The Elizabethans studied the Bible according to 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 prefiguring its own fulfillment by the New Testament (the New Law). A significant schism between the Old and New Law was that between the legitimacy of salvation through "antinomianism" or "legalism." Legalism, as described by Christian theology, is an inappropriate dedication to the laws, especially the Mosaic Law. Used pejoratively, legalism indicated an individual's callousness and misplaced pride, as well as a demonstration of abandonment of the ideas of mercy and faith taught by the New Law. William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice offers insight into the contrasting ideas of God's law, mercy, salvation, and grace that are present in the Old and New Laws. Through typological references to the biblical story of Jacob, Shakespere supports the Elizabethan belief of antinomianism over legalism and the succession of the New Law over the Old. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock, a Jewish loan shark, 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 strictly comply with the law. In scene i of Act IV, Shylock makes everyone aware that "I stand judgment" and beyond all else "desire 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 believes himself, his occupation, and his actions to be true and justified in accordance with his law, his faith, and his circumstances. However, to the Christian public, those same actions would be perceived as an allegiance to pride and revenge. Shylock's pursuit of usury, the imposition of exorbitant and high interest rates for loaned money, was seen by the Elizabethans as a frightening indication of the unbridled greed of the usurer. In England usury had been the official reason for the edict of expulsion, but in Venice it was necessary for the further development of the mercantile economy. In scene iii of Act I, Shylock tries to justify charging interest on loans. He begins by telling Genesis 30.25-43, the story of Jacob and Laban's sheep, but is urged by Anthony to get to the heart of his story. Irritated and disdainful, Antonio asks: "[and] what about him? Did he charge interest?" (1.3.73). Shylock replies, “No, not to care, not as you would say/ To care directly” (1.3.74-5). That is, Jacob became very rich due to his resourcefulness. Shylock's final point is that "This was a way to prosper, and it was blessed / And thrift is a blessing, if men steal it is not" (1.3.87-8). Antony debunks Shylock's justification by stating that it was "A thing that was not in his power to make/ But influenced and shaped by the hand of heaven" (3.1.90-1). It was not Jacob's resourcefulness, but God's will that made him rich and prosperous. It is strange that Shylock uses such an argument to defend usury. He interweaves usury with deception and says that any fortune is a blessing until it is stolen. A better justification would have been Deuteronomy 23.20-1: "To a stranger you may lend at interest; but to your brother you shall not end up at interest; so that the Lord your God may bless you in all thatyou will set your hand, in the land where you are about to enter to possess it." The weakness of Shylock's justification 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 it" ( 2.5.37); and it is also noted that Shylock's wife was called Leah, the name of Jacob's first wife. The most interesting parallel is suggested in scene iii of Act I, where Shylock says to himself that "If I can get it. [Anthony] once on the side" (1.3.43). While Jacob was traveling to face Esau, he met a stranger on the road and wrestled with him. Genesis 32:26 states that "When the man saw that he could not prevail against him he, struck Jacob's hip in the joint, so that the hip joint was miserable as they wrestled." Shylock hopes that God will deliver him to Anthony, just as God delivered the flocks to Jacob. He wants Anthony to be defenseless and vulnerable. Indeed, Antonio becomes defenseless, and when the news is broken, Shylock shouts "Thank God! I thank God!". If the Old Law were taken into account and debt was currency, then Shylock would be right, however, he goes too far with his desire for the flesh, violating both the Mosaic and Venetian Law. His strict adherence to The Ancient Law is undermined by Anthony's need for the flesh, while he, unknowingly, begins to violate Exodus 21.23-25: "But if there is a serious wound, you will take life for life, an eye for an eye". by hand, foot by foot, burn by burn, wound by wound, bruise by bruise." The wounds Shylock suffered were severe on an emotional level, but not at all severe in a physical sense. Shakespeare turns Shylock into a thirsty beast of 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 abandoned Shylock, ultimately leaving him with a mixed understanding of justice and without his religion. It is defeated by more vigorous adherence to the law. Why would God abandon Shylock? The explanation begins with the beginning of scene ii of Act II, the clown Lancelot debates whether to continue serving his Jewish master or serve a new Christian master. Ultimately, Lancelot decides that "...the Jew is the very incarnation of the devil" and that "I will run" (2.2.25, 29). On the way to his new master, Lancelot meets his father "more than sand-blind, / blind from deep gravel," who "knows me not" (2.2.33-34). Lancelot plays a prank on his father, leading him to believe that his son has "gone to heaven" (2.2.61-2). After some joking, Lancelot reveals that he is his son and, mockingly, kneels down and asks his father, "Give me your blessing" (2.2.75). A curious observation is made by old Gobbo. He observes Lancelot's facial hair, with a sense of amazement: "What a beard you have!" (2.2.89-90). The incident between Lancelot and the old Hunchback is a reference to the story of Jacob and Esau, and Lancelot's preference for a Christian teacher should not be overlooked. When interpreted typologically, the scene refers to the passing 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 superseded by the New Testament, the spirit, offering grace and mercy, became more important and influential than the law. Shylock's reference to Jacob is therefore in vain. For the Elizabethans Jacob represents the Christian community: God will not deliver Anthony to the Jew, but the Jew to the Christians. Graziano cries "Now, infidel, I hold you by my side" (4.1.332). Ironically, Shylock does, 2006. 179-212.