Chapter 03: The Root Problem – Dake’s Hyper-literal Hermeneutic

Dake, Finis Jennings. Dake Annotated Reference Bible. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963.

At the heart of every theological error lies a flawed method of interpretation. Before we can understand how Finis Dake arrived at his heretical conclusions about God’s nature, the Trinity, and countless other doctrines, we must first examine the interpretive lens through which he read Scripture. His hyperliteral hermeneutic—the method by which he interpreted the Bible—serves as the root from which all his other errors grow. Understanding this flawed approach helps us see how someone who claimed to love God’s Word could so fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent it.

Dake himself revealed his interpretive philosophy in the preface to his work Revelation Expounded, written when he was only twenty-four years old. His words deserve careful examination, for they expose the foundational flaw that would corrupt his entire theological system:

This statement sounds noble and even commendable at first glance. Who wouldn’t want to take God at His word? Who wouldn’t want to believe that God “meant what He said and said what He meant”? The problem lies not in Dake’s desire to honor Scripture but in his fundamental misunderstanding of how human language works and how God accommodates Himself to human understanding in revelation.

The False Dichotomy at the Foundation

Notice the false choice Dake presents: either interpret everything literally, or accuse God of deliberately confusing people. This is a classic false dichotomy—presenting only two options when many others exist. Dake couldn’t conceive that God might use metaphor, symbolism, poetry, apocalyptic imagery, or other literary devices not to confuse but to clarify spiritual truths. He couldn’t imagine that God might accommodate divine truth to human understanding through various genres and figures of speech.

Consider how we use language in everyday communication. When someone says “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse,” no one accuses them of lying when they order a regular meal instead of an equine feast. When we say “the sun rises,” we’re not making a scientific claim about celestial mechanics but using phenomenological language—describing things as they appear. When a poet writes “my love is a red, red rose,” they’re not claiming their beloved is literally a flowering plant but expressing beauty and affection through metaphor.

Dake’s inability or unwillingness to recognize these basic features of human communication led him to impose wooden literalism on passages that were never intended to be read that way. The tragic irony is that his hyperliteral method, which he believed would let God speak clearly, actually obscured and distorted God’s intended meaning throughout Scripture. Dake insisted that literal interpretation was essential to understanding God’s Word, stating: “If a passage is to be interpreted figuratively when there is a possibility for a literal interpretation, then we must have definite scriptural authority to do so… If we will give a literal interpretation to what can be interpreted literally, we’ll have a commonsense method of understanding God’s Word.”¹

Hyperliteralism vs. Normal Literal Interpretation

We must carefully distinguish between normal literal interpretation—which evangelical Christians have always practiced—and Dake’s hyperliteralism. Normal literal interpretation, also called the grammatical-historical method, takes the Bible at face value while recognizing that “face value” includes the normal use of figures of speech, literary genres, and symbolic language. Hyperliteralism, by contrast, forces a woodenly literal meaning on every passage regardless of context, genre, or common sense.

Dake articulated his foundational interpretive principle clearly: “The chief fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning the writers intended to convey. It applies to the Bible the same principles, rules, grammatical process, and exercise of common sense and reason that we apply to other books. In doing this, one must take the Bible as literal when it is at all possible.”¹¹ He then elaborated on when to identify figurative language: “When a statement is found that cannot possibly be literal, as Jesus being a ‘door’ or of a woman being clothed with the sun and standing on the moon and on her head a crown of twelve stars, or of land animals coming out of the sea, and other statements which are obviously not literal, then we know the language is figurative.”¹²

Let’s examine specific examples to see the difference:

Example 1: Anthropomorphism and God’s “Body Parts”

Throughout Scripture, God is described using human characteristics—eyes, hands, arms, face, etc. Normal literal interpretation recognizes these as anthropomorphisms—descriptions of God in human terms to help us understand His actions and attributes. These are not anatomical descriptions but accommodations to human understanding.

But Dake took every one of these references as literal descriptions of God’s physical form. In his note on Genesis 1:26, he wrote:

Dake’s commitment to this view permeated his entire theological system. He elaborated extensively on God’s bodily nature: “The Bible declares that God has a body, shape, image, likeness, bodily parts, a personal soul and spirit, and all other things that constitute a being or a person with a body, soul, and spirit.”² He went so far as to list what he called “63 facts about God,” which included specific bodily features: “God is a real person and has a spirit body, a personal soul, and a personal spirit… God has a soul, spirit, hands and fingers, hair, face, and other bodily parts… God eats… lives in a city, sits on a throne, walks, rides upon cherubs, on chariots and other things, and He can do anything that man can do.”³

Dake cataloged God’s bodily parts with remarkable specificity: “He has back parts; so must have front parts (Exodus 33:23). He has a heart (Gen. 6:6; 8:21); hands and fingers (Exodus 31:18; Ps. 8:3-6; Rev. 5:1, 6-7); nostrils (Ps. 18:8, 15); mouth (Num. 12:8); lips and tongue (Isa. 30:27); feet (Ezek. 1:27; Exodus 24:10); eyes, eyelids, sight (Ps. 11:4; 18:24; 33:18); voice (Ps. 29; Rev. 10:3-4; Gen. 1); breath (Gen. 2:7); ears (Ps. 18:6); countenance (Ps. 11:7); hair, head, face, arms (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19; Rev. 5:1, 6-7; 22:4-6); loins (Ezek. 1:26-28; 8:1-4); bodily presence (Gen. 3:8; 18:1-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; Ex. 24:10-11); and many other bodily parts as is required of Him to be a person with a body.”¹³

This interpretation completely ignores Jesus’ clear statement that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and Paul’s description of God as “invisible” (1 Timothy 1:17). Dake’s response to these passages reveals his hyperliteral method at work. Regarding John 4:24, he argues:

“This does not mean that God is not a person with a spirit body… It means that God is not a man, but a Spirit Being with a Spirit Body.”

Notice how Dake adds to Scripture what isn’t there. Jesus said “God is spirit”—period. He didn’t say “God is a spirit being with a spirit body.” Dake’s addition fundamentally changes the meaning of the text.

