Narrative in Fragments: The Pages That Come After Living

Guest blog by Bill McDonald

“Whatever you write down will be important even if it is only important to you.”

In the novel Strangers in Time by David Baldacci, there is a tender moment that stayed with me. Mr. Oliver, sensing something special in Charlie, gives him an empty journal that once belonged to his deceased wife and later lends him one of her ink pens. As he does, he tells him, “Whatever you write down will be important even if it is only important to you.”

The line landed with unusual force. It did not feel like advice meant only for a fictional boy living through wartime London. It felt like advice meant for anyone who has ever wondered whether their words matter. For me, that question has taken on new shape since retiring in September 2025.

Retirement created a space that had not previously existed in my life: time to think, time to read carefully, and time to write. Since then, I have completed several writing projects, each one emerging from curiosity, reflection, and a desire to better understand the world around me. In a quiet way, writing became one of the ways I began to take stock of a life that had already accumulated many decades of experience.

Who Is the Audience?

Yet whenever people ask about these projects, the same question often appears: Who is the audience? What is the purpose? Beneath the question lies a familiar assumption in our culture—that writing only justifies itself if it quickly finds a sufficient readership or immediate public recognition.

The wisdom expressed in that quiet exchange between Mr. Oliver and Charlie offers a different framework for thinking about writing. Writing can possess value long before it finds an audience, and sometimes regardless of whether it ever does. Narrative, after all, begins long before there is an audience. Its first purpose is internal, not public. To write is, in a sense, to exist narratively.

Writing Gathers Our Experiences

Human beings do not simply accumulate experiences; over time they gather those experiences into stories that allow them to understand who they are. Writing becomes one of the ways we participate in the slow work of assembling a self. When we write, we clarify our own thoughts, preserve moments that might otherwise disappear, and give shape to reflections that would remain fleeting if left only in memory.

For this reason, writing also functions as a counterweight to erasure. Without some form of narrative expression, much of what we experience simply vanishes into the passage of time. A thought occurs, an observation is made, a realization briefly surfaces—and then it is gone.

Writing interrupts that disappearance. It records the moment and gives it a durable form. The opposite of narrative is not silence but chaos: a scattering of impressions with no structure that allows them to be understood. Narrative gathers those fragments and arranges them into meaning.

Writing as an Attempt to Understand One’s Life

This is exactly what happens when someone writes later in life as well. After decades of living, reading, working, and observing, a person carries within them an enormous accumulation of impressions and reflections. Writing becomes the means by which those fragments are gradually organized into a narrative that makes sense of the whole. In this way writing is part of the deeply human process of integrating a life.

At seventy years old, writing has therefore become more than an activity of passing interest. It is part of the ongoing effort to understand a life as a whole.

Human beings become who they are through the narratives they construct about their experiences, and writing provides one of the most deliberate ways of participating in that process. Each page becomes a small act of assembly—gathering memory, reflection, and observation into a form that can be seen and considered. In that sense, writing allows a life not merely to be lived but to be understood.

The journal Mr. Oliver gives Charlie once belonged to someone who had lived before him, and that detail carries a quiet symbolism. One life leaves traces that another life may one day discover. Writing participates in that same continuity. Words written today may never travel far beyond the moment of their creation—or they may one day reach someone unexpectedly, perhaps years or decades later. The writer rarely controls that outcome.

The Decision to Write Honestly

What can be controlled is the decision to write honestly and attentively. In that sense, the value of writing does not ultimately depend on the size of its audience but on the seriousness of the act itself. Each page becomes a small declaration that thought, memory, and reflection deserve to be preserved.

Mr. Oliver’s advice to Charlie therefore speaks far beyond the boundaries of the novel. It reminds us that writing is one of the ways a human life refuses to disappear unnoticed. To write is to say that the experiences one has lived, the questions one has struggled with, and the insights one has gathered are worthy of being set down.

