Abstract
This paper examines the persistent biblical pattern in which warnings issued to failing institutions are received but not acted upon, with the consequence that judgment, when it arrives, arrives from outside the institution’s capacity to manage. The narrative of 1 Samuel 2–4 provides the controlling instance: the man of God’s oracle against the house of Eli is delivered, heard, and disregarded; the boy Samuel’s confirming word is received with resignation rather than repentance; the catastrophe at Aphek follows. Four categories are developed: Samuel as outsider witness, in which the conditions of legitimate prophetic standing are identified; prophetic marginality as a structural rather than accidental feature of the office; elite self-protection as the institutional response that converts warning into noise; and delayed accountability, which is the form judgment takes when warning has been definitively refused. The argument is offered to elders, boards, and members of institutions in which warnings have been raised but no corresponding action has followed.
1. The Pattern of Refused Warning
Scripture is unsparing in its testimony that institutions under judgment are typically institutions that have been warned. The judgment of the house of Eli is announced in 1 Samuel 2:27–36 by a man of God whose identity the text does not record. The oracle is detailed. It names the original grace shown to the house of Aaron, the specific offense of preferring sons above the Lord, the impending loss of strength in Eli’s house, the death of his two sons on the same day as the sign of fulfillment, and the eventual raising up of a faithful priest who would walk before the Lord’s anointed forever. Nothing essential is left ambiguous. The warning is given with the specificity of an indictment.
The response is not recorded. The text moves directly from the oracle to the narrative of Samuel’s growth in 1 Samuel 2:26 and 3:1, and the reader is left to infer that no corresponding action followed. No removal of the sons from priestly office is described. No public discipline is recorded. No purification of the sanctuary at Shiloh is undertaken. The oracle was delivered to a high priest who, having heard it, continued in the pattern that had occasioned it.
This is the pattern that the present paper addresses. Institutional deafness is not the failure of warnings to be issued. It is the institutional capacity to receive warnings without acting upon them, to absorb prophetic witness into the ordinary noise of institutional life, to register the criticism without permitting it to alter the course of operation. The deafness is not the absence of hearing; it is the absence of consequence after hearing.
The pattern repeats throughout the prophetic literature. Jeremiah is told before his ministry begins that the people will not hear him (Jeremiah 7:27). Isaiah is told that his preaching will harden rather than soften the response of those who hear it (Isaiah 6:9–10). Ezekiel is told that whether the people will hear or whether they will forbear, they shall know that a prophet has been among them (Ezekiel 2:5). The pattern is so consistent that the New Testament treats it as a settled feature of the prophetic office. The Lord Jesus Christ said of Jerusalem, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew 23:37). The institution that should most have welcomed prophetic witness was the institution that most reliably refused it.
The diagnostic question for any present-day institution is therefore not whether it is being warned. Some warning, somewhere, is almost always available to an institution that wishes to find it. The diagnostic question is what happens after warning has been delivered. It is in the institution’s response, not in the presence or absence of warning, that the diagnosis is made.
2. Samuel as Outsider Witness
The boy Samuel’s position in the narrative is structurally significant for the present argument. He is a Levite by descent but not yet a priest by function. He sleeps within the sanctuary, but his role is supervisory rather than sacrificial. He owes his presence at Shiloh to his mother’s vow rather than to the institutional patronage of the high priest. He is, in the precise sense, an insider by location and an outsider by standing.
This positioning matters because the word that confirms the judgment on Eli’s house is delivered through him. When the Lord calls in 1 Samuel 3:4, the call comes to a boy who has not yet learned to recognize the voice. Eli is the one who instructs him to answer, and Eli is the one who insists, when the message has been received, that the boy report what he heard without hiding anything (1 Samuel 3:17). The narrative is careful to specify that the message reached Eli through a witness whose moral standing within the institution was independent of the institutional system that the message judged.
