Chapter 12: Extreme Dispensationalism Gone Wrong

Dispensationalism, as a system for understanding God’s progressive revelation in Scripture, can be a helpful tool when properly applied. Many faithful Christians hold to various forms of dispensational theology while maintaining orthodox biblical faith. However, Finis Dake took dispensationalism to such hyperliteral extremes that his system ultimately undermines the very gospel it claims to uphold. His rigid compartmentalization of Scripture leads to multiple plans of salvation, different gospels for different times, and most shocking of all, a return to animal sacrifices that makes Christ’s death insufficient. This chapter exposes how Dake’s extreme dispensationalism has gone catastrophically wrong.

Dake, Finis Jennings. Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963.
—. God’s Plan for Man. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1949.
—. The Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1950.
—. Revelation Expounded. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1950.

The Foundation of Dake’s System

Dake’s dispensational system begins with a seemingly innocent desire to organize biblical history. In his “Ages and Dispensations,” he writes: “A dispensation as applied to the various ages means a moral or probationary period in history in which God tests free moral agents according to a fixed standard of conduct.” This definition appears reasonable on the surface. However, Dake takes this concept and builds upon it a system that fragments Scripture and ultimately contradicts the unified message of the Bible.

Dake’s writings contain more explicit statements about his dispensational structure. He declares that “the wills of free creatures must be tested to see if they are willing to cooperate with God for the greatest good of all”¹ and that “Moral agents must prove themselves true to become worthy of the confidence of the Creator before being entrusted with the eternal administration of the universe.”² This framework of testing free moral agents across different dispensations becomes the backbone of his entire theological system.

According to Dake, God’s eternal plan unfolds through strictly separated ages, each with its own unique requirements, methods of salvation, and relationship with God. He writes in “God’s Plan for Man”: “God has always had a plan for man. Before the first man was created, God had already mapped out the course of human history.” While this statement is biblically accurate, Dake’s application of it leads to a rigid system that makes God’s plan seem arbitrary and changeable rather than unified and consistent.

The problem isn’t that Dake recognizes different periods in biblical history—Scripture itself acknowledges progressive revelation. The problem is that Dake’s hyperliteral approach creates hard divisions where Scripture shows continuity, sees contradiction where the Bible demonstrates harmony, and invents new requirements where God has established eternal principles.

Multiple Plans of Salvation: The Fatal Error

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of Dake’s dispensationalism is his teaching that different dispensations have different plans of salvation. While orthodox dispensationalists maintain that salvation has always been by grace through faith (though the content of faith has progressively unfolded), Dake teaches that the actual basis and means of salvation change from dispensation to dispensation.

In his treatment of the Dispensation of Innocence, Dake suggests that Adam and Eve could have earned eternal life through obedience. He writes about “the test” in Eden as if passing it would have merited salvation apart from grace. This contradicts the biblical principle that even unfallen creatures depend entirely on God’s grace for their existence and blessing.

Moving to the Dispensation of Conscience, Dake implies that people were saved by following their conscience correctly. For the Dispensation of Human Government, he suggests obedience to human authority became a salvific requirement. Under the Dispensation of Law, Dake teaches that keeping the Mosaic Law was the means of salvation for Israel, writing: “The test in this dispensation is ‘the obedience of faith among all nations’ through the grace of God.”

Dake explicitly describes the Dispensation of Law as a distinct testing period where “Test—to obey the law of Moses in every detail”³ was the requirement. He further states that God’s “Purpose of God—to test Israel to see if they would obey Him; to begin a commonwealth of nations headed by Israel and governed by men of His own choice.”⁴ This represents a fundamentally different requirement than grace through faith alone.

This progression of different salvation requirements reaches its most problematic point when Dake discusses the current Dispensation of Grace and the future Millennium. He actually teaches that during the Tribulation and Millennium, people will be saved differently than they are today. In “The Rapture and the Second Coming,” he writes: “After the Church is raptured God will continue to save both Jews and Gentiles who will turn to Him.” But then he adds requirements and conditions that differ from the gospel of grace preached by Paul.

The biblical truth is that salvation has always been by grace through faith. Abraham was justified by faith (Genesis 15:6), not by works. David spoke of the blessing of righteousness apart from works (Psalm 32:1-2). The Old Testament saints looked forward to the Messiah by faith, while we look back to the completed work of Christ by faith. The object of faith—Christ—has been progressively revealed, but the means of salvation—grace through faith—has never changed.

Hebrews 11 makes this crystal clear by showing that all the Old Testament heroes were commended for their faith, not their works or their adherence to different dispensational requirements. They all “died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off” (Hebrews 11:13). They were saved by looking forward to what we look back upon—the cross of Christ.

