The Elizabethans studied the Bible according to the typological doctrine. The typology sought to resolve the problem of broken continuity between the Old and New Testaments by positioning the Old Testament (the Old Law) as the foreshadowing of its own fulfillment by the New Testament (the New Law). An important schism between the Old and New Laws was that between the legitimacy of salvation through "antinomianism" or "legalism." Legalism, as described by Christian theology, is an inappropriate devotion to the laws, particularly the Mosaic Law. Used pejoratively, legalism indicated an individual's insensitivity and misplaced pride, as well as a demonstration of neglect of the ideas of mercy and faith taught by the New Law. William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice offers insight into the conflicting ideas about law, mercy, salvation, and God's grace that are present in the Old and New Laws. Through typological references to the biblical story of Jacob, Shakespere defends the Elizabethan belief of antinomianism rather than legalism and the succession of the new law to the old. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock, a Jewish pawnbroker, is the antagonist, but his character cannot simply be reduced to villain status. Shylock is a follower of the Mosaic law and believes that his actions are strictly in accordance with the law. In Act IV Scene I, Shylock makes everyone aware that “I stand for judgment” and, above all, “I thirst for the law” (4.1.103, 204). In the eyes of the Elizabethan public, he is Jewish and legalistic and therefore can never accept the ideals of divine law, mercy and forgiveness. Shakespeare created a character who views himself, his profession, and his actions as true and justified in accordance with his law, faith, and circumstances. However, to Christian audiences, these same actions would be seen as an allegiance to pride and vengeance. Shylock's occupation of ursury, the imposition of exorbitantly high interest rates on money lent, was seen by the Elizabethans as a dreadful indication of the unbridled greed of the usurer. In England, usury was an official reason for the edict of expulsion, but in Venice it was necessary for the further development of the merchant economy. In Act I, scene iii, Shylock attempts to justify interest on loans. He begins with the account of Genesis 30:25-43, the story of Jacob and the sheep of Laban, but Antonio urges him to get to the point of his story. Irritated and dismissive, Antonio asks, “[and] what about him?” Did he charge interest? (1.3.73). Shylock responds: “No, don't interest yourself, not as you would say/Interest yourself directly” (1.3.74-5). In other words, Jacob became very rich thanks to his ingenuity. Shylock's final point is that "It was a way to prosper, and he was blessed/And thrift is a blessing, if men steal it is not" (1.3.87-88). Antonio debunks Shylock's justification by stating that it was "a thing which it was not in his power to bring about/but was influenced and shaped by the hand of heaven" (3.1.90-1 ). It was not Jacob's ingenuity, but God's will that made Jacob rich and prosperous. It is strange that Shylock would use such an argument to defend usury. He associates usury with deception, and all wealth is a blessing as long as it is not stolen. A better justification would have been Deuteronomy 23:20-1: “To a stranger you can lendinterest, but to your brother you will not end with interest, that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you put your hand to, in the land whither you go to possess it." The Weakness of Justification of Shylock suggests that Shakespeare intended to draw a parallel between Shylock and Jacob In Act II scene v, Shylock states "By Jacob's staff I swear" (2.5.37); noted that Shylock's wife was named Leah, the name of Jacob's first wife. The most interesting parallel is suggested in Act I, scene iii, where Shylock says to himself: "If I may. catch [Antonio] once on the hip” (1.3.43) As Jacob traveled to confront Esau, he met a stranger on the way and wrestled with him Genesis 32.26 states that “When the man saw that he. could not prevail upon him, he struck Jacob's hip at his socket, so that the hip socket was miserable while they wrestled." Shylock hopes that God will deliver him to Antonio, just as God delivered the flocks to Jacob. He wants Antonio to be helpless and vulnerable. Indeed, Antonio becomes helpless, and when the news is announced, Shylock shouts "I thank God! I thank God!". If the ancient law was taken into account and debt was currency, then Shylock would be righteous, however, he goes too far with his lust for the flesh, violating both Mosaic law and Venetian law. His strict adherence to the Old Law is left in ruins by his need for Antonio's flesh, as he unknowingly begins to violate Exodus 21.23-25: "But if there be a wound serious, you will have to take life for life, an eye for an eye. , hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise". The injuries Shylock suffered were serious in an emotional sense, but by no means serious in a physical sense. Shakespeare transforms Shylock into a beast thirsting for blood, announcing "I am a dog, beware of my fangs" (3.3.7). He abandons his sense of his own humanity, compounding his inability to accept the new law of mercy and forgiveness that was his only hope. God seems to have abandoned Shylock, ultimately leaving him with a mixed understanding of justice and without his religion. He is defeated by a more vigorous adherence to the law. Why would God abandon Shylock? from Act II, the clown Lancelot wonders if he should continue to serve his Jewish master or if he should serve a new Christian master. Finally, Lancelot decides that “...the Jew is the very incarnation of the devil. » and that “I will run” (2.2.25, 29). On his way to his new master, Lancelot encounters his father “more than blind to sand, / blind to gravel,” who “knows me not” (2.2.33-34). Lancelot plays a trick on his father, making him believe that his son has “gone to heaven” (2.2.61-2). After some pleasantries, Lancelot reveals that he is his son and, mockingly, kneels, asking his father to "Give me your blessing" (2.2.75). A particular observation is made by old Gobbo. He notices Lancelot's facial hair, with a feeling of astonishment: "What a beard you have!" (2.2.89-90). The incident between Lancelot and old Gobbo is a reference to the story of Jacob and Esau, and Lancelot's preference for a Christian master should not be overlooked. If interpreted typologically, the scene refers to the passage of God's favor. Just as the blessing and birthright were passed from Esau to Jacob, Christ passed God's favor from the Jewish community to the Christians. The Old Law was seen as fulfilled and surpassed by the New Testament, with the spirit, offering grace and mercy, becoming more important and influential than the law. Shylock's use of, 2006. 179-212.