This is not accidental. Three features of Samuel’s outsider status are operative in the text and applicable to the diagnostic categories of this paper.
The first is that Samuel had no material interest in the continuation of Hophni and Phinehas in office. He was not their employee. His position at Shiloh did not depend on their continuing favor. His mother’s vow had committed him to the Lord’s service in a way that bypassed the patronage networks the previous paper described. He could speak the word that came to him without considering what his speech would cost him in advancement, because he had no advancement to lose within the structure as it then stood.
The second is that Samuel had not participated in the corruption. His ministry before the Lord is described in deliberate contrast to the conduct of the sons: “Now the boy Samuel ministered unto the LORD before Eli” (1 Samuel 3:1, with related summaries at 2:11, 2:18, and 2:26). The summaries are interleaved with the indictment of the sons. The narrative wants the reader to perceive the contrast. The witness against the priestly corruption was a witness whose own ministry had not been compromised by it.
The third is that Samuel’s legitimacy was given to him before his office was. The text states that “the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground. And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the LORD” (1 Samuel 3:19–20). The recognition of Samuel as a prophet of the Lord preceded any institutional credentialing. The validating mark was that his words did not fall to the ground. The people of Israel observed the correspondence between what Samuel said and what occurred, and on that basis acknowledged him.
These three features describe the conditions under which legitimate prophetic witness is most commonly produced. The witness is independent of the systems she addresses. The witness has not been formed by participation in the corruption she names. The witness is validated by the accuracy of her speech rather than by the credentialing of the institution she critiques. Present-day institutions seeking to identify whether the warnings they have received are legitimate prophetic witness or mere disgruntlement may begin with these three tests.
The tests do not produce comfortable results for institutions that have developed elaborate gatekeeping structures around their public criticism. The institution that requires prophetic witness to pass through committees of insiders before being considered legitimate has, in effect, defined legitimate witness as that which has been approved by the very persons it might be expected to indict. The biblical pattern does not work that way. Samuel was not certified at Shiloh. The man of God of 1 Samuel 2:27 had no priestly credentials. The word came from outside the system because the system had become incapable of producing it from within.
3. Prophetic Marginality as Structural Feature
It would be possible to read the outsider status of biblical prophets as accidental, the result of a series of contingencies that placed each particular prophet at the margin of the institution he addressed. The accumulated weight of the biblical evidence does not support this reading. Prophetic marginality is too consistent to be accidental. It is a structural feature of the office.
Amos states the principle directly. When confronted by Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, who orders him to leave the king’s chapel and to prophesy elsewhere, Amos replies: “I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit: and the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel” (Amos 7:14–15). The prophet’s credentials are not institutional. They are vocational and direct. The Lord called him from outside the trained prophetic class, and his commission rests on that call rather than on any institutional formation.
The same pattern appears in the call of Jeremiah, who protests his youth and is told that his prophetic office is independent of his personal qualifications (Jeremiah 1:6–7); in the commissioning of Ezekiel, who is sent specifically to a rebellious house that will not hear him (Ezekiel 2:3–7); in the appearance of John the Baptist, whose ministry begins in the wilderness rather than in the temple (Luke 3:2–3); and in the call of the apostles, whose lack of formal training is explicitly noted (Acts 4:13). The institutional center is repeatedly bypassed in the calling of those whom God commissions to speak to it.
This structural feature has several implications for the present argument.
The first implication is that institutions which have become resistant to internal correction will tend to find their correction coming from sources they did not credential. This is not because God has a prejudice against credentialed persons; it is because credentialed persons within a captured institution are, by the operation of the dynamics described in the previous papers, the persons least likely to speak the words the institution most needs to hear. Their continued standing in the institution depends on their not speaking such words. The system selects for their silence. Correction therefore arrives, when it arrives, through persons whom the system has not selected.