Sometimes the audience may be the writer alone, seeking clarity. Sometimes it may be a reader years from now who happens upon the words and recognizes something of their own life within them. Either way, the act remains meaningful. The page receives the trace of a life thinking about itself—and that, in the end, is reason enough to write.

Bill McDonald Bio

Bill McDonald is a retired small business owner with over 40 years’ experience. He holds a Master of Arts in Religion from Ashland Theological Seminary. In retirement, he devotes time to reading, thinking, and writing about human beings and the concrete realities that shape their lives. He has been married for 51 years and has three children and five grandchildren. He enjoys books, playing guitar, walking in the woods on the acreage where he lives, and good conversation with friends and family.

Portrait of a Disgruntled Prophet

I have just submitted the completed manuscript of my book on the story of Samuel (the prophet) and Saul (Israel’s first king) to the publisher (Eerdmans). It covers 1 Samuel 1–15, with a coda on the anointing of David at the start of chapter 16 (which is Samuel’s last significant act).

When I signed the contract, my original title was Portrait of the Prophet as a Crotchety Old Man (a take-off on A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce). But as I’ve reflected on this, and tested that title with others, I’ve come to realize that it’s a bit off-putting. Almost everyone I spoke to preferred (and actually liked) the newer title I proposed: Portrait of a Disgruntled Prophet: Samuel’s Resistance to God and the Undoing of Saul.

The title the editorial team at Eerdmans came up with is close enough and communicates well the thrust of the book: The official title (as of September 8, 2026) is Samuel and the Undoing of Saul: How a Disgruntled Prophet Resisted God.

The Book Came from My Teaching

The book has a long history.

I started working on 1 and 2 Samuel soon after I began my full-time tenure-track faculty career. I initially taught graduate seminar courses on Samuel at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School (1997–2001) and then advanced undergraduate seminars at Roberts Wesleyan University (2002–2011). These seminars were amazing learning experiences both for me and my students; my students were especially helpful in raising ethical questions about the characterization of God, Samuel, Saul, and David in the text.

In more recent years (since 2011) I taught a more focused exegesis course on 1 Samuel at Northeastern Seminary, where we were able to slow down even more to attend to the details of the text. I was thus able to further develop my understanding of Samuel’s role in the demise of Saul.

I wrote a couple of chapters on the Hannah story (1 Samuel 1–2) long ago (while I was teaching at Colgate Rochester); then I published some essays on 1 Samuel, which were expansions of paper presentations I gave at conferences. Some sections of these essays have found their way into the book.

A Long Time Coming

But I got more serious about the writing when I signed a contract with Eerdmans back in 2016. An Eerdmans acquisitions editor approached me at the 2015 Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting to ask if there was a book I would like to write for them. So I submitted the proposal and got the contract.

Initially, I thought (very optimistically) that I could finish the book in a few years (I suggested 2019). However, I had just signed a contract with Baker Academic (in 2015) to write the book that eventually became Abraham’s Silence (published in 2021). That, plus the busyness of teaching (and some health problems in 2023), significantly delayed the Samuel book.

When I retired from my faculty position at Northeastern Seminary in 2024, I really got down to writing. I completed the bulk of the book in the past two years.

Did I Write a Commentary?

I hadn’t planned on writing a commentary, but rather a thematic study of the Samuel-Saul struggle, which took the reader through the flow of the book. I guess I thought of it as a quasi-commentary.

They say that a good sculptor doesn’t impose his or her predetermined idea on the stone, but needs to follow the contours of the material as they work. That was my experience as I worked through 1 Samuel.

Once I got into the writing, I found many fascinating details of the text that cried out for interpretation, details that many commentaries jumped over or treated in a very cursory way. By following the text more carefully, I was able to deepen my initial intuitions about the power struggle between Samuel and Saul (and Samuel and God) in ways I had not anticipated.

The book ended up being longer than I had anticipated. My wrestling with the text of Samuel led me to double the length of what I had originally thought would be a short 60,000 word manuscript (though it’s still shorter than my book A New Heaven and a New Earth).