Different Gospels for Different Times

Closely related to his multiple salvation plans, Dake teaches that there are actually different gospels for different dispensations. This directly contradicts Paul’s fierce declaration in Galatians 1:8: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

Dake distinguishes between what he calls “the gospel of the kingdom,” “the gospel of grace,” and future variations that will be preached during the Tribulation and Millennium. He writes in “The Rapture and the Second Coming”: “The purpose of God is not the conversion of the whole world (for He knows that all will not accept His graciousness), but the ‘calling out’ of a people for His name from all nations.”

According to Dake, the gospel Jesus preached (the gospel of the kingdom) was different from the gospel Paul preached (the gospel of grace), and both are different from what will be preached in the future. This creates a fragmented message where God seems to change His requirements arbitrarily based on the dispensation.

Dake is explicit that “the gospel (good news) of the kingdom in Mt. 24:14 is primarily Jewish and it refers to the good news that the kingdom of David and of Israel will soon be established in Jerusalem.”¹⁴ This clearly differentiates it from the gospel preached today in the Church Age.

In “Revelation Expounded,” Dake writes extensively about evangelism during the Millennium: “The Jewish people will become the missionaries of the gospel and priests of the law during this age and forever. They will, for the first time, really carry out God’s plan when He called out Abraham and promised to make his seed a blessing to all nations. The missionary program will be carried on then by the same means it is being carried on today, with the exception that it will be a governmental enterprise and not merely the enterprise of some small societies.”

Notice how Dake mixes “gospel” and “law” as if they will both be preached together in the Millennium. This confusion of law and gospel undermines the clarity of the New Testament message that we are “not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14).

The Bible teaches one gospel that has been progressively revealed. The “gospel of the kingdom” that Jesus preached included His death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31). The “gospel of grace” that Paul preached included the kingdom (Acts 28:31). These are not different gospels but different aspects of the one “everlasting gospel” (Revelation 14:6).

The Church vs. Israel Confusion

Dake’s rigid dispensationalism creates an unbiblical wall of separation between Israel and the Church. While recognizing a distinction between Israel and the Church can be helpful in understanding certain passages, Dake takes this to an extreme that contradicts the New Testament’s teaching about the unity of God’s people in Christ.

In “The Rapture and the Second Coming,” Dake writes: “As we have seen from proofs above, God did deal mainly with Israel from Abraham to Christ, but when Christ came He officially cut off Israel and turned to the Gentiles.” He continues: “After the Church is raptured God will continue to save both Jews and Gentiles who will turn to Him. When the rapture takes place, though, there will not be one saved Jew or Gentile left on the earth.”

This teaching creates multiple peoples of God with different destinies, different requirements, and different relationships with Him. Dake envisions Israel and the Church as eternally separate entities, with different roles in the Millennium and even in eternity.

Dake’s notes make clear his view that the Church and Israel remain distinct: “The N.T. church of ‘called out’ ones from both Jews and Gentiles…and called the body of Christ”⁶ is categorically different from “The whole congregation of ‘called out’ ones; God’s elect of the O.T. period.”⁷ He maintains nine different meanings for “church” in Scripture, keeping Old Testament Israel permanently separated from the New Testament body of Christ.

Dake further emphasizes that “The Old Testament Church was the earthly nation of Israel which will continue in an earthly calling forever. It was the living Jews and proselytes of the Old Testament days and will be in the future. It always has been made up of living earthly people and always will be. Those who have died cease to be members of this company of people by virtue of their death. They will be resurrected and become members of the heavenly family of God and part of the Bride of Christ.”¹⁵ This creates a sharp dividing line between earthly Israel and the heavenly Church.

However, Ephesians 2:14-16 explicitly states that Christ “hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”

Paul couldn’t be clearer: Christ has made Jew and Gentile one. There is one body, not two. One new man, not two separate peoples. The mystery revealed to Paul was precisely that “the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6).

Dake’s system requires him to maintain that God has two separate programs running simultaneously—one for Israel and one for the Church. This leads to his teaching that Jewish believers during the Tribulation won’t be part of the Church, that the 144,000 are a separate group with a different destiny, and that Israel will have a different role in eternity than the Church.

In “Ages and Dispensations,” he writes about the 144,000: “The 144,000 Jews will get saved after the rapture and will be translated as the manchild of Rev. 12:5 and be in heaven from then on (Rev. 14:1-5). Multitudes of Gentiles will become saved immediately after the rapture of the Church and Old Testament saints, but they will not be a part of the Church.”

