Abstract
This paper examines the narrative of Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas as recorded in the opening chapters of First Samuel, treating it not as an isolated episode in Israelite history but as a paradigmatic case study of institutional failure through the indulgence of elite misconduct. The argument proceeds through five interlocking analyses: the structural position of Eli as both father and high priest, in which the two offices reinforced one another’s failures; the specific character of the sins committed by Hophni and Phinehas and the way those sins corrupted both worship and pastoral care; the inadequacy of Eli’s response and the diagnostic significance of his particular failure mode; the prophetic and divine response to the situation and the finality of the judgment pronounced; and the institutional consequences that followed, including the loss of the ark, the death of the priestly line, and the structural reset that opened the way for Samuel and the later monarchy. The paper demonstrates that Scripture treats the indulgence of elite misconduct as a sin sufficient in itself to bring down a religious institution, regardless of the individual virtues the leadership may otherwise possess.
I. The Severity of the Case
There is a particular passage in the third chapter of First Samuel that ought to arrest the attention of anyone who has ever held religious office or had any part in the governance of a religious institution. The Lord speaks to the young Samuel and gives him a message to deliver to Eli, and the message contains a sentence that has lost none of its weight in the centuries since it was first spoken. “For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not. And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever” (1 Samuel 3:13–14, KJV).
Two features of this sentence repay close attention before any further analysis is attempted.
The first is the identification of the sin. The text does not name as Eli’s sin any positive act of corruption on his own part. Eli is not charged with the offenses his sons committed. He is not accused of stealing the sacrificial portions. He is not accused of sexual misconduct at the door of the tabernacle. He is not accused of any of the particular acts that brought scandal upon the priesthood. His sin, named with precision, is that he knew what his sons were doing and he restrained them not. The sin is the failure to discipline. The sin is the indulgence of elite misconduct when discipline lay within his hand and within his office.
The second is the severity of the judgment. The iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever. This is an extraordinary statement. The entire Mosaic system of atonement is constructed around the proposition that sin can be purged through the appointed sacrifices, provided that the sinner approaches with the appropriate disposition and that the prescribed procedures are followed. The Lord declares, in the case of Eli’s house, that this provision is suspended. The structural sin of refusing to discipline one’s own house when one has the authority to do so is treated with a severity that exceeds the severity attached to many of the individual acts of disobedience for which the sacrificial system provides covering. The reader who reflects upon this fact will not soon forget it.
The Scripture does not treat the indulgence of elite misconduct as a soft failure, a regrettable lapse in pastoral wisdom, or an understandable parental weakness. It treats it as a sin of a kind so corrosive that the ordinary means of grace are insufficient to cover it. This is the seriousness with which the present paper, and the volume of which it is a part, intends to approach the same dynamic in its contemporary forms.
II. The Structural Position of Eli
To understand the failure of Eli’s house, one must first understand the structural position Eli occupied. He was not simply a father whose adult sons had gone wrong, in the way that any father might find himself the parent of disappointing children. He was the high priest of Israel. His sons were not private citizens. They were themselves priests, serving in the same tabernacle, performing the same sacrificial functions, holding the same office, deriving their standing from the same institutional structure that Eli himself administered.
The two roles, paternal and institutional, were therefore not separable. As a father, Eli had the natural authority to correct his sons. As the high priest, Eli had the institutional authority to remove them from priestly service, to refuse them access to the sacrificial portions, to publicly discipline them under the same standards that the law applied to any priest who profaned the sanctuary. The convergence of the two authorities in a single person should have made the discipline of his sons more straightforward, not less. Eli had both the personal standing and the institutional standing required to act. He had no excuse drawn from a divided jurisdiction.
What the convergence of the two roles actually produced, however, was the opposite of straightforward discipline. The personal relationship softened the institutional response. The institutional position complicated the personal correction. The two authorities, instead of reinforcing one another, neutralized one another. Eli could not act decisively in his institutional role because the targets of the action were his sons. He could not act decisively in his paternal role because his sons were also priests of the institution he served. The convergence produced paralysis.