One of the last things I wrote before I submitted the manuscript to Eerdmans was a semi-humorous dialogue at the start of my Preface, which you can read here (let’s see if the publisher allows me to keep it).

That dialogue was inspired by the Prologue to Robert Farrar Capon, An Offering of Uncles: The Priesthood of Adam and the Shape of the World (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967).

Table of Contents

The book has seventeen chapters, plus an Introduction (on my approach to interpreting 1 Samuel) and a Conclusion (on evaluating the character of Samuel). You can download the Table of Contents here.

Preface

Introduction: A Proposal for Reading Samuel

Part 1: Overture to Conflict: A Preview of Things to Come (1 Samuel 1–3)

  1. Hannah’s Resolve and the Birth of Samuel: A New Era in Israel’s History
  2. Hannah’s Vow and Victory Song: A Challenge to Israel’s Leaders
  3. From Promised Priest to Newly-Minted Prophet: Clues to God’s Role in the Story

Part 2: Interlude before Conflict: The Ark Narrative as Preemptive Warning (1 Samuel 4–6)

  1. “Why Has YHWH Defeated Us Today before the Philistines?”: The Ark in Israel’s Theology
  2. The Ark of the Covenant Is “Taken”: Philistine and Israelite Responses to the Ark
  3. “Who Can Stand before YHWH, This Holy God?”: The Return the Ark

Part 3: The Conflict Begins: Samuel Asserts His Priorities (1 Samuel 7–11)

  1. Samuel on the Cusp: The Prophet’s Finest Hour
  2. The People Request a King: A Rift Begins to Open between Samuel and God
  3. Saul Loses His Way and Finds Samuel: Prelude to Kingship
  4. The Secret Anointing: Saul is (Almost) King
  5. Saul is Publicly Acclaimed King—at Mizpah and Gilgal

Part 4: The Conflict Intensifies: Samuel Clashes with Saul (1 Samuel 12–14)

  1. Samuel’s “Farewell Speech”: The Sin of Monarchy
  2. The Beginning of Saul’s Undoing: Whose/Which Command Did He Disobey?
  3. The Fallout for Jonathan: Saul’s Oath as Overreaction

Part 5: The Climax of the Conflict: Samuel and God Part Ways (1 Samuel 15–16)

  1. Failure and Rejection at Gilgal: Saul’s Confrontation with Samuel
  2. The Question of God’s “Repentance”: Samuel’s Disagreement with YHWH
  3. Prophet on a Short Leash: Irony in Samuel’s Anointing of David

Conclusion: How Should We Judge Samuel?

Stay Tuned

I plan to post updates on the publication of the book, including various tidbits of interesting things I learned or noticed about the story as I worked on the writing. This will include things like:

Why does God shift from his promise to provide a new priest (1 Samuel 2:35) to provide a prophet instead (1 Samuel 3:19)?

Why is the title for the Ark in 1 Samuel 4:4 (“the Ark of the Covenant of YHWH of Hosts […] the Cherubim”) missing a Hebrew preposition where you would expect one (so translators have to insert what they think is appropriate)?

Why does Samuel consistently disobey God’s instructions after the people ask for a king in 1 Samuel 8?

Where is the first place in the narrative when Samuel actually obeys an instruction or command from God?

What is going on with the seemingly garbled chronological note about Saul’s reign in 1 Samuel 13:1?

How should we understand Samuel’s contradictory instructions to the newly anointed King Saul in 1 Samuel 10:7–8 (especially given the multitude of interpretations proposed)?

What sin was Saul actually condemned for in 1 Samuel 13:13–14?

And lots more to come . . .

The Messianic Mission of Jesus (The Kingdom of God, part 5)

This is the fifth installment of an article on the Kingdom of God.

Part 1 began with Jesus’s proclamation at the start of his ministry about the kingdom of God. Part 2 looked at Jesus’s sermon at Nazareth, in which he explained the nature of the kingdom he was inaugurating.

