Macbeth’s Tragedy: Fate or Folly?

Most of Shakespeare’s plays deal with themes such as the natural vs. the supernatural, misuse of power, ambition, guilt, etc. But, specifically to The Tragedy of Macbeth we frequently encounter the theme of fate, which is given priority over other minor issues and influence over the play as a whole. However, despite the popular idea of fatalism (fate governs one’s life) both Shakespeare’s Masterpiece and the Bible agree that fate is not the leading cause of man’s tragic end, but rather “man’s own folly ruins his life” (Prov 19:3)

As the play commenced, we were introduced to three very sinister witches who were key to the development of the plot. “They were not ordinary witches or seeresses. They were great powers of destiny, great ministers of fate. (G. L. Kittredge). The three witches’ purpose was the devil’s: to deceive, kill, and destroy. They pretended to be on Macbeth’s side, but they were just manipulating him and playing with the lives of many others as well. But really it was Macbeth’s own desires that made him sin. In the first part the Witches contacted Macbeth to let him have a glimpse of what the future looked like for him. They declared that Macbeth would not only be Thane of Glamis, but also of Cawdor and finally king over all of Scotland. At first, Macbeth went through a stage of unbelief and said: “by Sinel’s death I know I am thane of Glamis; but how of Cawdor? The thane of Cawdor lives, a prosperous gentleman; and to be king stands not within the prospect of belief” (I. iii. 71-74). He communicated to us his conviction that the witches’ predictions were impossible. However, later we also see in Macbeth a spark of interest and eagerness to know his future as he says: “Stay, you imperfect speakers, tell me more!” (V.iii. 71.)

As soon as the first prediction became true, Macbeth started to desire what seemed like a nice life. Nevertheless, he recognized that even though having the title of king seemed like a good thing, it was certainly not good because it was leading him to think of murder, which he could not conceive at the time. He said: “If good, why do I yield to that suggestion whose horrid image doth unfix my hair and make my seated heart knock at my ribs?” (I.iii.38-40.) Moreover, right after having first consented the idea of killing Duncan, he quickly dismisses the thought of it because he comes to the conclusion that: “if chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me, without my stir” (I. iii. 44-45.) If what the witches told him was truly fate, he wouldn’t have to do anything, instead things would just naturally fall into their rightful place.

Later, we discover abruptly that even though Macbeth came to the previous conclusions on his own, they weren’t enough to keep him from performing evil. Subtly, Macbeth became a fool because even though he knew what was right he was not able to put it into practice. Banquo also warned Macbeth against the witches by saying: “oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray’s in deepest consequence” (I. iii. 25-29.) But after having already neglected his own conscience, it was easier for Macbeth to ignore this friendly advice too and immediately start planning the execution of his evil desires.

One of the greatest factors that influenced Macbeth’s decision to murder Duncan was his own wife. At first, Lady Macbeth manipulated him through the mocking of his “manliness” and her delusions of ambition. “She (was) vehement, assuming first that fate ha(d) already made its decision and she (had to) do whatever (was) necessary to become the handmaiden of destiny” (Coursen, H. R.)  However, further into the plot, Lady Macbeth’s threats were no longer necessary because Macbeth was able to take the reins of his own destiny; embracing his sinful nature. Ecclesiastes 6:10  says: “man ... is not able to dispute with one stronger than he.” And this is a perfect explanation of Macbeth’s internal conflict, for even though it was against his will, he yielded to his sinful nature which was greater than him; and it was also easier now, for fate was on his side.

 Eventually Macbeth killed Duncan and became king, but this did not satisfy him. After these events, something else began to roam through Macbeth’s mind and tortured him endlessly: the thought that Banquo’s sons were going to be kings, just like the witches predicted too. Macbeth was determined not to let this happen and started seeing his good friend Banquo as an enemy, and his mind would not be at ease until he did something about it.