Dake went even further in his descriptions of God’s physical activities: “God goes from place to place in a body just like anyone else (Gen. 3:8; 11:5; 18:1-22, 33; 19:24; 32:24-32; 35:13; Zech. 14:5; Tit. 2:13). He is omni-present, but not omni-body, that is, His presence can be felt everywhere but His body cannot… He wears clothes (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19); eats (Gen. 18:1-22; Exodus 24:11); rests, not because he gets tired, but because he ceases activity or completes a work (Gen. 2:1-4; Heb. 4:4); dwells in a mansion and in a city located on a material planet called Heaven (John 14:1-3; Heb. 11:10-16; 13:14; Rev. 3:12; 21:1-27); sits on a throne (Isa. 6; Rev. 4:1-5; 22:3-5); walks (Gen. 3:8; 18:1-22, 33); rides upon cherubs, the wind, clouds, and chariots drawn by cherubims (Ps. 18:10; 68:17; 104:2; Ezek. 1:1-28); and does do and can do anything that any other person can do bodily that is right and good.”¹⁴

The devastating consequences of this hyperliteral approach become clear when we trace it through Scripture. If God has a physical body with literal eyes, hands, and feet, then:

• God cannot be omnipresent (everywhere at once) because a body can only be in one location
• God must be limited in size and scope
• God becomes essentially a super-powered human rather than the transcendent Creator
• The incarnation becomes meaningless (why would God need to take on human form if He already has a body?)

Example 2: “The Trees Clap Their Hands”

Isaiah 55:12 declares: “For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.”

Normal literal interpretation recognizes this as poetic personification—attributing human characteristics to nature to express the joy of creation at God’s redemption. The passage uses vivid imagery to convey the cosmic scope of salvation’s effects.

But Dake’s hyperliteral method would require actual trees to have actual hands that literally clap. While Dake doesn’t specifically comment on this verse in detail, his interpretive method consistently fails to recognize poetic language. Throughout his Bible, he interprets obviously figurative passages as literal descriptions, missing their intended meaning entirely.

Example 3: “God Repented”

Several Old Testament passages speak of God “repenting” or “changing His mind” (Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, 1 Samuel 15:11). Normal literal interpretation recognizes these as anthropopathisms—descriptions of God’s actions in human emotional terms to help us understand divine responses to human behavior. They don’t mean God made a mistake or didn’t foresee the future.

But Dake’s hyperliteral reading led him to conclude that God actually changes His mind, learns new information, and reacts to unexpected events. This undermines God’s omniscience (all-knowing nature) and immutability (unchanging character)—attributes clearly taught throughout Scripture.

The Refusal to Recognize Literary Genres

The Bible contains multiple literary genres, each with its own interpretive principles. Historical narrative should be read differently than poetry. Prophecy has different features than epistles. Apocalyptic literature uses symbolism differently than wisdom literature. This isn’t imposing human categories on Scripture but recognizing the forms God chose to use in revelation.

Dake, however, largely ignored these genre distinctions. In his Revelation Expounded, he states:

Dake’s commitment to literal interpretation extended to his view of symbols in Revelation itself. He wrote: “Apart from these thirty-five symbols, the whole of the book is literal, so everything should be understood in the plain literal sense, just as other books.”⁴ This sounds reasonable until you see how Dake applies it. His standard for “cannot possibly be literal” was extremely high. He would force literal interpretations on obviously symbolic passages unless absolutely impossible. This led to bizarre interpretations, especially in prophetic and apocalyptic texts.

Dake elaborated his principle for distinguishing literal from figurative language: “But how can we tell whether the language is literal or figurative? This is one of the most simple questions to answer. Any man with ordinary intelligence can distinguish between the two ways of expressing the truth. The one fundamental rule to determine whether the language is literal or figurative is this: TAKE EVERY STATEMENT IN THE BIBLE AS LITERAL WHEN IT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE AND WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS LITERAL, OTHERWISE, IT IS FIGURATIVE. In other words, what cannot be literal must be figurative.”¹⁵

Poetry Interpreted as Prose

The Psalms comprise the Bible’s primary collection of Hebrew poetry, filled with parallelism, metaphor, hyperbole, and other poetic devices. Yet Dake often interpreted poetic expressions as literal prose statements.

Consider Psalm 91:4: “He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust.” This beautiful metaphor compares God’s protection to a mother bird sheltering her young. But Dake’s hyperliteral method, consistently applied, would require God to have actual feathers and wings. While Dake doesn’t explicitly state this, his method of interpretation logically leads to such conclusions.

Apocalyptic Visions as Literal Descriptions

Apocalyptic literature, like that found in Daniel and Revelation, uses symbolic visions to convey spiritual truths. Beasts represent kingdoms, horns represent rulers, and cosmic upheavals represent spiritual conflicts. This symbolic language was well understood in the ancient world.

But Dake insisted on interpreting these symbols as literally as possible. In his treatment of Revelation, he writes: “Apart from these thirty-five symbols, the whole of the book is literal, so everything should be understood in the plain literal sense, just as other books.”

This approach led to fantastic and often contradictory interpretations. Dake tried to force literal, chronological sequences on visions that were meant to convey spiritual truths through symbolic imagery. The result was a complex system of interpretation that obscured rather than clarified the book’s message.

Parables as Historical Accounts

Jesus frequently taught through parables—fictional stories that conveyed spiritual truths. The parable of the Good Samaritan wasn’t a historical account but a story designed to teach about neighborly love. The parable of the Prodigal Son wasn’t family history but a revelation of God’s heart toward repentant sinners.

While Dake generally recognized parables as such, his hyperliteral tendency sometimes led him to treat details within parables as theological statements about reality rather than elements of an illustrative story. This is particularly evident in his treatment of parables involving the afterlife, where he builds doctrine on parabolic details rather than the main spiritual truth being conveyed.

Atomistic Interpretation: Missing the Forest for the Trees

Another critical flaw in Dake’s hermeneutic was his atomistic approach to Scripture—treating individual verses as independent units of meaning rather than parts of a larger context. This approach, sometimes called “proof-texting,” pulls verses out of their literary and historical context to support predetermined conclusions.

Dake’s Bible contains over 500,000 cross-references and 35,000 notes, many of which string together verses from throughout Scripture without regard for their original context. He would compile lists of verses containing similar words or phrases, assuming they all addressed the same subject in the same way.

The “One” Word Study Disaster

Perhaps the most devastating example of Dake’s atomistic interpretation involves his treatment of the word “one” in Scripture. The Shema, Israel’s fundamental confession of faith, declares: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4). This statement of absolute monotheism stands at the heart of biblical faith.

But Dake performs a word study on “one” (Hebrew: echad) that ignores context completely. He notes that echad can sometimes indicate composite unity (as when man and woman become “one flesh”). From this observation, he makes an enormous and unjustified leap:

“The Hebrew word for one is echad, meaning a united one, not an absolute one… It is used of two becoming one flesh (Genesis 2:24)… The same word is used in Genesis 2:24 of two persons becoming one. It should be clear that the word one denotes unity, not the numeral one.”