Dake is even more explicit about this separation in his notes on Revelation, stating that the 144,000 “are to rule the nations with a rod of iron, as will Christ…the O.T. saints…the church saints…and the tribulation saints.”⁸ Yet he insists these groups maintain their separate identities even as they share this role. He further declares: “What the bride of Christ is not: 1. It is not Israel of O.T. times 2. It is not a part of the N.T. church 3. It is not the whole N.T. church 4. It is not the 144,000 Jews 5. It is not the tribulation saints.”⁹

This creates categories of saved people that the Bible never establishes. Scripture knows only two categories of humanity: those in Adam and those in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22), those who believe and those who don’t (John 3:36), the saved and the lost (Luke 19:10). Dake’s multiple categories of saved people with different destinies fragments the unity of God’s redemptive plan.

The Shocking Return to Animal Sacrifices

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Dake’s extreme dispensationalism is his insistence that animal sacrifices will be restored in the Millennium. This teaching effectively denies the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice and represents a return to the shadows after the reality has come.

Dake writes extensively about this in “Revelation Expounded”: “Every offering mentioned in the law was to be observed by Israel forever as proven by the following statements in the law, which are found from two to eight times in a single chapter: ‘It is a statute for ever.’ ‘By a statute forever throughout their generations.’ ‘This shall be an everlasting statute unto you.’ ‘By a perpetual statute.’ ‘By an ordinance forever.'”

He continues: “There is no question but what God intends to have a temple, an earthly priesthood, sacrifices, and feasts in the future, for that is what He revealed to Ezekiel (chapters 40-48) and promised Israel when He gave them ordinances to be observed throughout all their generations forever.”

Dake lists specific offerings he believes will be restored:

• “Burnt offerings, Ezek. 43:24-27; 45:17-25; 46:1-24”
• “Sin offering, Ezek. 43:19-23; 45:17-25; 46:1-24”
• “Meat offering, Ezek. 45:17-25; 46:1-24”
• “Trespass offering, Ezek. 46:20”
• “Peace offering”

His own commentary on Ezekiel is even more explicit. Dake states that “The mention of meat offerings, sin offerings, and trespass offerings is the first proof in these chapters of their eternal observance in the eternal kingdom of the Messiah on earth. The priests are to be the ministers of such a sacrificial program.”¹⁰ This is an unequivocal declaration that animal sacrifices will resume and continue eternally.

Furthermore, Dake insists that “The priesthood of the law of Moses was an eternal one. As far as the means of approach and the way of salvation and mediation to God are concerned, there has been a change. Men under the law had to come through the priests and offer certain sacrifices as a token of their faith, but today Christ our passover has been sacrificed once and forever for us by the which we can individually draw nigh to God any time we desire. But there will be the earthly priesthood and offerings in the future ages for earthly peoples; not for salvation, for the blood of bulls and goats did not take away sins even when they were offered; but for a memorial or object lesson to demonstrate that the people believe in what has been done for them through Christ.”¹⁶

To reconcile this with the New Testament’s clear teaching that Christ’s sacrifice ended animal sacrifices, Dake argues that these future sacrifices won’t be for salvation but as “a memorial or object lesson to demonstrate that the people believe in what has been done for them through Christ.” He writes: “These outward observances will not supercede the present individual salvation, or the means of approach to God, but will be added for earthly peoples to satisfy the natural instinct in man for something outward in religion.”

This explanation fails on multiple levels. First, Hebrews explicitly states that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Hebrews 10:4), and that Christ “offered one sacrifice for sins for ever” (Hebrews 10:12). The entire argument of Hebrews is that the old covenant with its sacrifices has been replaced by the new covenant in Christ’s blood.

Hebrews 10:18 states definitively: “Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” The Greek could not be clearer—where sins have been forgiven through Christ, there is no longer any offering for sin, whether salvific or memorial.

Furthermore, Dake’s argument that these sacrifices will be memorial contradicts his own hyperliteral hermeneutic. If “forever” means forever when God commanded sacrifices in the Old Testament, and if we must take Ezekiel’s temple vision literally, then these sacrifices must be real sacrifices, not mere memorials. Dake can’t have it both ways—either his literalism applies consistently, in which case these are real sin offerings (contradicting Hebrews), or it doesn’t, in which case his entire system collapses.

The idea that people will need animal sacrifices to “satisfy the natural instinct in man for something outward in religion” is particularly troubling. This suggests that Christ’s sacrifice and the Lord’s Supper He instituted as its memorial are somehow insufficient for future generations. It implies that God will reinstate the very system that He declares obsolete in Hebrews 8:13.

The Millennium: A Return to Law?

Dake’s vision of the Millennium involves a wholesale return to the Mosaic Law. He writes in “Revelation Expounded”: “The laws of God revealing His will in detail as given by Moses and Jesus Christ will be the laws of the kingdom. This includes the laws of both the Old and New Testaments. The outward laws, of course, will be the only ones enforced upon man.”

He continues: “The writers of these passages knew only of the law of Moses when they wrote, so when they mentioned ‘the law,’ they could have had in mind only the law of Moses. The law revealed the governmental plan and laws of God in detail which were sufficient to govern natural man regardless of his attitude to spiritual things.”