This is a pattern that recurs with depressing regularity in religious institutions and in many other kinds of institutions besides. The leader whose own children, spouse, close friends, or institutional protégés are the offenders finds that the very authority that ought to enable discipline becomes the obstacle to it. The personal relationship complicates the institutional response. The institutional position complicates the personal correction. The result is the indulgence of misconduct that, were it committed by a stranger, would have been disciplined without hesitation.
The biblical text presents Eli’s situation as a paradigmatic case of this pattern rather than as an exceptional one. The implication is that any institution that does not have mechanisms in place specifically designed to prevent the convergence of personal and institutional relationships from producing the indulgence of misconduct has not learned the lesson of First Samuel. The accountability mechanism must be able to operate even when the offender is the leader’s son.
III. The Specific Sins of Hophni and Phinehas
The text is unsparing in its description of what Hophni and Phinehas were doing. Two specific categories of offense are named, and both bear close examination because each illustrates a different mechanism by which elite misconduct corrupts the institution in which it occurs.
The first category is the corruption of worship through the abuse of the sacrificial portions. “And the priest’s custom with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand; and he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither. Also before they burnt the fat, the priest’s servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw. And if any man said unto him, Let them burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; then he would answer him, Nay; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force” (1 Samuel 2:13–16, KJV).
The procedure was a structured extortion. The law of Moses had specified which portions of the peace offerings belonged to the priests and which portions belonged to the offerer and his family (Leviticus 7:11–34). Hophni and Phinehas had set aside this specification and substituted their own. Their servant arrived with a three-pronged fork, and whatever the fork brought up from the cooking pot was taken. The offerer was prevented from completing the ritual of burning the fat upon the altar, which was the central act of the peace offering, until the priest’s portion had been delivered raw rather than cooked, suitable for roasting in the priest’s manner rather than in the manner God had prescribed. The threat of force backed the demand.
The corruption of worship through this procedure operated at several levels simultaneously. The offerer who came to the tabernacle to bring his sacrifice was extorted. The portions reserved for the offerer’s own family were diminished or eliminated. The order of the ritual, in which the fat was to be burnt before any portion was eaten by anyone, was inverted. The covenantal meaning of the peace offering, which depended upon the proper sequence and proper distribution of portions, was destroyed. The institution that existed to mediate the relationship between God and His people had become, in the hands of these priests, an instrument by which the people were robbed in the name of the very God they had come to worship.
The text adds the diagnostic verdict. “Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD: for men abhorred the offering of the LORD” (1 Samuel 2:17, KJV). The institutional consequence was that the people of God began to abhor what God had instituted. The conduct of the priests was so destructive of the people’s relationship to worship that worship itself became odious. This is among the gravest consequences any religious leadership can produce. To make worship odious in the eyes of those who would otherwise worship is to undo, at a stroke, the entire purpose of the office one holds.
The second category of sin is named more briefly but with no less gravity. “Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation” (1 Samuel 2:22, KJV). The sexual exploitation of women who came to worship is identified as a known fact, widely reported, occurring at the very door of the sacred space. The combination is devastating. The priests had converted the place of worship into a site of predation. The women who came to participate in the religious life of the nation were objects of exploitation by the very men who were supposed to serve them in holy things.
The pattern of clerical sexual misconduct that has scandalized so many religious institutions in the modern era is not a modern invention. It is a recurrence of a pattern named in the second chapter of First Samuel. The mechanism is the same. The cleric stands in a position of religious authority that produces deference, trust, and access. He converts the deference, trust, and access into opportunity for exploitation. The institution, knowing what is happening, fails to discipline him because the discipline would expose the institution to scandal, or because the cleric is connected to the leadership through personal or familial ties, or because the cleric’s removal would inconvenience the institutional arrangements that have grown up around his presence. The exploitation continues. The victims accumulate. The institution rots from within while maintaining the external forms of holiness.