Dake elaborated on this interpretation extensively in his notes: “The Lord (Jehovah) our God (Elohim, a plural noun) is one Lord (Jehovah); that is, a unified Jehovah or Elohim, not one in number as to persons… The Hebrew for one here (Deuteronomy 6:4) is echad which means united as one, as well as one in number; and certainly its use in this passage means composite unity and not absolute unity.”⁵ He provided numerous examples of echad used for composite unity, including: “Evening and morning make one day… Adam and Eve one flesh… The people is one… Two sticks become one stick when joined together… Two nations will become one nation when joined together.”⁶

This is linguistic malpractice. While echad can indicate composite unity in some contexts, its meaning in Deuteronomy 6:4 is clear from the context—it affirms that Yahweh alone is God, in contrast to the polytheism of surrounding nations. Dake ignores this context entirely, imposing his predetermined meaning based on usage in completely different passages.

The consequences are catastrophic. Based on this flawed word study, Dake concludes that the “one” God actually consists of three separate Gods who are merely unified in purpose. He writes in his note on Deuteronomy 6:4:

Dake stated his position plainly: “The word one means one in unity as well as one in number. It means unity in 1 John 5:7, as it does in John 17:11, 21-23, and yet these three persons, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are spoken of as one each in number and individuality in Scripture. There is one God the Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Ghost… Thus there are three separate persons in divine individuality and divine plurality.”⁷

Dake further clarified his understanding of the Trinity: “What we mean by Divine Trinity is that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the same sense each human being, angel, or any other being has his own body, soul, and spirit. We mean by body, whether a spirit body or a flesh body, the house for the indwelling of the personal soul and spirit.”¹⁶ He addressed objections to his view directly: “It is clearly revealed in Scripture that God is ONE BEING CONSTITUTED BY THREE PERSONS. We give this complex Person the name TRINITY…. It would be folly to seek to explain this startling revelation…. We can only say that we believe it BECAUSE WE DO NOT COMPREHEND IT…. The doctrine of the Trinity bewilders the most astute and is frankly BEYOND THE COMPREHENSION OF THE MOST LEARNED.”¹⁷ Dake then rejected this view entirely, insisting instead: “Neither does the Bible say that the bodily parts of God are figures of speech or mere human expressions trying to convey some idea of God, or that they do away with the reality of God’s body. All figures of speech emphasize and make as real or more real the ideas they express than if literal language were used.”¹⁸

This isn’t slightly modifying the doctrine of the Trinity—it’s abandoning monotheism for tritheism (belief in three Gods). All based on an atomistic word study that ignores context, history, and two thousand years of Christian interpretation.

The Concordance Theology Problem

Dake relied heavily on concordance study—looking up every occurrence of a word and assuming it means the same thing everywhere. This mechanical approach treats the Bible like a dictionary rather than a collection of books written by different authors in different times and circumstances.

Words don’t have fixed meanings independent of context. The word “trunk” means something different when discussing trees, elephants, or cars. The word “run” has dozens of different meanings depending on context. The same is true for biblical words.

But Dake’s concordance approach ignored these contextual variations. If a word meant something in one passage, he assumed it meant the same thing everywhere. This led to numerous interpretive errors:

• Because “day” sometimes means an era or age, Dake applied this meaning even where context clearly indicates a 24-hour period
• Because “spirit” sometimes refers to attitude or disposition, Dake confused passages about the Holy Spirit with passages about human attitudes
• Because “heaven” sometimes refers to the sky or atmosphere, Dake created complex theories about multiple heavens that Scripture doesn’t support

Rejection of Theological Tradition

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of Dake’s hermeneutic was his explicit rejection of centuries of Christian interpretation. He proudly declared that he derived his teachings from Scripture alone, without reference to theological tradition or church history. In his preface to Revelation Expounded, he states:

“The author also saw that he could not believe all Bible teachers on every point, for they differed so widely, so he decided to follow a new course—taking the Bible to be God’s own Word and Revelation to men—not interpreting it, but letting the Bible be its own interpreter.”

This sounds spiritual and even admirable—letting the Bible interpret itself. But in practice, it meant Dake rejected the accumulated wisdom of two thousand years of Christian scholarship. He dismissed the careful work of theologians who had wrestled with these texts, learned the original languages, studied the historical contexts, and developed interpretive principles to avoid the very errors Dake fell into.

Dake explicitly rejected previous interpretive methods: “The early Church Fathers, instead of following the plain literal meaning of Scripture as did Christ and the apostles, followed more or less the Jewish method of interpretation. The literal sense of Scripture was overlaid with the allegorical, moral, and spiritual interpretations… This method of interpretation continued to the Reformation. Since then the Scriptures have been more or less freed from the early traditions of men who began to study the Bible, in a more literal sense. In spite of this new freedom of Scripture from much of the former spiritualizing tendencies and magical meanings, there are many ministers today who have gone back to the unintelligent methods of the past.”¹⁹

The Myth of “No Interpretation”

Dake claimed he wasn’t interpreting Scripture but simply “letting the Bible be its own interpreter.” This is impossible. Every act of reading is an act of interpretation. When we read any text, we make decisions about:

• What words mean in context
• How sentences relate to each other
• What genre we’re reading
• What the author intended to communicate
• How to apply the text to our situation

Dake’s claim to not interpret Scripture while writing 35,000 interpretive notes is self-contradictory. He was interpreting constantly—just doing so without the safeguards of good hermeneutical principles or accountability to the broader Christian tradition.

The Guardrails of Orthodoxy

The theological formulations developed through church history—like the doctrine of the Trinity—exist precisely to prevent the errors Dake fell into. The early church councils didn’t invent new doctrines but clarified biblical teaching in response to heresies.

When Dake rejected these theological guardrails, he had no protection against careening into the same ditches the early church had already identified and marked. His “three separate Gods” error is essentially the same heresy the Council of Nicaea addressed in 325 AD. His physical God doctrine resurrects the anthropomorphic heresies the church fathers refuted. His racial segregation theology repeats errors the church has battled throughout history.

Dake’s rejection of tradition meant he couldn’t learn from the mistakes of others. As philosopher George Santayana warned, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Dake, by rejecting theological history, repeated ancient heresies while thinking he was discovering new truths.