Part 3 shifted to the biblical backstory of the kingdom, beginning with the royal calling of humanity created to image God, including how we squandered our calling through sin and violence, culminating in the tower of Babel. Part 4 traced the story of Israel from Abraham to the Babylonian exile, with a focus on the theme of “rule” (power and agency).

Against the backdrop of the kingdom of God in the Old Testament, the current installment picks up the story with the ministry and mission of Jesus, leading to his confrontation with the powers in Jerusalem at Passover.

The Rise of Messianic Expectation

Israelite prophets during and after the Babylonian exile began to articulate an expectation of renewal for God’s people, which intensified as the first century approached. God was going to bring about a new age of righteousness and justice for Israel and for the entire world.

As the Isaiah passage Jesus quoted at Nazareth made clear (see part 2 of this multi-part blog post), the prophetic vision of social and personal healing that arose in the exile remained unfulfilled even after Israel was back in the land. Isaiah 58 and 61 both addressed the moral state of the people, which had not changed; they continued to be embroiled in sin and disobedience to God. So beyond the bare fact of return to the land, the rest of the prophets’ vision of restoration had not yet come to pass.

It was this lack of fulfillment that generated messianic hope in the centuries leading up to the New Testament. The term Messiah (lit. anointed one) is derived from the fact that the kings of Israel were anointed for their leadership role (1 Samuel 9:26–10:1; 1 Samuel 16:12–13). The hope for a Messiah (a royal leader, in the lineage of David) arose out of the obvious failure of the Israelite monarchy in combination with God’s promise that the people would once again have righteous leaders.

The dominant messianic expectation was of a new Davidic king who would unify the nation and cast off Roman oppression, yet ideas about the coming Messiah were actually quite varied: would there be one or two leaders (one royal, the other priestly); would the agent of God’s coming rule be human, angelic, or divine?

Despite this variety there was a consistent expectation that one day God would establish his righteous rule both in Israel and throughout the world. The coming of this kingdom would eradicate evil and restore justice for God’s people and among all the nations. Indeed, the entire cosmos would be renewed, such that this coming age could rightly be called “a new heaven and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17–25).

Jesus’s Confrontation with the Powers of Evil

It was this expectation for a radical reorientation of the world that set the stage for the ministry of Jesus, including his proclamation that the kingdom of God was at hand, his teaching about the kingdom (often in parables), and his embodying the kingdom in his healings, his exorcisms, and his forgiving of sins. Jesus both announced and demonstrated that the powers of evil were being overthrown, that God’s rule was coming.

But the powers of evil are never easily overthrown. Jesus encountered opposition throughout his ministry, which led to his crucifixion by a coalition of Roman and Jewish leaders, who considered him a threat to the status quo. Jesus was not, however, a passive victim of his opponents. His entire life and ministry were oriented towards this deathly confrontation.

The Messiah’s Destiny of Suffering

After three years of his public ministry, Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was. When Peter confessed that he was “the Messiah of God” (Luke 9:20), Jesus explained that his destiny (in contrast to most messianic expectation of the time) was not immediate victory over the powers of evil. His destiny was suffering and rejection at the hands of “the elders, chief priests, and scribes,” resulting in his death—followed by resurrection (Luke 9:22; this episode is recounted in Matthew 16:21–23; Mark 8:31–33; Luke 9:21–23).

Jesus understood that the Messiah’s destiny of the ultimate triumph over evil was grounded in his suffering on behalf of his people—a theme found in what are known as the servant songs of Isaiah. These prophetic poems, in that section of the book written during the Babylonian exile (Isaiah 40–55), affirm that Israel is God’s servant (Isaiah 41:8; 49:3), whose mission is to bring light to the nations and to establish justice throughout the earth (Isaiah 42:1, 4, 6). This understanding of Israel as God’s servant draws on God’s promise that through Abraham and his descendants blessing would come to all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:1–3).