In his notes on the Millennium, Dake explicitly states: “Test—to obey Christ, resurrected saints, civil and religious laws of the kingdom, and conform to the will of God.”¹¹ Furthermore, he describes the test for those living in the Millennium: “Natural and depraved instincts, tendencies, and lusts will yet be a part of man’s nature, but his opportunities for overcoming them will be greater because there will be no satanic power or influence.”¹² This clearly indicates that salvation or judgment in the Millennium depends on obedience to law.

Dake also describes the Millennium as a time when “Feasts and offerings will be observed again,”¹⁷ including “Passover, Unleavened Bread, First-fruits, Pentecost, or Weeks, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles.”¹⁸ He further insists that “Besides these offerings and feasts, the new moons, the sabbaths, and ‘all the ordinances of the house of the Lord, and all the laws thereof,’ and ‘All solemnities of the house of Israel’ will be observed during the Millennium and even in the New Earth forever.”¹⁹

This represents a complete reversal of the New Testament’s teaching about the law. Paul declares that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Romans 10:4). He warns the Galatians: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Galatians 5:4).

The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 specifically determined that Gentile believers should not be placed under the yoke of the law. Peter asked, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). Yet Dake envisions a future where this very yoke will be reimposed.

Dake attempts to resolve this contradiction by distinguishing between “outward laws for the natural man” and “laws governing the spiritual man” in the Millennium. He writes: “Besides these natural outward laws for the natural man in the kingdom, there will be laws governing the spiritual man; i.e., the man who will desire spiritual things and live in the Spirit.”

This creates a two-tier system of righteousness that the New Testament explicitly rejects. There is one standard of righteousness—Christ Himself. There is one way of salvation—grace through faith. There is one Spirit who works in all believers. The idea of different laws for “natural” and “spiritual” people in the kingdom contradicts the unity of God’s redemptive purpose.

Eternal Segregation: Dispensationalism’s Darkest Fruit

Dake’s extreme dispensationalism extends even into eternity, where he envisions continued separation between different groups of the redeemed. This flows from his rigid separation of Israel and the Church and his racial views (discussed in Chapter 10).

According to Dake, the various groups of saints—Old Testament saints, Church saints, Tribulation saints, and Millennial saints—will maintain their distinct identities and roles throughout eternity. He writes about “the 144,000 Jewish saints, as seen in Fallacy 9, Chapter 9” as being “separate from the Old Testament saints, the Church saints.”

This eternal compartmentalization contradicts the biblical vision of all the redeemed as one family in Christ. Revelation 7:9 describes “a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” standing before the throne as one unified group. The New Jerusalem is described as the bride of Christ (Revelation 21:2), not multiple brides or a segregated city.

Jesus prayed “that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us” (John 17:21). Dake’s system denies the answer to Christ’s prayer by maintaining eternal divisions among the redeemed.

How This Undermines the Finished Work of Christ

The cumulative effect of Dake’s extreme dispensationalism is to undermine the finished work of Christ in multiple ways:

1. It Makes Christ’s Sacrifice Incomplete

By teaching that animal sacrifices will resume, even as memorials, Dake implies that Christ’s sacrifice needs supplementation. The Lord’s Supper, instituted by Christ Himself as the memorial of His death, is apparently insufficient for future generations who will need animal blood to remind them of redemption.

2. It Makes Christ’s Victory Partial

If the law must be reinstituted in the Millennium, then Christ has not fully delivered us from its bondage. His declaration “It is finished” becomes “It is temporarily suspended.” The freedom we have in Christ becomes a dispensational parenthesis rather than an eternal reality.

3. It Makes Christ’s Body Divided

By maintaining rigid separation between Israel and the Church, between different groups of saints, Dake denies the unity Christ died to create. The “one new man” of Ephesians 2:15 becomes multiple men with different destinies, different requirements, and different relationships with God.

4. It Makes Christ’s Redemption Reversible

If people can return to law-keeping and animal sacrifices in the future, then the redemption Christ accomplished is not permanent. The “eternal redemption” of Hebrews 9:12 becomes temporary redemption subject to dispensational changes.

5. It Makes Christ’s Gospel Changeable

By teaching different gospels for different times, Dake makes the message of salvation unstable and unreliable. The “everlasting gospel” becomes an evolving gospel that changes based on the dispensation. This undermines confidence in the message we preach today.

The Problem of Hyperliteral Interpretation

The root of Dake’s dispensational errors lies in his hyperliteral approach to biblical interpretation. When God told Israel that certain ordinances were “forever,” Dake insists this must mean they will resume in the future, regardless of the New Testament’s clear teaching that these ordinances have been fulfilled and superseded in Christ.