Case Studies in Interpretive Failure

To fully understand how Dake’s hyperliteral hermeneutic led to theological disaster, we must examine specific case studies where his method produced clearly false interpretations. These examples demonstrate the consistent pattern of his interpretive failures.

Case Study 1: God “Coming Down” (Genesis 11:5)

Genesis 11:5 states: “And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.”

Normal Interpretation: This is anthropomorphic language describing God’s direct intervention in human affairs. The omnipresent God doesn’t literally need to travel or “come down” to see anything, as Psalm 139 makes clear. The language accommodates human understanding, expressing God’s personal involvement in judging Babel.

Dake’s Interpretation: In his note on this verse, Dake writes: “The fact that God came down from heaven to earth on different occasions proves He moves from place to place and is not omnipresent in body, but in Spirit through the Holy Spirit.”

Dake’s understanding of God’s spatial limitations was thoroughly developed in his theological system: “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all present where there are beings with whom they have dealings; but they are not omnibody, that is, their bodies are not omnipresent. All three go from place to place bodily as other beings in the universe do… Omnipresence then, is different from omnibody, and is governed by relationship and knowledge of God. Like the presence of someone being felt by another who is thousands of miles away, so it is with the presence of God among men.”⁸ He further explained God’s physical movements: “God’s body is not omnipresent, for it is only at one place at one time like others… God also has many other means of travel and goes from one place to another bodily as all other beings in existence. He is omnipresent, but not omnibody.”⁹

Dake takes the anthropomorphic language literally, concluding that God the Father has a body located in heaven and must physically travel to earth to see what’s happening. This interpretation:

• Contradicts God’s omnipresence
• Limits God to physical location
• Ignores the anthropomorphic nature of the language
• Creates a God who needs to investigate to learn facts

The absurdity becomes clear when we apply Dake’s method consistently. If God must “come down” to see, then He doesn’t know what’s happening on earth while in heaven. This makes God ignorant of most human activity most of the time—a conclusion that contradicts countless Scriptures affirming God’s complete knowledge.

Dake elaborated on God’s spatiality: “Spirit beings, including God, Himself, cannot be omnipresent in body, for their bodies are of ordinary size and must be at one place at a time, in the same way that bodies of men are always localized, being in one place at a time.”²⁰ He rejected any interpretation that made God incorporeal: “The vague way men think and speak of God as being a universal Spirit that fills all space and all solid matter, and that He is impersonal, intangible, unreal, and without a body, soul, and spirit, with parts, passions, feelings, appetites, desires, will, mind, or intellect, is the height of ignorance.”²¹

Case Study 2: “Let Us Make Man” (Genesis 1:26)

Genesis 1:26 records: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Normal Interpretation: The plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) combined with the singular verb (“said”) and the singular “image” have been understood since ancient times as intimating the Trinity—one God who exists as a plurality of persons. This interpretation is confirmed by the New Testament’s revelation of the Trinity.

Dake’s Interpretation: Dake sees this as proof of multiple separate Gods. He writes: “This proves a plurality of persons in the Godhead, each having a personal body, soul, and spirit, for man was made in the image and likeness of God.”

Notice Dake’s logical leap. The text says “Let us make man in our image.” Dake adds:

• That this means separate beings (not persons in one being)
• That each has a body (though the text doesn’t mention bodies)
• That each has a soul and spirit separately (pure speculation)
• That the “image” is physical (though Scripture defines it in terms of dominion and righteousness)

Dake explained his view of the “Divine Trinity” explicitly: “What we mean by Divine Trinity is that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the same sense each human being, angel, or any other being has his own body, soul, and spirit. We mean by body, whether a spirit body or a flesh body, the house for the indwelling of the personal soul and spirit.”¹⁰

Dake further developed this theme of separate persons in the Godhead: “If the fact is revealed that there are three separate distinct beings in the Deity or Godhead, this would be sufficient to warrant the conclusion that each of them have separate bodies, souls, and spirits, like all other separate and distinct beings. Even disembodied spirits are separate and distinct from each other and can be numbered as are all other beings. Shall we conclude that only one of the members of the Godhead has a body, soul, and spirit, as proved of God in Lesson Four, and that the other two persons of the Deity are bodiless and do not have souls and spirits?”²²

This interpretation transforms Christianity’s foundational monotheism into polytheism, all based on hyperliteral reading combined with massive assumptions not found in the text.

Case Study 3: “God is Not a Man” (Numbers 23:19)

Numbers 23:19 declares: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.”

Normal Interpretation: This verse contrasts God’s truthfulness and consistency with human fickleness and unreliability. God doesn’t lie like humans do; He doesn’t change His mind based on circumstances like humans do. The passage emphasizes God’s transcendent difference from humanity.

Dake’s Interpretation: Amazingly, Dake uses this verse to support his view that God has a physical body! He argues that the verse only means God is not a human being, but He is still a “spirit being with a spirit body.” He writes in his notes:

This interpretation completely misses the point of the passage. The text emphasizes how God differs from humans in His moral perfection and unchanging nature. Dake twists it to mean God has the same basic form as humans (body, soul, spirit) but just happens to be more powerful. This reduces the Creator-creature distinction to a mere difference of degree rather than kind.

Case Study 4: The “Gap Theory” (Genesis 1:1-2)

Genesis 1:1-2 states: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”

Normal Interpretation: These verses describe the initial stage of God’s creative work. God created the raw materials (“heaven and earth”) which were initially unformed and empty, then shaped them into an ordered cosmos over six days.

Dake’s Interpretation: Dake inserts millions of years between verses 1 and 2, during which a pre-Adamic race lived on earth under Lucifer’s rule until God destroyed everything in a flood. He writes extensive notes defending this “Gap Theory,” including:

“The earth was created perfect and inhabited in the beginning (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 45:18). It was destroyed by a flood (Genesis 1:2; Jeremiah 4:23-26; 2 Peter 3:5-7). This destruction was due to Lucifer’s rebellion (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:11-17).”

Dake developed an elaborate theory of a pre-Adamic world: “God created the heavens first, then the Earth, all in the beginning or in the dateless past (Gen. 1:1; Job 38:4-7). He caused the heavens and the Earth to be inhabited and gave Lucifer control of the Earth-kingdom (Col. 1:15-18; Rev. 12:12; Ezek. 28:11-18; Isa. 14:12-14.) Lucifer ruled for God for an unknown period before he rebelled and invaded heaven to dethrone God (Ezek. 28:11-18; Isa. 14:12-14). He was defeated, and his kingdom on Earth was destroyed by a flood and by the fierce anger of God (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-26; Ps. 104:5-9; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).”²³

This interpretation:

• Adds massive content not found in the text
• Misuses cross-references from completely different contexts
• Creates theological problems (death before sin, multiple creations, etc.)
• Forces prophetic passages about future judgment to refer to prehistoric events

The Gap Theory demonstrates how Dake’s method allowed him to read entire narratives into Scripture that simply aren’t there. His hyperliteral approach, combined with atomistic proof-texting, created elaborate theories with no actual biblical support.