  In fear of losing his throne to Banquo’s lineage, Macbeth decided that Banquo must be murdered together with his children. But this time, evil was incrusted deeper into Macbeth’s heart, therefore he did not even need his wife again to spark another assassination. Moreover, as the foolish idea of killing Banquo festered inside Macbeth, the roles suddenly switched: Macbeth was no longer trying to accomplish fate’s will, but he was now against it by trying to prevent Banquo from having a line of successors. Once again, Macbeth executed his bloody plan by killing Banquo, which eventually led him to kill Macduff’s noble wife and children and young Siward. We must understand that these murders are nothing but the foreshadow Macbeth’s own downfall. This resembles what Proverbs 16:4-5 says: “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.” From this we can infer that this view from scripture is Macbeth’s outcome is coherent with what scripture also foretells will happen to those who sow wickedness.

      Near the end of the play, Macbeth recognized that he was mistaken by trusting the witches (which was true) but he still did not realize that what brought destruction upon him were his own wicked decisions.  Macbeth did not understand that “each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed” (James 1:13-14.) Macbeth was apparently unaware of the fact that “A man's own folly ruins his life” therefore he blamed it on the witches and on fate, which also fulfils the second part of the verse: “yet his heart rages against the LORD” (Proverbs 19:3), which simply means that “When a man foolishly wrecks his life, he may yet insist on blaming God, or perhaps ‘Fate.’ In this way, he persists in his folly.”

What ruined Macbeth was not the knowledge of his fate through the witches, but his response to this knowledge. He liked what he was foretold, and he did everything in his hands to make it true, but as a result he received the punishment for his own folly: he died by Macduff’s sword. “Macduff is, in this sense, the fulfilment of Macbeth's foolish wish to replace natural succession with abrupt violence” (Bloom, Harold.) I believe it wasn’t charm that made the witches be accurate about the future events, but their knowledge of Macbeth’s will; they discerned the evil desires of his heart and therefore knew that he would fulfil their prediction on his own. Bloom, Harold says of Macbeth: “Hence we speak of destiny or fate, as if it were some external force or moral order, compelling him against his will to certain destruction... but he is imprisoned in the world he has made” (William Shakespeare''s Macbeth.)

At the denouement of the play, we see that “Shakespeare attempts no solution of the problem of free will and predestination. . . . He never gives us the impression that man is not responsible for his own acts” (G. L. Kittredge.) Now we know that The Tragedy of Macbeth shows how We know the Bible tells the truth, and Shakespeare also had to portray some sort of truth to make his plays “believable” to the human soul. Therefore both had to agree to the fact that even though God is sovereign over all things, as humans we choose our own fate, and that can either edify us our destroy us. Also, we have to have in mind that Shakespeare’s patron was King James himself, also the patron of the King James Bible, therefore there is no reason for these works to contradict, but instead they had to be constantly in agreement, for they had the same patron.

WORKS CITED

G. L. Kittredge 1939, xviii-xix, cited in  Coursen, H. R. Macbeth A Guide to the Play. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15348086. Internet. Accessed 16 September 2011.

Coursen, H. R. Macbeth A Guide to the Play. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15348086. Internet. Accessed 16 September 2011.

Bloom, Harold, ed. William Shakespeare''s Macbeth. New York: Chelsea House, 1987. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98109508. Internet. Accessed 16 September 2011.

Essay on Job

Nataly Arenas
Philosophy of Christianity

The book of Job is one that most Christians purposely avoid because of its tedious, long, and hard-to- understand speeches.  What sometimes we forget is that it makes part of the wisdom books, one who will broad your understanding of the character of God and is necessary for each Christian to read in order to uncover the heresy of the prosperity theology, learn about theodicy and therefore use apologetics to strengthen other’s and your own faith.  

The book of Job can be classified not only as a wisdom book but as a historical piece. The story of Job is simple to understand but hard to interiorize because it uncovers a reality that can change your entire vision of how Christianity works. The first two chapters explain the basic situation, where Job was a man who probably lived before God had established his covenant with Abraham.  Job was blameless before the people and upright before the Lord. He feared God and shunned evil. There is also a very impressive description regarding his wealth. He was the greatest man among all the people in the East and he was also the priest of his family. The Bible says that Job’s regular custom was to make sacrifices early in the morning for his children in case that they cursed God in their hearts.