This hyperliteralism fails to recognize that “forever” (Hebrew: olam) in the Old Testament often means “for the entire duration of the age” or “as long as the conditions exist.” The Aaronic priesthood was to be “everlasting” (Exodus 40:15), yet Hebrews declares it has been changed (Hebrews 7:12). The Sabbath was a “perpetual covenant” (Exodus 31:16), yet Colossians tells us not to let anyone judge us regarding Sabbaths (Colossians 2:16).

Furthermore, Dake’s literalism is inconsistent. When it comes to Ezekiel’s temple vision, he insists on literal animal sacrifices but then spiritualizes them as merely memorial. When it comes to Old Testament commands about sacrifices being “forever,” he takes them literally, but when it comes to New Testament statements about the end of sacrifices, he finds ways to explain them away.

True biblical interpretation recognizes that the Old Testament must be read in light of the New Testament, not vice versa. The book of Hebrews exists precisely to show how the shadows of the Old Testament find their substance in Christ. To return to the shadows after the reality has come is not biblical literalism—it’s biblical regression.

A Balanced Approach to Understanding Scripture’s Progression

How then should we understand the progression of Scripture and God’s dealings with humanity throughout history? A balanced approach recognizes both continuity and discontinuity, both unity and diversity in God’s plan.

Recognizing Progressive Revelation

The Bible does teach progressive revelation—God revealed His plan gradually throughout history, with each stage building on the previous one. The full light of the gospel wasn’t revealed to Adam, Abraham, or Moses in the same way it was revealed through Christ and the apostles. This is not because God changed, but because He chose to unveil His eternal plan progressively.

However, progressive revelation doesn’t mean God had different plans—it means He revealed one plan progressively. The promise of Genesis 3:15 (the seed of the woman crushing the serpent’s head) is the same gospel we preach today, just in seed form. Abraham saw Christ’s day and was glad (John 8:56). Moses wrote about Christ (John 5:46). The prophets searched diligently to understand the salvation they were predicting (1 Peter 1:10-11).

Understanding Continuity and Discontinuity

There is both continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. The moral character of God never changes. The way of salvation—by grace through faith—never changes. The ultimate goal—God’s glory through redeemed humanity—never changes.

What does change is the administration of God’s plan. The law was a tutor to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Once Christ came, we no longer need the tutor. The temple was a shadow of the true tabernacle in heaven (Hebrews 8:5). Once we have access to the reality, we don’t need the shadow. The sacrifices pointed forward to Christ’s sacrifice. Once He has been sacrificed, no other sacrifice is needed.

Seeing Christ as the Center

A balanced approach sees Christ as the center of all Scripture. The Old Testament points forward to Him. The New Testament proclaims Him. The future glorifies Him. This Christocentric reading of Scripture prevents the fragmentation that characterizes Dake’s system.

When we see Christ as the center, we understand that:

• All the promises of God are “yes” and “amen” in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20)
• Christ is the end (goal) of the law for righteousness (Romans 10:4)
• In Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells bodily (Colossians 2:9)
• Christ is the mediator of a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6)
• All things are being summed up in Christ (Ephesians 1:10)

Maintaining the Unity of God’s People

A balanced approach recognizes that while God has worked through different groups throughout history (Israel, the Church), His ultimate purpose is to create one unified people for His glory. The Church doesn’t replace Israel (replacement theology), nor is it completely separate from Israel (Dake’s view). Rather, the Church is the expansion of true Israel to include Gentiles, creating one new humanity in Christ.

This maintains both the distinctiveness of Israel as a nation with unfulfilled promises and the unity of all believers as one body in Christ. It avoids both the error of denying any future for national Israel and the error of creating multiple peoples of God with different destinies.

Affirming the Sufficiency of Christ’s Work

Most importantly, a balanced approach maintains the absolute sufficiency of Christ’s finished work. His sacrifice needs no supplementation, no repetition, no memorial beyond what He Himself instituted. His victory over law, sin, and death is complete and final. His gospel is the everlasting gospel that will never change or be replaced.

This means that whatever the future holds—whether a literal millennium, the eternal state, or anything else—it will be characterized by the centrality of Christ and the sufficiency of His work, not by a return to shadows, laws, or sacrifices that He has superseded.

The Damage to Practical Christian Living

Dake’s extreme dispensationalism doesn’t just affect theology—it has serious practical implications for Christian living today. When believers accept his system, it affects how they read the Bible, how they understand their relationship with God, and how they live out their faith.

Creating Confusion About Biblical Application

If different dispensations have different requirements, how do believers know which biblical commands apply to them? Dake’s system creates uncertainty about which parts of Scripture are for today and which are for other dispensations. This can lead to either legalistic application of commands not meant for the Church or antinomian rejection of biblical principles that transcend dispensations.