The “Plain Meaning” Deception

Throughout his writings, Dake repeatedly claimed to teach the “plain meaning” of Scripture. This rhetorical device made his interpretations seem obvious and natural while making other views appear to be departures from clear biblical teaching. But examination shows that Dake’s “plain meanings” were often anything but plain.

Redefining “Plain”

Consider how Dake handles the word “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4. The plain meaning of “The LORD our God is one LORD” is that there is only one God. This is how Jewish readers understood it for millennia. This is how it functions in its context—distinguishing Israel’s monotheism from pagan polytheism.

But Dake claims the “plain meaning” is that three separate Gods are unified in purpose. This isn’t plain at all—it requires extensive argumentation, selective word studies, and the rejection of obvious contextual clues. Yet Dake presents this as the simple, obvious reading while claiming that traditional monotheism is the complex interpretation imposed on the text.

The Appearance of Simplicity

Dake’s interpretations often seemed simple because he stated them as facts rather than argued interpretations. Instead of writing, “Some scholars suggest this might mean…” or “One possible interpretation is…,” Dake simply declared, “This means…” or “This proves…” This false confidence made his interpretations seem more certain and “plain” than they were.

For example, when commenting on biblical references to God’s “hand,” Dake doesn’t acknowledge that this might be metaphorical. He simply states as fact that God has literal hands. The complexity of anthropomorphism is hidden behind simple assertion.

Creating Complexity While Claiming Simplicity

Ironically, while claiming to follow plain meaning, Dake created enormously complex theological systems. His dispensational charts require elaborate explanations. His Gap Theory involves complex harmonizations of unrelated passages. His doctrine of God requires three separate beings who are somehow still one God.

The traditional Christian doctrines Dake rejected are actually simpler and more coherent. The Trinity—one God in three persons—is mysterious but not contradictory. The spiritual nature of God—without physical limitations—is clear and consistent throughout Scripture. But Dake’s “plain” interpretations created logical contradictions and theological chaos.

How Proper Interpretation Protects Orthodox Faith

Understanding proper hermeneutical principles isn’t just an academic exercise—it’s essential for maintaining biblical faith and avoiding the errors that plagued Dake’s theology. Good interpretation serves as a guardian of truth, protecting us from the kind of theological disasters we see throughout Dake’s work.

The Grammatical-Historical Method

The grammatical-historical method of interpretation, used by evangelical scholars, provides safeguards against Dake’s errors:

1. Grammar: We study what the words meant in their original languages, not just how they’re translated into English. This prevents the kind of word-study disasters that led Dake to redefine “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4.

2. History: We study the historical context in which passages were written. This helps us understand, for example, that Deuteronomy 6:4 was written to distinguish Israel’s monotheism from the polytheism of surrounding nations—context that makes Dake’s “three Gods” interpretation impossible.

3. Genre: We recognize different literary types and interpret them appropriately. Poetry isn’t prose. Apocalyptic isn’t historical narrative. Parables aren’t doctrinal treatises. This prevents forcing literal meanings on figurative texts.

4. Context: We read passages in their immediate context, their book context, and their biblical context. Verses aren’t isolated units but parts of larger arguments and narratives. This prevents the atomistic proof-texting that characterized Dake’s method.

5. Community: We interpret Scripture within the community of faith, learning from others and submitting our interpretations to scrutiny. This provides accountability and prevents the kind of isolated interpretation that led Dake astray.

The Rule of Faith

The early church developed the “rule of faith” (regula fidei)—core biblical truths that serve as an interpretive framework. Any interpretation that contradicts these core truths should be reconsidered. These include:

• There is one God (monotheism)
• God is spirit, not physical
• God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent
• Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human
• Salvation is by grace through faith
• Scripture is consistent and doesn’t contradict itself

When Dake’s interpretations led him to deny monotheism, God’s spiritual nature, and God’s omnipresence, the rule of faith should have warned him he was misinterpreting Scripture. But having rejected theological tradition, he had no such safeguard.

The Analogy of Faith

The “analogy of faith” principle states that Scripture interprets Scripture—clearer passages help us understand less clear ones, and Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. When Dake interpreted anthropomorphic passages to mean God has a literal body, he should have compared this with clear statements like “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and “the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15).

Proper use of the analogy of faith would have prevented virtually all of Dake’s major errors:

• His physical God doctrine contradicts clear statements about God’s spiritual nature
• His three Gods teaching contradicts numerous affirmations of monotheism
• His racial segregation doctrine contradicts the unity of all believers in Christ
• His Gap Theory contradicts the straightforward creation account

The Danger of Hyperliteralism in Modern Christianity

Dake’s hyperliteral hermeneutic isn’t just a historical curiosity—it continues to influence how many Christians read Scripture today. Understanding its dangers helps us avoid similar errors in our own Bible study.

The “Plain Reading” Movement

Many contemporary Christians champion a “plain reading” of Scripture that echoes Dake’s approach. They claim to just “read what it says” without interpretation, not realizing that:

• All reading involves interpretation
• “Plain” to us might not have been plain to the original audience
• Our cultural assumptions affect what seems “plain”
• Translation from ancient languages already involves interpretation

This naive approach to Scripture makes believers vulnerable to the same errors that ensnared Dake. Without proper hermeneutical principles, sincere Christians can arrive at sincere heresies.

The Anti-Intellectual Tendency

Some Christians view theological education and hermeneutical principles with suspicion, preferring a “simple faith” that just “believes the Bible.” While childlike faith is commendable, this attitude can lead to childish interpretation that misses Scripture’s actual meaning.

Paul commanded Timothy to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). This implies wrongly dividing is possible—which is exactly what happens when we approach Scripture without proper interpretive principles. The Ethiopian eunuch needed Philip to explain Isaiah (Acts 8:30-31). We all need teachers and sound methods to understand Scripture correctly.

The Social Media Effect

Social media amplifies interpretive errors by spreading them instantly to wide audiences. A hyperliteral interpretation that sounds spiritual can go viral before anyone has time to provide correction. Dake’s errors, which once spread slowly through book sales, now spread at digital speed through online platforms.