The second implication is that the recognition of legitimate prophetic witness cannot be entrusted to those whom the witness indicts. This is the principle of conflict of interest applied to the spiritual realm. An institution under prophetic critique that retains for itself the exclusive right to determine whether the critique is legitimate has placed itself in the position of being judge in its own case. Such an arrangement is recognized as untenable in every other sphere of human life. It is no less untenable in the institutional life of the church.
The third implication is that the marginal location of the prophet is not, by itself, evidence of his illegitimacy. Institutions under critique are perpetually tempted to dismiss critics on the grounds of their marginality. The critic is not a member; the critic is not credentialed; the critic has no standing; the critic has not earned the right to speak. Each of these may be factually accurate. None of them addresses the substantive question of whether the critic’s words are true. Samuel was a boy. Amos was a herdsman. John the Baptist was a wilderness preacher in skins and locusts. The marginality of each was, on the institutional terms of his day, complete. The accuracy of each was vindicated by the events that followed.
The diagnostic principle for present-day institutions is therefore not that every critic at the margin is a prophet. It is that the marginality of a critic is not, in itself, a sufficient ground for dismissing what the critic has said. The substantive question is whether the words spoken correspond to what is so. That question cannot be answered by considering the credentials of the speaker. It can be answered only by examining the conduct alleged.
4. Elite Self-Protection
The fourth category names the institutional response that converts warning into noise. Elite self-protection is the constellation of practices by which an institution receives prophetic witness, processes it through its own filters, and emerges from the process with its operating arrangements substantially intact.
The practices are several. They are described here in increasing order of severity, in parallel with the procedural descriptions of the second white paper but specifically as they apply to the reception of warning rather than to the discipline of insiders.
There is the practice of polite acknowledgment. The warning is received. The senior figures express their appreciation for the courage of the one who raised it. They commit themselves to prayerful reflection. They affirm the value of dissenting voices in a healthy institutional culture. They take no action. The acknowledgment functions as a form of disposal. The matter has been heard; therefore, the matter has been addressed; therefore, the matter is closed.
There is the practice of reinterpretation. The warning, as received, is reframed into a form the institution can absorb without disturbance. A specific allegation of misconduct becomes a general observation about the difficulty of leadership in challenging times. A specific call for accountability becomes a general affirmation of the importance of accountability in principle. The reinterpretation strips the warning of its operative content while preserving its rhetorical surface.
There is the practice of redirection. The warning, instead of producing action against the conduct it named, produces action against the structures that allowed the warning to be heard. New procedures are implemented for the handling of internal concerns. New training is mandated regarding the proper channels for raising disagreement. New emphasis is placed on the importance of unity, of presenting a consistent voice to the watching world, of resolving differences privately rather than publicly. The warning has been received; the institution’s response is to make future warnings more difficult to deliver.
There is the practice of partial concession. A small element of the warning is acknowledged. A peripheral figure is disciplined. A minor procedural change is adopted. The institution then declares that the matter has been addressed and resists any further inquiry. The concession, calibrated to be the minimum that will satisfy external observers, has functioned to insulate the central pattern from real disturbance.
There is the practice of inversion. The warning is treated not as testimony about the institution but as evidence about the one who raised it. The character, the motive, the personal history, the prior grievances, the spiritual condition, the relational competence of the witness become the operative subjects of inquiry. The institution that proved unable to investigate the conduct alleged proves entirely capable of investigating the one who alleged it. The warning has been weaponized against the witness.
Each of these practices serves to preserve the operating arrangements of the institution against the disturbance that the warning was given to produce. None of them addresses the substantive content of the warning itself. They are the institutional analogues of the response that Eli gave to his sons: rebuke without removal, words without action, the appearance of having dealt with the matter while the matter continues unaltered.