For example, when Jesus gives commands in the Sermon on the Mount, are these for the Church Age or the Millennial Kingdom? Dake’s system suggests they’re primarily for the future kingdom, potentially leading believers to dismiss Christ’s ethical teaching as not applicable to them.

Undermining Assurance of Salvation

If God changes the requirements for salvation between dispensations, how can believers be sure their salvation is secure? What if God decides to change the rules again? Dake’s teaching about people in the Millennium needing to keep the law and those who rebel being executed creates uncertainty about the permanence of salvation.

He writes in “Revelation Expounded”: “Many will be executed during the Millennium because of committing sins worthy of death, Isa. 11:3-5; 16:5; 65:20.” This suggests that even in the kingdom, salvation can be lost through disobedience, contradicting the New Testament’s teaching about eternal security for those in Christ.

Fostering an Escapist Mentality

By rigidly separating the Church from Israel and this age from the next, Dake’s system can foster an escapist mentality where believers focus on leaving this world rather than being salt and light in it. If God has completely different plans for Israel and the nations in the future, why work for justice, peace, or societal transformation now?

This contradicts Jesus’ teaching that His followers are to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16), that the kingdom of God is already among us (Luke 17:21), and that we should pray for God’s will to be done on earth as in heaven (Matthew 6:10).

Creating Division in the Body of Christ

Dake’s teaching about different groups of saints with different destinies can create division among believers today. If Jewish believers have a fundamentally different relationship with God and a different eternal destiny than Gentile believers, how can there be true unity in the Church?

This has practical ramifications for Jewish-Gentile relationships in the Church, for how we understand the role of Messianic Jews, and for how we relate to the nation of Israel. Instead of the unity Paul fought to preserve, Dake’s system institutionalizes division.

The Theological Implications

Beyond the practical damage, Dake’s extreme dispensationalism has serious theological implications that affect core Christian doctrines:

It Compromises the Immutability of God

If God changes His requirements for salvation, His methods of dealing with humanity, and His ultimate plans based on dispensations, then He is not truly immutable. The Bible declares, “For I am the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6). This includes not just His being but His character, His standards, and His purposes.

Dake tries to avoid this by saying God’s character doesn’t change, only His methods. But if salvation by grace through faith can become salvation by law-keeping, if the finished work of Christ can be supplemented with animal sacrifices, then something fundamental about God’s character has changed.

It Undermines the Authority of Scripture

When parts of Scripture are relegated to other dispensations and declared not applicable to believers today, the functional authority of Scripture is undermined. Large portions of the Bible become merely historical or future-oriented, with no direct relevance to Christian living.

Paul declares that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). This “all” includes the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the prophetic writings—not just the epistles Dake assigns to the Church Age.

It Distorts the Nature of Biblical Prophecy

By insisting on hyperliteral fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecies, including the restoration of animal sacrifices, Dake misses the typological and Christological nature of biblical prophecy. The prophets often used the language and imagery of their time to describe future realities that transcend those categories.

When Isaiah speaks of the wolf dwelling with the lamb (Isaiah 11:6), when Ezekiel describes a temple with specific measurements (Ezekiel 40-48), when Zechariah mentions the Feast of Tabernacles (Zechariah 14:16), they may be using familiar images to describe unfamiliar realities. To insist on wooden literal fulfillment can miss the greater spiritual realities these prophecies convey.

It Confuses the Relationship Between Law and Grace

Dake’s system creates confusion about the relationship between law and grace. In his scheme, we move from law (Old Testament) to grace (Church Age) back to law (Millennium). This cyclical view contradicts the biblical presentation of redemptive history as linear progress from promise to fulfillment, from shadow to reality, from law to grace.

The New Testament presents the law as good but insufficient, as holy but unable to save, as a tutor that leads to Christ but is no longer needed once Christ has come. To return to law after grace is not progress but regress, not fulfillment but denial of what Christ accomplished.

Historical Orthodox Position vs. Dake’s Innovations

It’s important to understand that Dake’s extreme dispensationalism represents a departure not only from historic Christian orthodoxy but even from mainstream dispensationalism. Throughout church history, Christians have recognized different periods in God’s dealings with humanity while maintaining the unity of His redemptive plan.

The Early Church Fathers

The early church fathers recognized a distinction between the Old and New Covenants but emphasized their unity in Christ. Justin Martyr, writing in the second century, argued that the ceremonial laws were given to Israel temporarily but that the moral law and the way of salvation by faith were constant. Irenaeus spoke of different “economies” (dispensations) but saw them as progressive stages in one unified plan of redemption.

None of the early fathers taught that animal sacrifices would resume or that there would be different peoples of God with different eternal destinies. They saw the Church as the fulfillment of Israel, not its replacement or its parallel.