Christians must be especially careful about interpretations that:

• Claim to reveal hidden meanings in familiar texts
• Contradict historic Christian understanding
• Make God seem more human and less transcendent
• Promise special knowledge or spiritual superiority
• Isolate verses from their context

Specific Examples of Genre Confusion

To further illustrate how Dake’s refusal to recognize literary genres led to interpretive disasters, let’s examine specific examples where he misread texts by ignoring their genre.

Wisdom Literature as Scientific Description

The book of Ecclesiastes contains philosophical reflections on life “under the sun” from a human perspective. Ecclesiastes 1:5 states: “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”

This is phenomenological language—describing things as they appear from earth. We still use such language today when we speak of “sunrise” and “sunset.” The passage isn’t making scientific claims about celestial mechanics but describing the repetitive cycles of nature from a human viewpoint.

But Dake’s hyperliteral method could lead to insisting the sun literally “hasteth” (hurries) back to its starting point—turning poetic observation into pseudo-scientific description. This same error appears throughout his treatment of wisdom literature, where he often mistakes philosophical reflection for doctrinal statement.

Prophetic Hyperbole as Literal Prediction

The prophets frequently used hyperbolic language to emphasize the severity of coming judgment. Isaiah 13:10, speaking of Babylon’s fall, declares: “For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.”

This cosmic language was a standard prophetic way of describing the fall of nations—the political “heavens” would be shaken. Similar language appears in prophecies about Egypt, Edom, and other nations. It’s hyperbolic imagery, not literal astronomical prediction.

But Dake consistently interpreted such passages as literal cosmic catastrophes, creating elaborate end-times scenarios based on misread metaphors. His prophetic charts become increasingly complex as he tries to harmonize multiple “literal” cosmic disasters that were actually metaphorical descriptions of political upheavals.

Hebrew Parallelism as Separate Statements

Hebrew poetry features parallelism—saying the same thing in different ways for emphasis. Psalm 24:1 demonstrates this: “The earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.”

This isn’t making two different statements but one statement expressed in parallel terms. “The earth” and “the world” are synonymous, as are “the fullness thereof” and “they that dwell therein.” It’s a poetic technique for emphasis.

But Dake’s atomistic approach often treated parallel statements as conveying different information, leading him to create distinctions and categories that don’t exist in the text. This multiplied entities beyond necessity and created complex theological systems based on misread poetry.

The Multiplication of Error

One of the most dangerous aspects of Dake’s hyperliteral hermeneutic is how errors compound and multiply. A single interpretive mistake becomes the foundation for further errors, creating an entire theological system built on faulty premises.

The Domino Effect

Consider how Dake’s interpretation of anthropomorphism created cascading errors:

First Error: God has literal body parts (based on hyperliteral reading of anthropomorphisms)

Second Error: Therefore, God is located in space (bodies exist in locations)

Third Error: Therefore, God is not omnipresent (can’t be everywhere if located somewhere)

Fourth Error: Therefore, the Holy Spirit is how God is present everywhere (creating a separation in the Trinity)

Fifth Error: Therefore, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three separate beings (each with their own body)

Sixth Error: Therefore, there are three Gods (tritheism)

Each error builds on the previous one, creating a theological disaster that started with a simple interpretive mistake. This demonstrates why proper hermeneutics matters—small interpretive errors can lead to major theological heresies.

The System Protection Mechanism

Once someone adopts Dake’s hyperliteral method, the system becomes self-protecting. Any verse that seems to contradict the system is reinterpreted to fit. For example:

• When Jesus says “God is spirit,” Dake adds “being with a spirit body”
• When Scripture calls God “invisible,” Dake explains this means invisible to human eyes but visible to spiritual eyes
• When the Bible affirms one God, Dake redefines “one” to mean “unified”

This circular reasoning makes the system nearly impervious to correction. Every potential corrective text is neutralized by reinterpretation. This is why understanding proper hermeneutics is essential—it provides objective standards for interpretation that prevent such circular systems.

The Witness of Church History

Throughout church history, theologians and biblical scholars have developed interpretive principles specifically to avoid the errors Dake fell into. Understanding this historical development helps us appreciate why traditional hermeneutics matter.

The Early Church Fathers

The early church fathers like Origen, Augustine, and Chrysostom recognized the importance of proper interpretation. They distinguished between literal and allegorical meanings, recognized different genres, and understood anthropomorphic language.

Origen wrote extensively about anthropomorphisms, explaining why descriptions of God’s “hands” or “eyes” shouldn’t be taken literally. He stated: “We must not suppose that God has a bodily nature when we read of His hands or feet or fingers… All these expressions are used metaphorically.”

Augustine developed sophisticated hermeneutical principles, insisting that any interpretation that contradicts God’s spiritual nature or leads to absurdity must be reconsidered. He wrote: “Whatever appears in the divine Word that cannot be referred either to virtuous conduct or to the truth of faith you must take to be figurative.”

These fathers weren’t imposing foreign ideas on Scripture but recognizing how Scripture itself teaches us to read it. Their principles would have prevented every major error in Dake’s theology.

The Medieval Scholastics

Medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas further refined interpretive methods. They distinguished between:

• The literal sense (what the text directly states)
• The allegorical sense (what it teaches about Christ and the church)
• The moral sense (what it teaches about conduct)
• The anagogical sense (what it reveals about eternal realities)

While this fourfold method could be overly complex, it recognized that Scripture operates on multiple levels and can’t be reduced to wooden literalism. The scholastics understood that divine truth often requires sophisticated interpretation.

The Reformation Principle

The Protestant Reformers championed the clarity of Scripture while recognizing the need for careful interpretation. Luther and Calvin emphasized:

• Scripture’s plain meaning in context
• The priority of clear passages over obscure ones
• The christological center of all Scripture
• The necessity of comparing Scripture with Scripture

Significantly, while rejecting medieval allegorization, the Reformers didn’t embrace hyperliteralism. They recognized figures of speech, understood genres, and interpreted anthropomorphisms appropriately. Calvin specifically warned against taking anthropomorphic language literally, writing: “God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are accustomed to do with little children.”

Modern Hermeneutical Principles

Contemporary evangelical hermeneutics has built on this historical foundation, developing principles that provide reliable interpretation while avoiding Dake’s errors. These principles aren’t arbitrary rules but observations about how language and communication work.

