Dan. 8:2.

Between the building of Noah's altar and that erected by divine direction on a mountain in the land of Moriah more than four hundred years elapsed, during which period we read not of any fresh teaching as to either the need, or the acceptability of sacrifice. Men had not ceased to make use of altars (Gen. 12:7; Gen. 13:4, 18); but God did not disclose, that we read of, anything fresh in reference to sacrifice. Yet how many important events had taken place in the interval! The confusion of tongues, and the consequent dispersion of mankind abroad upon the face of the earth, had been already effected. The glory of Nimrod's kingdom had culminated, and its power had evidently declined; for an Elamitic monarch, Chedorlaomer, was the head of that confederacy, which, sweeping like a flood over Palestine, carried all before it, until Abraham, the Hebrew, the stranger in that land, at Hobah, on the left of Damascus, made the four victorious kings disgorge their prey. Besides this an event of still more importance, and one which concerned all the world, had taken place in the encampment of that patriarch who was called the "Friend of God;" the heir had been born to Abraham, in whose line the promised seed was in due time to appear. For twenty-five years had Abraham to wait between his departure out of Haran and the birth of His son and heir. (Gen. 12:4; Gen. 17:17.) But at the end of that time Isaac was born, the meaning of whose name his mother well understood, as she said, "God has made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me." (Gen. 21:6.)

We are, here, presented with an historic record of the revolt of five kings from under the hand of Chederlaomer, and a battle consequent thereon. The Spirit of God can occupy himself with the movements of "kings and their armies," when such movements are in anywise connected with the people of God. In the present case, Abraham personally had nothing whatever to do with the revolt or its consequences. His "tent and altar" were not likely to furnish an occasion for the declaration of war, nor yet to be much affected by the outbreak or issue thereof. The proper portion of a heavenly man could never, by any possibility, tempt the cupidity nor excite the ambition of the kings and conquerors of this world.

However, although Abraham was not affected by the battle of "four kings with five," yet Lot was. His position was such as to involve him in the whole affair. So long as we are enabled, through grace, to pursue the path of simple faith, we shall be thrown completely outside the range of this world's circumstances; but if we abandon our high and holy position as those whose "citizenship" is in heaven," and seek a name, a place, and a portion in the earth, we must expect to participate in earth's convulsions and vicissitudes. Lot had taken up his abode in the plains of Sodom, and was, therefore, deeply and sensibly affected by the wars of Sodom. It must ever be thus. It is a bitter and a painful thing for the child of God to mingle himself with the children of this world. He can never do so without serious damage to his own soul, as well as to the testimony with which he is entrusted. What testimony had Lot in Sodom? A very feeble one, indeed, if one at all. The very fact of his settling himself there was the death blow to his testimony. To have spoken a word against Sodom and its ways, would have been to condemn himself, for why was he there? But, in truth, it does not, by any means, appear that, to testify for God, formed any part of his object in "pitching his tent toward Sodom." Personal and family interests seem to have been the leading springs of action in his heart: and though, as Peter tells us, "his righteous soul was vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked, from day to day," yet had he but little power to act against it, even if inclined so to do.

In the next chapter things are greatly changed. Abram himself is in connection with Sodom, as well as with another power, which we may easily identify as essentially Babylonish. The names are difficult to read, and two at least of the confederated countries are just as doubtful. But in the first enumeration Amraphel, king of Shinar, stands first, the undoubted representative of the kingdom of Nimrod, although Chedorlaomer appears the most active and interested. They all seem but divisions of this Babylonish empire however, though changed no doubt into a confederacy of more or less equal powers.

These four kings — and our attention is specially called to the number here (ver. 9.) — are at war with the five petty kings of the plain of Jordan. Typically, these last represent the world in its undisguised and sensual wickedness; the Babylonish kings, the religious world-power, always seeking to hold captive (and in general successfully) the more open form of evil. Indeed the Sodom of heathenism never yielded but to a spiritual Babylon which had already obtained supremacy over the Christianity of Scripture and the apostles; and in no way was this last ever really established, nor could it be. But the world craves some religion; and nothing could suit it better than one which with external evidences to accredit it, such as undeniably historical Christianity had, linked its blessings with a system of ordinances by which they could be dispensed to its votaries. This exactly was the character of Nicene Christianity, and hence its conquest of the Roman empire. The leaven was already in the meal: the adulteration of the gospel had already advanced far; but leaven (evil as in Scripture its character undoubtedly is) has certainly the power of rapid diffusion, and rapidly the popularized gospel spread.

I think that "in the days of … made," is not "that these" made - Chedorlaomer was chief; I suppose the king of Shinar was the foreign nation most connected with the Jordan kings.

We read now for the first time in scripture of war among nations of the ungodly world. Abram has no part in this. It is recorded mainly because of Lot. Four kings war against five. The names of the four kings have meanings that imply a religious significance, the first one, Amraphel meaning “sayer of darkness,” and Shinar meaning “change of the city.” Thus false religion can speak in dark, mystical ways with the object of improving (not saving or converting) people. In verse 4, however, we see that Chedorlaomer assumes the chief role, his name meaning “as binding for the sheaf,” while his city Elam means “their heads.” So false religion exerts every effort to bind its captives into a sheaf under its authority, while having various “heads” instead of the one Head, who is Christ (Col. 2:16-19).

We read now for the first time in scripture of war among nations of the ungodly world. Abram has no part in this. It is recorded mainly because of Lot. Four kings war against five. The names of the four kings have meanings that imply a religious significance, the first one, Amraphel meaning "sayer of darkness," and Shinar meaning "change of the city." Thus false religion can speak in dark, mystical ways with the object of improving (not saving or converting) people. In verse 4, however, we see that Chedorlaomer assumes the chief role, his name meaning "as binding for the sheaf," while his city Elam means "their heads." So false religion exerts every effort to bind its captives into a sheaf under its authority, while having various "heads" instead of the one Head, who is Christ (Col.2:16-19).