The Reformation Position

The Reformers strongly emphasized the unity of the covenant of grace throughout all ages. While recognizing different administrations of this covenant, they maintained that salvation was always by grace through faith and that the Old Testament saints were saved the same way as New Testament believers.

Calvin wrote extensively about the unity of the Old and New Testaments, arguing that “the covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same.” The Westminster Confession states that there are not “two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.”

Even Traditional Dispensationalists Disagree

Even within dispensationalism, Dake’s views are extreme. Traditional dispensationalists like C.I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Charles Ryrie, while maintaining a distinction between Israel and the Church, never taught that animal sacrifices would resume for salvific or truly expiatory purposes.

Most dispensationalists who believe in millennial sacrifices see them as purely memorial, similar to the Lord’s Supper, and emphasize that they could never add to or supplement Christ’s finished work. They certainly don’t envision the wholesale return to Mosaic Law that Dake describes.

The Consistent Biblical Witness

The consistent witness of Scripture is that God’s plan of redemption is unified, centered on Christ, and moving toward a single goal—the glory of God through redeemed humanity dwelling with Him forever. This plan doesn’t change directions, doesn’t have multiple tracks, and doesn’t require supplementation or revision.

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible tells one story: God creating, humanity falling, God redeeming, and creation being restored. The details are progressively revealed, the fullness comes in Christ, but the story is one. Dake’s fragmented dispensationalism breaks this story into disconnected episodes with different rules, requirements, and outcomes.

Responding to Dake’s Proof Texts

Dake relies heavily on certain passages to support his extreme dispensationalism. It’s important to examine these texts carefully to see how his interpretation falls short:

Ezekiel’s Temple Vision (Ezekiel 40-48)

Dake points to Ezekiel’s detailed temple vision as proof that animal sacrifices will resume. However, several interpretive options exist that don’t require a return to animal sacrifices:

1. Symbolic Interpretation: The vision uses temple imagery familiar to Ezekiel to convey spiritual truths about God’s presence with His people in the messianic age. The specific details symbolize spiritual realities rather than predicting literal architecture and rituals.

2. Conditional Prophecy: The vision was given to Israel in exile as a call to repentance and a promise of restoration if they returned to God. Their failure to fully respond meant the prophecy was not literally fulfilled.

3. Already Fulfilled: Some see the prophecy as fulfilled in the return from exile and the rebuilding of the temple, even if not to the exact specifications Ezekiel described.

4. Memorial View: Even if taken literally, the sacrifices could be purely memorial, like the Lord’s Supper, with no expiatory value whatsoever.

What’s crucial is that any interpretation must align with the clear New Testament teaching that Christ’s sacrifice is final and complete. Hebrews leaves no room for animal sacrifices that have any real spiritual value.

“Forever” Commands in the Old Testament

Dake argues that because God said certain ordinances were “forever,” they must resume in the future. However, the Hebrew word “olam” translated “forever” doesn’t always mean endless duration. It can mean:

• For the entire age or dispensation
• As long as the conditions exist
• Until the purpose is fulfilled
• For an indefinite but not necessarily endless time

The Sabbath was an “everlasting covenant” (Exodus 31:16), yet Paul says we shouldn’t let anyone judge us about Sabbaths (Colossians 2:16-17). The Aaronic priesthood was “everlasting” (Numbers 25:13), yet Hebrews says it has been changed (Hebrews 7:12). Circumcision was an “everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:13), yet Paul says it profits nothing (Galatians 5:2).

These weren’t false promises—they were fulfilled and transcended in Christ. The “forever” was until their purpose was complete.

The Distinction Between Israel and the Church

Dake uses passages that speak of Israel’s future to argue for eternal separation between Israel and the Church. However, the New Testament teaches that Israel’s promises are fulfilled through expansion to include Gentiles, not through separation:

Romans 11 uses the image of an olive tree—Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s tree, not planted in a separate garden. Ephesians 2 speaks of one new man created from both Jew and Gentile, not two separate entities. Galatians 3:29 says if we are Christ’s, we are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

Yes, God has a future for ethnic Israel (Romans 11:25-26), but this future involves them being grafted back into the same tree, not maintaining a separate program for eternity.

The Gospel Truth: One Message for All Time

Against Dake’s multiple gospels and changing requirements, Scripture proclaims one unchanging message of salvation. This gospel was promised in the Old Testament, accomplished by Christ, proclaimed by the apostles, and will remain the only message of salvation until Christ returns.

The gospel is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). This message doesn’t change based on dispensations. It doesn’t need supplementation with animal sacrifices. It doesn’t require a return to law-keeping. It is sufficient for all people in all times.