Authorial Intent

The primary goal of interpretation is to understand what the author intended to communicate to the original audience. This doesn’t mean we can perfectly reconstruct ancient thoughts, but it provides an objective standard that prevents arbitrary interpretation.

When Moses wrote “The LORD our God is one LORD,” his intent in context was to distinguish Israel’s monotheism from pagan polytheism. Dake’s interpretation—that this actually means three Gods—directly contradicts authorial intent. No ancient Israelite would have understood the Shema as Dake interprets it.

Progressive Revelation

God revealed truth progressively throughout Scripture. Later revelation clarifies and expands earlier revelation without contradicting it. The New Testament’s revelation of the Trinity doesn’t contradict Old Testament monotheism but reveals that the one God exists as three persons.

Dake’s interpretation violates progressive revelation by making the Old and New Testaments contradict each other. His three Gods interpretation makes the Old Testament polytheistic, contradicting its fundamental monotheism. Proper understanding of progressive revelation maintains consistency while recognizing development.

The Hermeneutical Spiral

Interpretation involves a “spiral” between parts and whole:

• We understand parts in light of the whole
• We understand the whole through its parts
• Our understanding spirals toward more accurate interpretation

Dake’s atomistic method broke this spiral by isolating parts from the whole. He would interpret individual verses without considering their place in the larger narrative, argument, or theological framework. This prevented the self-correcting nature of the hermeneutical spiral.

Practical Safeguards Against Hyperliteralism

How can ordinary Christians avoid falling into Dake’s hyperliteral errors? Here are practical safeguards for sound interpretation:

1. Read in Context

Never build doctrine on isolated verses. Read entire chapters and books. Understand the flow of thought. Ask:

• What comes before and after this passage?
• What is the author’s main point?
• How does this verse serve that main point?
• What situation is being addressed?

2. Recognize Genres

Learn to identify different types of biblical literature:

• Historical Narrative: Generally straightforward accounts of events
• Poetry: Uses imagery, metaphor, and parallelism
• Prophecy: Often uses symbolic language and hyperbole
• Wisdom: Provides general principles, not absolute promises
• Epistles: Letters addressing specific situations
• Apocalyptic: Highly symbolic visions

3. Compare Scripture with Scripture

Let clear passages interpret unclear ones. When Dake interpreted anthropomorphisms as literal descriptions, he should have compared with clear statements about God’s nature:

• “God is spirit” (John 4:24)
• “The invisible God” (Colossians 1:15)
• “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see” (1 Timothy 6:16)

4. Learn from Others

Don’t interpret in isolation. Consult:

• Multiple reliable commentaries
• Systematic theologies
• Church creeds and confessions
• Mature believers and teachers

If your interpretation contradicts what Christians have believed for 2,000 years, you’re probably misreading the text.

5. Maintain Theological Humility

Recognize that you might be wrong. Be willing to change your interpretation when presented with better evidence. Dake’s downfall was partly his unwillingness to accept correction. He wrote: “Having decided on his course, he made a covenant with God that he would never teach anything which could not be proven by at least two or three plain Scriptures.”

This sounds admirable but reveals dangerous pride. Dake decided he could determine “plain meaning” on his own, without help from others or from history. This theological pride led to theological disaster.

The Cultural Captivity of Interpretation

Another major flaw in Dake’s hermeneutic was his failure to recognize how his own cultural context influenced his interpretation. He read his early 20th-century American assumptions into the ancient text, particularly evident in his racial views.

The Segregation Hermeneutic

Dake’s “30 reasons for segregation of races” reveals how cultural prejudice shaped his biblical interpretation. He writes in his note on Acts 17:26:

This interpretation requires ignoring:

• The unity of all humanity in Adam
• The universal scope of the gospel
• The breaking down of barriers in Christ (Ephesians 2:14)
• The multiethnic nature of the church (Revelation 7:9)

Dake’s cultural context—the Jim Crow South—shaped his interpretation more than the biblical text itself. He found in Scripture what he expected to find based on his cultural assumptions.

The Modern Application

We must recognize that we too read Scripture through cultural lenses. Our assumptions about:

• Individualism vs. community
• Material prosperity
• Political systems
• Gender roles
• Scientific knowledge

All affect how we interpret Scripture. The solution isn’t to pretend we have no cultural perspective but to:

• Acknowledge our cultural context
• Study the original cultural context
• Listen to Christians from other cultures
• Submit our interpretations to Scripture’s critique

The Legacy of Hyperliteralism

Dake’s hyperliteral hermeneutic didn’t die with him—it continues to influence biblical interpretation today. Understanding its ongoing impact helps us recognize and counter its errors.

In Popular Preaching

Many popular preachers unknowingly employ Dake-like interpretation:

• Taking metaphors literally for dramatic effect
• Building elaborate theories on isolated verses
• Ignoring genre and context
• Claiming special insight into “plain meaning”

This produces exciting preaching that may draw crowds but distorts Scripture’s actual message. Sensational interpretations get more attention than careful exegesis, incentivizing interpretive recklessness.

In Prosperity Theology

The prosperity gospel often employs hyperliteral interpretation similar to Dake’s. Promises made to Israel about land and material blessing are applied directly to modern Christians without regard for:

• Covenantal context
• Progressive revelation
• The spiritual nature of new covenant blessings
• The pattern of suffering in Christian life

This selective hyperliteralism—taking blessing passages literally while spiritualizing suffering passages—reveals the arbitrary nature of the method.

In End-Times Speculation

Much popular end-times teaching follows Dake’s hyperliteral approach to prophetic texts:

• Taking symbolic numbers literally
• Interpreting apocalyptic visions as newspaper reports
• Creating detailed timelines from symbolic passages
• Missing the pastoral purpose of prophecy

This produces elaborate schemes that miss prophecy’s primary purpose—calling people to faithfulness, not satisfying curiosity about the future.

The Pastoral Consequences

The damage from hyperliteral interpretation isn’t merely academic—it has serious pastoral consequences for real people’s faith and life.

Damaged Faith

When believers discover they’ve been taught error, it can precipitate a crisis of faith. A testimony from someone influenced by Dake illustrates this:

“When I learned that what I’d been taught about God having a body was heresy, I didn’t know what to believe anymore. If my teacher was wrong about something so fundamental, what else was he wrong about? It took years to rebuild my faith on solid ground.”

Hyperliteral interpretation that produces obvious errors can undermine confidence in Scripture itself. People may conclude the Bible is contradictory or unreliable when the real problem was faulty interpretation.