Hophni and Phinehas were not minor offenders. They were systematic offenders, operating openly, over an extended period, against multiple victims, in defiance of both the ritual law and the moral law. The fact that they continued in their office while doing all this is the indictment of the institution that contained them. They had every opportunity to repent, every opportunity to be confronted, every opportunity to be removed. None of these mechanisms operated. The institution accommodated them.
IV. The Inadequacy of Eli’s Response
Eli was not entirely silent. The text records his attempt at remonstrance. “And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. Nay, my sons; for it is not a good report that I hear: ye make the LORD’s people to transgress. If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them” (1 Samuel 2:23–25, KJV).
The diagnostic value of this passage lies in what Eli says and what he does not do. The words themselves are not unsound. He names the evil. He acknowledges that he has heard the report from many witnesses. He raises the question of the gravity of sin against the Lord, observing correctly that there is no human intercessor for such sin. The content of his remonstrance, considered in isolation, would not be objectionable in a sermon delivered by any competent priest of the era.
But the situation called for more than a sermon. It called for institutional action. Eli was the high priest. He had the authority to remove his sons from priestly service. He had the authority to refuse them access to the sacrificial portions. He had the authority to bring charges against them under the law of Moses, which prescribed penalties for the kinds of offenses they were committing. None of these institutional actions occurred. Eli’s response was confined to verbal remonstrance, and verbal remonstrance unaccompanied by institutional consequence is the characteristic response of leaders who have decided, whether consciously or not, that the offenders will not actually be disciplined.
The pattern is recognizable across institutional contexts. The board chair who privately expresses concern about the executive’s behavior while never tabling a motion. The senior pastor who has a difficult conversation with the offending staff member while never initiating the procedures for removal. The denominational official who counsels the offending minister to repent while never recommending the canonical discipline. The university president who issues a strongly worded statement about the offending faculty member while never moving to revoke tenure. In each case, the verbal remonstrance functions as a substitute for institutional action rather than as a prelude to it. The leader has discharged his conscience by speaking. The offender has discharged his exposure by absorbing the speech without consequence. The institution continues unchanged.
The biblical text is particularly devastating in its account of why Eli’s remonstrance failed. “Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father.” The sons had learned, through long observation, that their father’s words were not backed by his actions. They had calibrated their behavior accordingly. They knew that the words would come, and they knew that the words would pass, and they knew that nothing further would happen. The diagnostic principle is severe: words from a leader that are not backed by institutional action lose their force, and eventually they lose even the capacity to be heard.
The further phrase, “because the LORD would slay them,” indicates that the resistance to correction had reached a stage at which divine judgment had been determined. This is not a denial of human agency. It is an observation that institutional rot, once permitted to develop past a certain point, becomes self-perpetuating, and the divine judgment that follows is in part the working out of dynamics the institution has itself set in motion. The leader who has tolerated misconduct long enough has produced a culture in which the misconduct can no longer be corrected from within. The judgment must then come from without, because the internal capacities for correction have been destroyed by the very pattern of indulgence that produced the need for correction in the first place.
V. The Prophetic and Divine Response
The text records two prophetic interventions, one earlier and one later, that together specify the divine response to the situation in Eli’s house. The first comes from an unnamed man of God who appears in the second chapter of First Samuel. The second comes through the young Samuel in the third chapter.
The unnamed prophet delivers a comprehensive indictment. “Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?” (1 Samuel 2:29, KJV). The diagnostic question identifies the controlling dynamic. Eli has honored his sons above God. The institutional sin of indulgence is, at its root, a sin of disordered loyalty. The leader who refuses to discipline his sons because they are his sons has placed his sons above the God whose institution he is supposed to be administering. The relational loyalty has displaced the covenantal loyalty. The institution has been turned into a family business rather than maintained as a sacred trust.
The judgment that follows is comprehensive. The strength of Eli’s house will be cut off. Both Hophni and Phinehas will die on the same day, and this dual death will be the sign that confirms the larger judgment. A faithful priest will be raised up to replace the failed line. The remainder of Eli’s descendants will be reduced to a posture of supplication, asking for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread.