The biblical text addresses this dynamic with particular clarity in Jeremiah’s complaint against the pseudo-prophets of his day, who told the people “Peace, peace; when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11). The institution’s appetite for reassurance had created a market for false reassurance, and the false reassurance was being supplied by those whose institutional standing depended on the institution’s continued comfort. The faithful prophet was, by structural necessity, the unwelcome voice. The same dynamic is named in Ezekiel’s oracle against the false prophets who “have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered morter” (Ezekiel 13:10). The function of the false prophet is not to speak falsely in detail. It is to seal up the cracks in the institutional wall with the rhetorical equivalent of unmixed plaster. The wall stands until the storm comes. Then it does not stand.
5. Delayed Accountability
The fifth category names the form judgment takes when warning has been definitively refused. Delayed accountability is the operation by which the consequences of unaddressed wrong, having been deferred by the institution’s protective mechanisms, arrive in a form the institution cannot manage.
Three features of delayed accountability deserve specific notice.
The first is its timing. The interval between the issuing of warning and the arrival of judgment is rarely brief. In the case of the house of Eli, the oracle of 1 Samuel 2:27–36 precedes the catastrophe at Aphek in chapter 4 by an undetermined but evidently significant period, during which Samuel grew from a boy to a young prophet recognized throughout Israel. The delay is not the abandonment of judgment. It is the patience that permits repentance, and the patience is not infinite. The institution that interprets the delay as evidence that the warning was not serious is engaged in a misreading of the temporal structure of judgment.
The second feature is the disproportion of the eventual outcome. The catastrophe at Aphek was not a measured chastisement calibrated to the offense. It was a national disaster. Thirty thousand footmen of Israel were killed (1 Samuel 4:10). The ark of the covenant was captured (1 Samuel 4:11). Hophni and Phinehas died on the same day, as the man of God had foretold (1 Samuel 2:34, 4:11). Eli, hearing the news, fell from his seat backward by the side of the gate and broke his neck (1 Samuel 4:18). Phinehas’s wife, going into labor at the news, died in childbirth, naming her son Ichabod, “for the glory is departed from Israel” (1 Samuel 4:21). The institution that had refused to remove two corrupt priests was disturbed by an event that removed an entire administration, killed thousands of unrelated Israelites, and stripped the central symbol of the nation’s worship from its place. The cost of refused warning is rarely proportional to the cost that would have been involved in heeding it.
The third feature is the loss of institutional control over the response. Once judgment arrives in catastrophic form, the institution loses its ability to shape the disturbance. The mechanisms of elite self-protection cease to function. The loyalty network is broken by the deaths of its principal members. The procedural defenses cease to operate when the procedures themselves have been superseded by external events. The institution that had carefully managed the reception of warning finds itself unable to manage the reception of judgment. The disturbance proceeds on its own terms, and the institution, having declined the opportunity to act on its own initiative, is now the object of action.
The pattern is durable across the prophetic literature. Hosea warned the northern kingdom for decades; the Assyrian conquest fulfilled the warnings on terms the northern kingdom could not control. Jeremiah warned Jerusalem for forty years; the Babylonian destruction fulfilled the warnings on terms Jerusalem could not control. The Lord Jesus Christ warned Jerusalem in his earthly ministry; the destruction of A.D. 70 fulfilled the warnings on terms Jerusalem could not control. In each case the warning had been delivered, received, and refused. In each case the eventual accountability was disproportionate to what attention to the warning would have required. In each case the institution lost its capacity to manage the outcome at the moment the outcome arrived.
The application to present-day institutions follows directly. Warning has typically been issued before catastrophe arrives. The interval between the two is the interval in which repentance is possible. The institution that uses the interval to refine its protective mechanisms rather than to address the conduct that prompted the warning is using the interval to ensure that, when accountability arrives, it will arrive in a form the institution cannot control. The mercy available to such an institution is the mercy of acting now, while the lamp of the Lord has not yet gone out.
6. The Reception of Warning as Diagnostic
The four categories developed in the previous sections describe the conditions and the responses surrounding institutional warning. They yield a single diagnostic principle: an institution’s response to warning is a more reliable indicator of its condition than the substance of its public commitments.