Distorted Worship

Our view of God shapes our worship. If God has a body and is located in heaven, worship becomes about reaching up to a distant deity rather than communing with the omnipresent Spirit. If there are three Gods, which one do we worship? How do we relate to each?

Dake’s errors create confusion about the most basic aspect of Christian life—worshiping God. This isn’t a minor problem but strikes at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

Hindered Prayer

Prayer assumes God can hear us wherever we are. But if God has a physical body in heaven, how does He hear millions of simultaneous prayers? Dake’s theology creates anxiety about whether God is paying attention, whether He’s too busy with others, whether we need to wait our turn.

The biblical assurance that God is always near, always listening, always able to help is undermined by hyperliteral interpretation that limits God to physical form.

Broken Fellowship

Dake’s racial interpretation created division in the body of Christ, teaching that God intends eternal segregation. This theological justification for racism hindered fellowship between believers of different ethnicities and contradicted the gospel’s unifying power.

Error in interpretation leads to error in practice. When we misread Scripture, we misbehave as Christians. The practical consequences of hyperliteralism extend far beyond the study into everyday Christian life.

The Way Forward: Recovering Sound Interpretation

Having examined the disasters of hyperliteral interpretation, how do we move forward with sound biblical interpretation? The solution isn’t to abandon serious Bible study but to approach it with proper principles and attitudes.

Commitment to Truth over Novelty

Dake was driven partly by desire to discover new truths others had missed. This quest for novelty led him away from sound doctrine into speculative theories. We must value truth over novelty, preferring ancient truths to modern innovations.

When someone claims to have discovered something in Scripture that no one has seen for 2,000 years, extreme caution is warranted. The Holy Spirit has been guiding the church into truth throughout history. While new applications and insights are possible, new fundamental doctrines are not.

Community over Isolation

Dake interpreted largely in isolation, rejecting the input of other scholars and the witness of church history. This isolation allowed his errors to develop unchecked. We need the community of faith to help us interpret well:

• Local church teaching and accountability
• The witness of the global church
• The testimony of historic Christianity
• The expertise of biblical scholars

Iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17). Our interpretations are refined and corrected through interaction with other believers.

Humility over Certainty

Dake wrote with absolute certainty about his interpretations, never acknowledging other possibilities or his own fallibility. This prideful certainty prevented him from receiving correction. We need interpretive humility that:

• Recognizes our limitations
• Admits when we’re uncertain
• Changes when shown to be wrong
• Learns from others gladly
• Holds convictions with grace

The goal isn’t uncertainty about everything but appropriate confidence based on clear evidence while maintaining humility about difficult passages.

Christ-Centered over System-Centered

Dake built an elaborate theological system that often obscured Christ himself. His charts, timelines, and categorizations became more prominent than the Savior. Sound interpretation keeps Christ central:

• All Scripture points to Christ (Luke 24:27)
• Christ is the key to understanding Scripture (2 Corinthians 3:14)
• The Spirit’s role is to glorify Christ (John 16:14)
• Our goal is knowing Christ, not mastering systems (Philippians 3:10)

When interpretation becomes more about defending our system than knowing Christ, we’ve lost our way.

Conclusion: The Stakes of Sound Interpretation

As we conclude this examination of Dake’s hyperliteral hermeneutic, we must remember why this matters. This isn’t about winning theological arguments or showing intellectual superiority. The stakes are much higher:

The Glory of God

When we misinterpret Scripture, we misrepresent God. Dake’s physical, limited, triplicate deity is not the God of the Bible. Such misrepresentation dishonors God and leads others astray. Sound interpretation seeks to accurately represent God as He has revealed Himself, bringing Him glory rather than distorting His nature.

The Good of the Church

The church is built on the foundation of apostolic teaching accurately transmitted and interpreted. When interpretation goes awry, the church suffers. Division, confusion, and error multiply. Sound interpretation builds up the church in truth and love.

The Salvation of Souls

Ultimate salvation depends on knowing the true God through Jesus Christ. False teaching about God’s nature can lead people away from saving faith. While God can overcome our errors, we’re responsible to handle His word accurately for the sake of those who hear us.

Our Own Spiritual Health

We become like what we worship. If our interpretation presents a false god, our spiritual formation is misdirected. We need accurate understanding of Scripture to grow in godliness and Christian maturity.

The root problem with Dake’s theology wasn’t lack of sincerity or biblical knowledge—it was a fundamentally flawed method of interpretation. His hyperliteral hermeneutic, which seemed to honor Scripture’s plain meaning, actually distorted and contradicted it at every turn. By refusing to recognize literary genres, rejecting theological tradition, and interpreting atomistically, Dake created a theological system that departed from orthodox Christianity in catastrophic ways.

Understanding how Dake went wrong helps us avoid similar errors. We need proper hermeneutical principles not as academic exercises but as guardians of truth. The grammatical-historical method, with its attention to context, genre, and authorial intent, provides reliable interpretation while avoiding hyperliteral pitfalls.

Most importantly, we must approach Scripture with humility, in community, and with focus on Christ. The goal isn’t to master the Bible but to be mastered by it—not to defend our interpretations but to be transformed by God’s truth. When we handle God’s word rightly, it accomplishes its purpose of teaching, reproving, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).

The disasters that flowed from Dake’s hyperliteral hermeneutic serve as a warning: how we read Scripture matters eternally. May we learn from his errors to handle God’s word with the care, respect, and skill it deserves. The church’s health, the gospel’s clarity, and God’s glory depend on it.

---

Footnotes

1. Finis Jennings Dake, Another Time, Another Place, Another Man: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View of Creation, ed. Mark Allison and David Patton (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, 1997), 76.
2. Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on God’s nature, New Testament section, 489.
3. Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), Old Testament section, 548.
4. Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on Revelation 1:1, New Testament section.
5. Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on Deuteronomy 6:4, Old Testament section, 235.
6. Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on “One, Two, or More in Unity,” Old Testament section, 101.
7. Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on 1 John 5:7, New Testament section, 490.
8. Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), definition of “Omnipresent,” New Testament section.
9. Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on Ezekiel 1:26-28, Old Testament section, 807.
10. Finis Jennings Dake, Dake Annotated Reference Bible (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963), note on “89 Proofs of A Divine Trinity,” New Testament section, 489.
11. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 42-43.
12. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 43.
13. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 57.
14. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 57.
15. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 47.
16. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 51.
17. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 54.
18. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 54.
19. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 42.
20. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 60.
21. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 60.
22. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 449.
23. Finis Jennings Dake, God’s Plan for Man (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1977), 132.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.