When Paul encountered those who wanted to add requirements to the gospel—whether circumcision, law-keeping, or anything else—he responded with fierce opposition. The book of Galatians exists precisely to combat the error of adding anything to the gospel of grace. Dake’s system, which envisions future additions and modifications to God’s plan of salvation, falls under the same apostolic condemnation.

The writer of Hebrews emphasizes repeatedly that Christ’s work is “once for all” (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:26, 10:10). This Greek phrase (ephapax) means “once for all time with no repetition needed or possible.” It’s a decisive declaration that Christ’s work needs no supplementation, no repetition, no memorial sacrifices, no return to law—nothing but faith in His finished work.

Conclusion: The Danger of Extreme Dispensationalism

Dake’s extreme dispensationalism represents a serious departure from biblical Christianity. By fragmenting God’s unified plan of redemption into disconnected dispensations with different requirements, different gospels, and different destinies, he undermines the very foundations of the faith.

Most seriously, his teaching about the resumption of animal sacrifices and the return to law-keeping in the Millennium effectively denies the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work. Even if these sacrifices are called “memorial,” their very existence suggests that Christ’s ordained memorial (the Lord’s Supper) and His completed sacrifice are somehow insufficient for future generations.

The practical effect of accepting Dake’s system is to create uncertainty about salvation, confusion about biblical interpretation, and division within the body of Christ. Instead of the clear, unified message of Scripture centered on Christ, followers of Dake are left with a fragmented Bible where different parts apply to different groups at different times with different requirements.

The theological effect is even more serious. Dake’s system compromises the immutability of God, the finality of Christ’s work, the unity of God’s people, and the unchanging nature of the gospel. It represents not just a different interpretation of Scripture but a different religion altogether—one that might use Christian terminology but denies Christian essentials.

As we’ve seen throughout this examination, the root problem is Dake’s hyperliteral hermeneutic that fails to recognize literary genres, redemptive-historical progress, and the Christocentric nature of all Scripture. By woodenly literalizing every statement without considering context, genre, or the analogy of faith, Dake creates contradictions where none exist and divisions where God intends unity.

The alternative is not to abandon dispensational insights altogether. Recognizing that God has worked through different administrative arrangements throughout history can be helpful in understanding Scripture. The key is to maintain this recognition within the framework of God’s one, unified plan of redemption centered on Christ.

This means recognizing that:

• Salvation has always been by grace through faith
• Christ’s sacrifice is complete and final
• The gospel is unchanging and sufficient
• God’s people are ultimately one in Christ
• The law was fulfilled, not abolished, in Christ
• Progressive revelation unveils one plan, not multiple plans
• All Scripture points to and finds its fulfillment in Christ

When we maintain these biblical truths, we can appreciate the genuine insights of dispensationalism while avoiding the errors of Dake’s extreme system. We can recognize God’s distinct working with Israel and the Church while maintaining their ultimate unity in Christ. We can see progressive revelation while affirming the unchanging nature of God and His gospel.

Most importantly, we can rest confidently in the finished work of Christ, knowing that nothing needs to be added, nothing needs to be repeated, and nothing needs to be supplemented. His sacrifice is sufficient. His gospel is complete. His victory is final. This is the true biblical faith that Dake’s extreme dispensationalism obscures and ultimately denies.

The church must be vigilant against any teaching that fragments the unity of Scripture, divides the people of God, or adds to the finished work of Christ. Dake’s extreme dispensationalism does all three, making it not merely an alternative interpretation but a dangerous deviation from biblical Christianity.

As Paul warned the Galatians about those who would pervert the gospel by adding requirements, so we must warn about Dake’s system that envisions future additions to God’s completed work. The gospel of grace is not a temporary dispensational arrangement but the eternal good news of what God has done in Christ. Any system that compromises this truth, no matter how elaborate its biblical arguments, must be rejected.

May we hold fast to the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3), the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), and the gospel that shall never change (Galatians 1:8). This is our calling, our confidence, and our unshakeable foundation—not the shifting sands of extreme dispensationalism but the solid rock of Christ and His finished work.

---

Footnotes

¹ Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), Genesis notes, 85.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid., 88.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid., 89.

⁶ Ibid., Acts notes, 281.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid., Revelation notes, 534.

⁹ Ibid., 544.

¹⁰ Ibid., Ezekiel notes, 1427.

¹¹ Ibid., Genesis notes, 90.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 6.

¹⁴ Finis Jennings Dake, The Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1950), Matthew 24 commentary section.

¹⁵ Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 316.

¹⁶ Finis Jennings Dake, Revelation Expounded (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1950), 281-282.

¹⁷ Finis Jennings Dake, “Ages and Dispensations,” section on the Dispensation of Divine Government (Millennium).

¹⁸ Finis Jennings Dake, Revelation Expounded (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1950), 283.

¹⁹ Ibid.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.