It is true to say that, for the most part, Scriptural interpretation of the Middle Ages was allegorical. The Roman

Catholic Church has maintained the validity of the allegorical method, though there is evidence that later on, some

of their scholars saw the excesses that resulted from this in Patristic theology, and were prepared to admit the

importance of the literal meaning of Scripture. Roman Catholics accept the Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome as

the authentic version for public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions.

This church thus puts itself into the awkward position of basing its doctrines on a translation instead of the

original languages of Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek. This is a great weakness, for no one translation, however good,

can adequately set forth the truth of the original.

Moreover the Roman Catholic expositor is forced to accept obediently whatever the church specifically decrees

on the authorship of the books of the Bible, and some twenty verses have been officially interpreted and may not be

deviated from. Actually the number is more than this, because many of the official documents require definite

interpretations of certain verses. Roman Catholic exegesis became summed up during the Middle Ages in three

(1) A passage may have an allegorical or mystical meaning.

(2) It may have an anagogical or eschatological meaning, that is, it may prefigure or anticipate the church in glory.

(3) It may have a tropological meaning, that is, teach a way of life, or in other words, convey the moral significance

of the passage.

With its often excessive usage of types, the Roman Catholic diverges from the Protestant. Thus the manna in the

wilderness, the passover, the bread and wine of Melchizedek are made types of the Eucharist, thus ignoring the

controlling guide of New Testament usage. Such exposition can never be accepted by the honest searcher for truth.

It is reading into Scripture what is not there, and is the fruit of the allegorical method of interpretation, which is used

to bolster up this sacramental and sacerdotal approach to the Bible. Further, the Roman Catholic believes that to his

church alone has been entrusted the Deposit of Truth in a two-fold form, (1) the oral form (tradition) and (2) the

written form (the Scriptures), and this written form, the Bible, is obscure and needs an official interpreter, which

must be the Church of Rome, to whom alone, he believes, it has been given by God. To him the oral tradition is of

equal authority with the Word of God because he believes that both have come from God, and are complementary.

Furthermore, no passage of Scripture can be interpreted to conflict with Roman Catholic doctrine.

It is therefore obvious that the Protestant expositor is always at a disadvantage when disputing on doctrinal

matters with a Roman Catholic. Whereas the former will take his stand solely on God's Word, the latter can always

retreat and bring in his oral tradition, which he believes to be as much God's truth as the Bible. The more one

studies the Roman Catholic position, the more one is thankful for the great liberating effect of the Reformation.

Believers today have largely forgotten what they owe to God for this great movement: freedom of conscience, and

approach to Him through the Lord Jesus Christ alone, and not through any human sacerdotal system with its

inevitable bondage.

When Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, they were separated from

the Temple and its regulations, and could no longer practice their religion as outlined in the books of Moses. This

state of things finally led to Judaism with its synagogues, rabbis and traditions. The vast system of Jewish

interpretation that resulted is a separate study in itself, and it is practically impossible to sum it up adequately.

Various schools emerged with opposing ideas. The Karaites were the literalists and the Kabbalists the allegorists.

The Palestinian Jews of post-captivity days started off well with a literal approach to the Scriptures, but they often

failed to put into practice the rules they laid down. In Kabbalism excessive literalism was allied to allegorism with

grotesque results.  They used gematria to endow words with numerical values which became the basis for

interpretation that was absurd or pernicious.

While we believe that certain numbers are used in Scripture with intent, such as 6, 7, 12, 13, 40 and so on, we

need to take warning and keep this under control. We have seen some extraordinary interpretations of Scripture

result from those with a mathematical inclination who have let their minds run riot along these lines.