Yet in Isaiah’s servant songs, Israel is said to be a blind and deaf servant who does not understand or obey God’s purposes (Isaiah 42:19–20), This leads to a distinction between the servant and Israel in some texts; there the mission of the servant of YHWH is to bring light not only to the nations, but also to Israel (Isaiah 49:5–6).

While Isaiah 50 mentions briefly that the servant will suffer before his vindication by God (Isaiah 50:5–8), this theme is explored in depth in Isaiah 52:13–53:12, the so-called Suffering Servant song. The New Testament understands this vivid portrayal of the servant’s suffering to be fulfilled in Jesus, understood as the representative of Israel (Matthew 8:14-17; Luke 22:35–38; John 12:37–41; Acts 8:26–35; Romans 10:11–21; 1 Peter 2:19–25).

Jesus Sets Out for Jerusalem

Soon after Jesus predicted his suffering and death, he set out to meet his destiny. Perhaps alluding to Isaiah’s servant who “set [his] face like flint” to endure opposition (Isaiah 50:7), Jesus “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51).

As he journeyed toward Jerusalem, stopping in other places on the way, he twice more reminded his disciples of his coming death (first in Matthew 17:22–23; Mark 9:30–32; Luke 9:43–45; then in Matthew 20:17–19; Mark 10:32–34; Luke 18:31–34); this was clearly on his mind.

In each case, his disciples found this difficult to comprehend; wouldn’t this mean the defeat of the Messiah? Even after Jesus reached Jerusalem, he again reminded them of his destiny (Matthew 26:1–2).

Jesus and the New Exodus

Not only did Jesus intentionally embrace his destiny, he chose the timing of it to coincide with the festival of Passover, when pilgrims were flocking to Jerusalem to celebrate the exodus from Egyptian bondage. But no-one in Jerusalem would have focused simply on that event in the past. Isaiah 40–55 had already viewed Babylon as a new Egypt and the return from Babylonian exile as a new exodus. The city would have been rife with expectation: would God act again to free his people from the latest incarnation of Egypt and Babylon?

Some centuries before Jesus, the Persians had conquered the Babylonian empire and allowed exiled Jews (inhabitants of Judah) to return to their homeland; so technically the exile was over. But after Babylon’s defeat, Judah (now known as Yehud) became a province of Persia, After that came the Greek empire, and finally the Romans—all of whom continued to subject the land and people of Israel to imperial domination. It would have been impossible for Jews in Jesus’s day to separate the message of the exodus of old from the need to be liberated from Roman oppression. A new exodus was called for.

Continuing Bondage and Exile

The idea that Israel was still in bondage—even after return to the land—is expressed in the anguished prayer of Ezra, the Jewish scribe and priest, during the early postexilic period:

“Here we are, slaves to this day, slaves in the land that you gave to our ancestors to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts. Its rich yield goes to the kings whom you have set over us because of our sins; they have power also over our bodies and over our livestock at their pleasure, and we are in great distress.” (Nehemiah 9:36–37; see also Ezra 9:8–9)

The Babylonian exile was over, but the bondage to foreign empires continued unabated.

The problem, however, was not simply the external oppression of empires. The internal problem of sin had to be dealt with. The prophets had declared that the Babylonian conquest and the ensuing exile was a consequence of Israel’s disobedience to God (Jeremiah 32:28–35; Isaiah 42:24–25; 43:27–28). This was a fundamental difference between Egyptian bondage (which was not attributed to Israel’s sin) and the Babylonian exile (which was).

Ezra himself combined recognition of continuing national bondage with the people’s ongoing sinfulness. “From the days of our ancestors to this day we have been deep in guilt, and for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been handed over to the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as is now the case” (Ezra 9:7).

Now, even back in the land, the moral state of the people remained unchanged; their sin still had to be dealt with.

As we shall see in the next installment, the problem of Israel’s bondage was greater than either the external oppression by empires or the internal sinfulness of the people.