The second prophetic intervention, through Samuel, confirms and intensifies the first. The judgment is final. The iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever. The structural sin of indulgence, having proceeded to the point at which the entire priestly line has been corrupted, has placed itself outside the provisions for atonement that the law otherwise extends to every sin.
This is the most sobering feature of the entire narrative. The biblical text does not present every institutional failure as terminal. The history of Israel is filled with episodes of institutional failure followed by repentance, restoration, and renewal. The Lord raises up judges to deliver His people. He sends prophets to call them back. He receives the prayers of the penitent and restores them to His favor. The ordinary biblical pattern is that institutional failure can be repented of and reversed.
The case of Eli’s house is presented as an exception to this ordinary pattern. The exception is not arbitrary. It is calibrated to the specific character of the sin. The sin of indulging elite misconduct, when it has been allowed to proceed to the point at which the entire priestly line is corrupt and the means of correction have been systematically suppressed, has destroyed the institutional capacity for the kind of repentance that would otherwise restore the situation. The judgment is final because the institutional disease has reached a stage at which only judgment can clear the ground for any subsequent restoration. The faithful priest who will be raised up is not Eli’s descendant. He is a replacement, not a reformer. The continuity is broken because the rot has gone too deep for continuity to be salvageable.
The application to contemporary religious institutions is unwelcome but unavoidable. There comes a point at which the indulgence of elite misconduct has proceeded so far that the institution can no longer be reformed from within. The leadership class has been corrupted. The accountability mechanisms have been disabled. The members have been trained either to participate in the corruption or to leave. The structural arrangements have been calibrated to perpetuate the very dynamic that needs to be reversed. At such a point, the biblical pattern suggests, the institution will be judged. The judgment may take many forms — institutional collapse, the loss of cultural standing, the departure of the faithful remnant, the visible withdrawal of divine blessing — but the judgment will come, and the means by which the institution would ordinarily have repented and been restored will no longer be available to it. This is the warning of First Samuel.
VI. The Institutional Consequences
The fourth chapter of First Samuel records the working out of the judgment. The Israelites go out to battle against the Philistines. They are defeated. They send for the ark of the covenant, supposing that its presence in the camp will guarantee victory. Hophni and Phinehas accompany the ark. The battle is joined again. The Israelites are defeated a second time, with greater slaughter. The ark is captured. Hophni and Phinehas are killed on the same day, as the prophecy had specified. Eli, hearing the news, falls backward from his seat, breaks his neck, and dies. His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, goes into labor at the news, names her son Ichabod, saying “The glory is departed from Israel,” and dies in childbirth (1 Samuel 4:21, KJV).
The institutional collapse is total. The priestly line is decimated in a single day. The high priest is dead. The ark, the most sacred object in Israelite worship, is in the hands of the Philistines. The tabernacle at Shiloh, the central sanctuary of the nation, will never recover its former standing; subsequent biblical references treat its abandonment as a definitive event in the religious history of the nation. The institutional apparatus that had been administered by Eli’s house is, in the space of a single day’s events, dismantled.
The diagnostic significance of this collapse for the present argument is considerable. The institution did not collapse because of external pressure beyond its capacity to resist. The Philistines were a real military threat, but they were not a threat that should have proved fatal to the religious institution of Israel. The institution collapsed because the internal rot had proceeded to the point at which the external pressure found nothing solid to push against. The judgment of God upon the indulgence of elite misconduct had hollowed out the institution from within. When the test came, there was nothing left to hold.
The pattern recurs in the history of religious institutions across the centuries. The external pressure — political opposition, cultural change, financial difficulty, intellectual challenge — that an institution in good internal order would have weathered easily, becomes fatal when the institution has been hollowed out by the indulgence of elite misconduct. The external pressure does not cause the collapse. It exposes the collapse that had already been produced internally. The Philistines did not destroy the priesthood of Shiloh. The priesthood of Shiloh destroyed itself, and the Philistines simply confirmed publicly what had already been determined privately by the judgment of God.