One day, when the enemy presented himself before the Lord, God addressed Job’s piety. The enemy replied with a rhetorical question in which he implied that Job had a conditional righteousness upon God’s blessing, but if God would stretch out his hand and strike everything he had, Job would surely curse him to His face.  God accepted the wager and let the enemy take away Job’s wealth and family, but not his health.  The next time that the enemy went before the Lord, “the LORD said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason." (Job 2:3).

 One of the things that was the most complicated for me when studying the book of Job was theodicy, which is answering the problem of evil justifying God.  How do you demonstrate God’s justice in a book where he seems to be entirely the opposite? This book says that even though Job was pious before the Lord, God destituted him of every possession, his family and his health “for no reason”. And also, near the end, God also restituted everything to Job, which seemed like he was compensating him for some wrong he did to him. At a first glance, God’s justice seemed completely gone, but then, I was forced into looking deeper into the book, and only then I understood God’s greater justice and mercy throughout every situation. As it says in I Corinthians 10:13: “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.” God’s justice is evident in this verse, God knew that Job could withstand this terrible trial and come out with a new and strengthened character.  

Apparently, Job suffered without any reason, but what this means is that he did not sin in order to deserve punishment. But God DID have a reason; God might have tested Job in order to see whether he had a conditional or unconditional faith, or perhaps to show His glory.                     But even if God did not have a reason, justice is not the only thing that matters. We don’t really want God to be just with us! If he were just we would all be dead because we are sinners. God doesn’t worry that much about being just, but about being merciful and compassionate.  Grace is breaking justice, and God is graceful. We will never understand some of these things due to our limited minds. The only thing that is required from us is faith, and trust in God’s perfect will for our lives. As Romans 8:28 says: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” One last time, God is also just because at the end, he answers Job’s prayer by appearing to him; God confronts and comforts Job, and finally Job doesn’t need any more explanations, he just sees God and is satisfied. If God had explained everything that had happened to Job, we would all be waiting for God to explain our own suffering, which most of the times does not happen.

This leads us to another important point. God wants our righteousness, and this is evident because he had a fatherly pride on Job’s piety, (this proves that Eliphaz’s rhetorical question, “What pleasure would it give the Almighty if you were righteous?” was completely mistaken.) But not only this, God also wants our unconditional faith.  It doesn’t matter if we are suffering, we have to remain righteous, like Job did even though he was pressured by his wife to curse God and die. There are many people that think that we should only be pious in order to earn God’s grace and salvation, and this is a great falsehood, which again addresses the heresy of the prosperity theology. According to Zophar, Job was suffering because of his own wickedness; but now I understand that this theology was so wrong that it was sinful and Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar had to make sacrifices for their sin and only Job could pray for them in order for God to forgive them. God was furious at how these three friends insulted His just and holy character and how they failed to comfort Job. The truth is that even the most righteous people suffer, and we have great examples, starting with Jesus, then Paul, David, Daniel, Joseph, and many others.

Job’s problem was that he fixed his eyes upon his own little problem, forgetting God’s sovereignty. And Although Job 2:3 says that he did not sin by charging the Lord with wrong doing, we have to keep in mind that there were many things that Job said afterward that seemed to blaspheme against God (without cursing him or losing fellowship with him), and God’s appearance in anger at the end confirmed Job’s missteps.

We learn from this book that sometimes we have to step back and get out of our own individual problem in order to see God’s justice, which is not always evident, except on an universal scale. And like Job, our faith has to be unbought and unconditional; in order for it to be successful we do not necessarily have to ask God the reason of our suffering, but trust that His will is perfect and that our character will be perfected and purified by the trial. At the end, we should only want to see God’s face and feel satisfied by his presence; He Himself shall be the answer to all our problems. We should not serve God in order for him to like us, but in gratitude for what he has already done.