This principle requires some defense, because it inverts the ordinary mode by which institutions present themselves. The standard mode of institutional self-presentation is the declaration of commitments — to mission, to integrity, to accountability, to transparency, to the care of those served, to the discipline of those who fail in their service. The declarations are made in confessional statements, in policy documents, in public addresses, in fundraising appeals, and in the routine rhetoric of institutional life. The declarations are typically excellent in content. They cannot, by themselves, distinguish a healthy institution from a captured one. Every institution this volume’s diagnostic papers describe would, if read at the level of its public declarations alone, appear to be healthy.
The diagnostic indicator is not the declaration but the response when the declaration is tested. The institution that declares a commitment to accountability and then receives a credible accusation against a senior figure is in a position where the declaration is being measured against operative practice. The measurement is taken in the institution’s response. If the response is investigation, finding, and consequence proportionate to the conduct, the declaration has been validated. If the response is acknowledgment without action, reinterpretation, redirection, partial concession, or inversion against the witness, the declaration has been invalidated. The invalidation is more diagnostic than any number of further declarations could be confirming. An institution that fails the test once may recover; an institution that fails the test repeatedly across multiple occasions has, in operative terms, ceased to be the institution its declarations describe.
This is the test the Lord Jesus Christ applied. He did not ask the religious leaders of his day to revise their confessional statements. Their confessional statements were largely sound. He asked them what they had done with John the Baptist, whether they would receive the testimony of one whom they had not credentialed (Luke 7:29–30). The question was the test of the institutional response, not the test of institutional doctrine. The answer to the question revealed the institutional condition. The same test, applied today, will reveal the condition of any institution to which it is honestly applied.
7. The Pastoral Charge to Hear
The pastoral epistles, having charged the overseer with the duty to restrain, also charge him with the duty to hear. The duty is not optional. It is constitutive of the office.
Paul charges Timothy to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:2–4). The text describes a constituency that will not endure sound doctrine and that will accumulate teachers calibrated to its preferences. The text simultaneously charges the faithful overseer to preach against the appetite. The duty is to speak the word the constituency will resist, and to do so in season and out of season.
The duty to hear is the reciprocal of the duty to speak. James writes, “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (James 1:19–20). The order of the virtues is significant. Hearing precedes speaking; speaking precedes wrath. The senior figure who, on receipt of warning, moves first to wrath and only afterward to consideration has reversed the apostolic order. The reversal is itself diagnostic. It identifies the senior figure as one who has not yet learned the duties of his office, however long he has held it.
The Christological standard is given by the Lord Jesus Christ in his repeated formula “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Matthew 11:15; 13:9; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8; and in the epistles to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3). The capacity to hear is treated as a spiritual condition, not as a procedural matter. The institution that cannot hear, in this sense, is not lacking in procedures. It is lacking in the spiritual capacity that procedures are intended to express. The remedy is not procedural reform alone. The remedy is repentance, manifesting in a changed posture toward those who speak the unwelcome word.
8. Diagnostic Implications
The argument of this paper is operationalized in the Samuel Emergence Diagnostic, the third of the three diagnostic instruments in this volume. The instrument measures the institution’s capacity to hear peripheral voices, its openness to criticism, its tolerance for correction, and the degree to which legitimate concerns must pass through elite mediation in order to be heard at all. Several observations should guide the use of the instrument.
The most reliable evidence of the institution’s hearing capacity is its track record with prior warnings. Every institution has a history. The history records whether previous warnings were heeded or dismissed. The history is the operative evidence. Declarations about future intentions are not evidence in the same sense. They are intentions; they may or may not be realized. The history is what has actually been done.
The institution’s response to outsiders is more diagnostic than its response to insiders. Insider voices, however dissenting, are partially shaped by their participation in the system they critique. Their criticisms tend to be calibrated to what the system can absorb. Outsider voices, by contrast, are not so calibrated. They speak from positions whose continuation does not depend on the institution’s favor. The institution’s capacity to hear them, when they speak, is a clearer measure of its hearing capacity than its accommodation of internal dissent.