The institutional reset that followed is also instructive. The text does not describe a restoration of Eli’s house or a reform of the existing arrangements. It describes the rise of Samuel, who came from outside the priestly line entirely, and through whom God would establish a different institutional pattern altogether. The eventual emergence of the monarchy, with all of its own attendant dangers, was the divine response to a situation in which the existing religious institution had so thoroughly disqualified itself that an alternative had to be constructed. The story of Eli does not end with the restoration of Eli’s house. It ends with the institutional replacement of Eli’s house.
This is the most sobering institutional pattern in the entire narrative. The Lord does not always reform the institutions that have failed Him. Sometimes He replaces them. The institution that has imagined itself indispensable to the divine purposes has misunderstood the pattern. God is not bound to any particular institution. He is bound to His covenant. When an institution has so corrupted itself that it no longer serves the covenant, He raises up another. The continuity that the institution had presumed upon is broken. The faithful are gathered into new arrangements. The old institution becomes a cautionary footnote in the history of God’s dealings with His people.
VII. The Standing Warning to Every Religious Institution
The narrative of Eli’s house stands in Scripture as a permanent warning. It is not a story about ancient Israelites whose particular institutional arrangements are no longer in force. It is a story about the dynamic by which religious institutions destroy themselves through the indulgence of elite misconduct, and the dynamic is as operative in the present age as it was three thousand years ago.
The warning has several specific components that every religious institution would do well to take seriously.
First, the sin of indulging elite misconduct is treated by Scripture as a sin of extraordinary gravity, sufficient in itself to bring down an entire priestly line, beyond the ordinary provisions for atonement. The leader who has decided that he will not discipline the offenders within his own household, his own staff, his own inner circle, has placed himself under a judgment whose severity ordinary religious vocabulary does not begin to capture.
Second, the convergence of personal and institutional relationships in a single person is a structural vulnerability that requires specific institutional countermeasures. The leader cannot be expected to discipline his own son, his own protégé, his own close friend, his own donor, his own founder, with the same dispatch he would apply to a stranger. The institution that has not built mechanisms to handle this specific situation has not learned the lesson of Eli.
Third, verbal remonstrance unaccompanied by institutional action is not merely insufficient. It is positively destructive. It trains the offenders to discount the leader’s words. It produces a culture in which the appearance of discipline substitutes for the reality of it. The institution becomes hollow at exactly the point at which it presents itself as most serious.
Fourth, there is a point past which institutional rot becomes irreversible from within. The leader who has tolerated misconduct long enough has produced a culture in which the misconduct can no longer be corrected by internal means. The divine judgment that follows is in part the working out of dynamics the institution has set in motion. The institution that recognizes itself in this description must understand that the window for internal reform may be closing or already closed.
Fifth, divine judgment upon a failed institution does not necessarily issue in restoration. Sometimes it issues in replacement. The faithful remnant is gathered into new arrangements. The old institution is set aside. The continuity it had presumed upon is broken. Any religious institution that imagines itself indispensable to the divine purposes has misread the pattern at the most basic level.
These five components of the warning are not exhortations toward a higher standard of institutional virtue. They are descriptions of the conditions under which divine judgment falls upon institutions that have decided to indulge their elites. The papers that follow in this volume will examine the contemporary forms of this dynamic across many different institutional contexts. The diagnostic framework, however, has been supplied by the narrative of Eli’s house, and the framework is severe. The institution that reads First Samuel without recognizing itself in the mirror has not yet read the chapter.
Notes
Note 1. The phrase “the iniquity which he knoweth” in 1 Samuel 3:13 specifies that Eli’s culpability is grounded in knowledge. The sin is not committed in ignorance and is not excusable on grounds of ignorance. The leader who can plausibly claim not to have known what his subordinates were doing occupies a different position from the leader who knew and did not act. Both positions carry responsibility, but the second is the position the text specifies for Eli, and it is the position with which the judgment is concerned.
Note 2. The expression “made themselves vile” carries connotations stronger than the English translation may suggest. The Hebrew verb conveys the idea of bringing oneself into contempt or cursing oneself, with the implication that the offenders have placed themselves under divine judgment by their own actions. The English reader who treats the phrase as merely a strong adjective has understated its force.
