Is dispensationalism a theological framework or a hermeneutical approach?

Question

I most often hear about dispensationalism in the context of a theological framework where God's relations with men are understood to be divided up into different periods of time or dispensations each having distinctly different properties. However the term also shows up in the context off hermetics.

Is dispensationalism a theological framework or a hermeneutical approach? If the latter (or if it is somehow both) what does it prescribe in how to understand a given text?

Answer 1

If you look at the articles on Wikipedia for Biblical hermeneutics, dispensationalism, and covenant theology you will see that they both are referred to as interpretive frameworks as well as theologies.

The hermeneutic circle entails that dispensationalism is both a theological framework and a hermeneutical approach. One's theology will affect the reading of the text and one's reading of the text will affect one's theology.

For example, consider this question about Daniel. If, like Porphyry, your theology excludes the possibility of prophecy, and if you are convinced that the "prophetic" statements in Daniel match up a little too well with the history of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then you may conclude that Daniel was not the author. This will give a pretty different reading of the text compared to someone whose theology allows for prophecy and concludes that Daniel was, in fact, the author.

Similarly, if you have a dispensationalist theology - and you believe that the apostles did as well - you will likely interpret "Israel" in a text like Galatians 6:16 in a different way from someone who believes that the church has replaced Israel. Or more dramatically, you will have a very different interpretation of Revelation compared to someone with a covenant theology. For this reason, these theologies are also interpretive frameworks.

Answer 2

Dispensationalism is a framework, but the framework itself is only the result of a few basic assumptions. These basic assumptions are wrong, which is why the framework is so complicated.

1 The Jew-Gentile division was permanent, thus:

2 The current Christian priesthood is temporary, thus:

3 The current priesthood must be removed and the Aaronic one reinstated at some point.

The "framework" is really just this three-fold lens. Consequently, most if not all the post-exilic promises of restoration in the prophets are removed from their historical context and applied to the modern state of Israel, and all of the predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 in Daniel and the New Testament are applied to some future event. This creates incredible confusion, some crazy charts and some even crazier people.

An example: the invasion Israel by Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 is taken to be a modern invasion of Israel (the identity of the invaders is always taken from the current news headlines). However, the structure of the book and the content of the chapters shows it is a prophecy of the events in the book of Esther (un-walled cities, Haman-Gog / Haman the Agagite, etc), a proposed slaughter and plundering of all Jews between India and Ethiopia. This victory was the vindication of a resurrected Israel before all nations - back then.

The misinterpretation allows authors to write best-selling books about a coming invasion, and republish them every few years with different villains.

Also, since the Revelation is "level-pegged" step by step with Ezekiel (but concerning the second temple instead of the first), Revelation uses Gog and Magog as an allusion to describe the end of this current age (in which God is working behind the scenes as He did in Esther). Dispensationalists believe these passages speak of the same battle, even though the specifics are very different.

The idea of "dispensations" is not unbiblical, but the cycle of the various covenants must be taken as a progression. It is chiastic, but it is progressive, and the prophets always allude to previous cycles to explain what is coming - such as the wolf and lamb, the branch, etc (from Noah) to explain the restoration of the Land of Israel from beneath the flood of the nations.

Dispensationalists have a terrible time with the book of Hebrews. It's like looking at green through a red filter. It just comes up black.

The downside of dispensationalism is that is has no mind for types and symbols (at least not ones concerning Israel). The upside is that all the dispensationalists I have known have a very high regard for Scripture and Bible chronology.