The most ominous diagnostic indicator is not the absence of warning. It is the presence of warning that has been received and disposed of. An institution that can demonstrate it was never warned is in a different category from an institution that can demonstrate it received warnings and absorbed them without action. The first may be ignorant; the second has actively chosen its trajectory. The choice has consequences that the institution cannot, in the long view, evade.
The merciful course remains available. The interval between warning and judgment is the space in which repentance can still produce the outcome the warning was given to produce. The institution that recognizes itself in this paper’s description has, in the recognition itself, the beginning of the response that would constitute repentance. The next paper in this series, on legitimacy without formal power, addresses what happens when legitimate witness, having been refused by the institutions it addressed, begins to constitute the foundation for renewal outside them.
Notes
- The Authorized (King James) Version is used throughout. The phrase “let none of his words fall to the ground” (1 Samuel 3:19) is the textual basis for the validation principle developed in §2: prophetic standing in the biblical narrative is confirmed by the correspondence between speech and outcome rather than by institutional credentialing.
- The cluster of prophetic call narratives surveyed in §3 (Amos 7:14–15; Jeremiah 1:6–7; Ezekiel 2:3–7; Luke 3:2–3; Acts 4:13) is offered as cumulative evidence for the structural rather than accidental character of prophetic marginality. The argument does not claim that every marginal critic is a prophet. It claims that marginality is not, in itself, sufficient grounds for dismissing what the marginal speaker has said.
- The pseudo-prophet oracles of Jeremiah 6:14, 8:11, and Ezekiel 13:10 are treated in §4 as the prophetic analogue to the institutional dynamic of comforting false reassurance. The market for unmixed plaster is created by the institutional appetite for reassurance; the unmixed plaster fails when the storm arrives.
- The disproportion of the catastrophe at Aphek developed in §5 is the consequence, not the measure, of the offense. The offense at the priestly level was the conduct of Hophni and Phinehas and the failure of Eli to restrain them. The judgment fell at the national level because the priestly office was the mediating institution between the nation and the Lord, and its corruption could not be addressed without disturbance to the relation it had been instituted to mediate. The principle generalizes: where the corrupted institution is central, the disturbance of its correction will not be peripheral.
- The pastoral charge developed in §7 is drawn from the apostolic writings rather than from the narrative of 1 Samuel. The Old Testament narrative gives the diagnostic pattern; the apostolic writings give the standing charge to officers within the Christian institutions that bear the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The two sources are read together as the consistent witness of Scripture to the duty of those who hold office.
- The Samuel Emergence Diagnostic, referenced in §8, is presented in full in the diagnostic section of this volume. The four categories of this paper correspond to its principal scoring domains.
References
Bergen, R. D. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel (The New American Commentary, Vol. 7). Broadman & Holman.
Brueggemann, W. (1990). First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching). John Knox Press.
Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.
Firth, D. G. (2009). 1 & 2 Samuel (Apollos Old Testament Commentary). IVP Academic.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Harvard Business School Press.
Hertzberg, H. W. (1964). I & II Samuel: A commentary (J. S. Bowden, Trans.; Old Testament Library). Westminster Press.
Heschel, A. J. (1962). The prophets (Vols. 1–2). Harper & Row.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org (Original work published 1769)
Klein, R. W. (1983). 1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 10). Word Books.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. Routledge.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194.
Polzin, R. (1989). Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A literary study of the Deuteronomic history, Part Two: 1 Samuel. Harper & Row.
Tsumura, D. T. (2007). The first book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament). Eerdmans.
VanGemeren, W. A. (1990). Interpreting the prophetic word. Zondervan.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.
Youngblood, R. F. (1992). 1, 2 Samuel. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary (Vol. 3, pp. 551–1104). Zondervan.