Note 3. The structural parallel between Eli’s failure with his sons and Samuel’s later failure with his own sons (1 Samuel 8:1–5) is significant and is sometimes treated as a strange coincidence. The biblical text presents it as a recurring pattern. The man who has himself suffered under another’s indulgence of his sons is not thereby preserved from the same failure in his own house. The vulnerability is structural, not idiosyncratic, and no individual virtue is sufficient to overcome it apart from the specific institutional countermeasures that the situation requires.
Note 4. The death of Eli at age ninety-eight, recorded as the result of his falling backward from his seat at the news of the ark’s capture, is presented as a kind of involuntary collapse rather than a deliberate suicide or a death from external violence. The diagnostic point is that the news of the institutional catastrophe was itself fatal to the man who had presided over the conditions that produced it. The institutional collapse and the personal collapse coincide because they were always two aspects of the same underlying failure.
Note 5. The naming of Ichabod by the wife of Phinehas — “The glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken” (1 Samuel 4:22, KJV) — provides the theological summation of the entire episode. The departure of the glory is the departure of the divine presence from the institutional arrangements that had presumed upon it. The institution had taken the glory for granted. The glory had withdrawn. The naming of the child fixes this fact in the memory of the next generation as the defining event of the era.
Note 6. The later prophetic references to Shiloh (Jeremiah 7:12–14; 26:6–9) treat the destruction of the sanctuary at Shiloh as a permanent warning, invoked centuries afterward to threaten the temple at Jerusalem with the same fate if the same patterns of corruption continued. The pattern is not unique to one institution or one era. It recurs. The prophet who saw the Jerusalem temple following the same trajectory invoked Shiloh as the precedent. The reader who lives after the destruction of both knows that the warning was vindicated in each case.
References
The Holy Bible, King James Version. (1611/Public Domain). Cambridge edition. References in this paper to Leviticus, 1 Samuel, and Jeremiah follow the Authorized Version.
Alter, R. (1999). The David story: A translation with commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. W. W. Norton. [Cited for translation insights; theological framework is not endorsed.]
Bergen, R. D. (1996). 1, 2 Samuel. New American Commentary. Broadman & Holman.
Brueggemann, W. (1990). First and Second Samuel. Interpretation Commentary. John Knox Press. [Cited selectively; theological framework is not fully endorsed.]
Calvin, J. (1846/1992). Sermons on the books of Samuel. Banner of Truth.
Davis, D. R. (1988). Looking on the heart: Expositions of the book of 1 Samuel. Baker.
Edersheim, A. (1876/1995). Bible history: Old Testament. Hendrickson.
Firth, D. G. (2009). 1 and 2 Samuel. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. InterVarsity Press.
Gordon, R. P. (1986). 1 and 2 Samuel: A commentary. Zondervan.
Hertzberg, H. W. (1964). I and II Samuel: A commentary. Westminster Press.
Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1872/1996). Commentary on the Old Testament: Volume 2, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel. Hendrickson.
Klein, R. W. (1983). 1 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary. Word Books.
Laniak, T. S. (2006). Shepherds after my own heart: Pastoral traditions and leadership in the Bible. InterVarsity Press.
Long, V. P. (1989). The reign and rejection of King Saul: A case for literary and theological coherence. Scholars Press.
McCarter, P. K. (1980). I Samuel: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. Anchor Bible. Doubleday. [Cited for textual analysis; theological framework is not endorsed.]
Robertson, O. P. (2004). The Christ of the prophets. P&R Publishing.
Tsumura, D. T. (2007). The first book of Samuel. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Eerdmans.
Vannoy, J. R. (2009). 1–2 Samuel. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Tyndale House.
Woodhouse, J. (2008). 1 Samuel: Looking for a leader. Preaching the Word. Crossway.
Youngblood, R. F. (1992). 1, 2 Samuel. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The expositor’s Bible commentary (Vol. 3). Zondervan.
