There
is a moment in the Tragedy of Macbeth, where it is becoming clear that the
future he and Lady Macbeth had tried to grasp will be ripped from his hand, and
when he has just been informed that his wife has ended her own life with
violence, where Shakespeare gives Macbeth this amazing soliloquy:
“She should have
died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
To-morrow,
and to-morrow, and to-morrow.
Three
times in the opening chapter of the Gospel According to John, the biographer
John writes: the next day, the next day, the next day.
To-morrow,
and to-morrow, and to-morrow.
Building
a sense of inevitability. A player stepping out on the stage. A tale told. But
when his hour comes, this poor player will not be forgotten. The telling of
this tale is not sound and fury, signifying nothing, but signs and passion,
that the heater might believe for themselves.
[Bonus
trivia connection: Macbeth act 5 scene 5 continues with Macbeth threatening a
messenger:
“If thou speak’st
false,
Upon the next tree shalt thou hang alive,
Till famine cling thee:”]
John
breaks the petty pace pattern of the next day, the next day, the next day at
the start of chapter 2, declaring: On the third day ...
...
an image he will carry through chapter 2 when Jesus moves from a wedding at
Cana (On the third day) to the temple in Jerusalem, where when he is challenged
to justify his driving out the animals, both the sheep and the cattle [note,
contrary to those who use this incident to justify violence, the whip is not
used against fellow humans, as if Jesus was an Egyptian overseer of Hebrew
slaves, but as a practical means of directing livestock], he replies with an
enigmatic statement his apprentices later understand as a prediction of his
death [parched, hanging on a tree, charged with and declared guilty of false
speech] and resurrection (in three days).
The
difference between Macbeth, who was not only a literary character but also an
historical king of Scotland for seventeen years, and Jesus, who is not only an
historical person but also a literary character, is that Jesus does not despise
the way to dusty death as the way of fools; he is the Way, and in walking the
way faithfully – keeping faith with frail humanity – transforms dusty death
into the door to life; a candle – the light of life – extinguished, briefly,
only to reignite.
But
before we get to the temple, and long before we get to the foretold death and
resurrection, On the third day John takes us to a wedding in Cana of Galilee,
where six stone jars that had held water are refilled with water, which is
transformed into wine.
The
point is not that the wine is better than the water. This is not Jesus
superseding Judaism. The wine is the water, transformed, not replaced. The
detail John notes is the instruction to fill the jars to the brim. That is, the
water that was already in the jars has been depleted: you cannot fill a full
jar. First depletion, then filling, then transformation. We must embrace loss,
the impact of death, if we are to experience gain, the promise of life.
This
is what Macbeth failed to grasp, and what we so often fail to grasp.