Questions concerning biblical theology

Childs goes on to say that the

   oneness of scripture's scope is not a rival to the multiple voices within
   the canon, but a constant pointer, much like a ship's compass, fixing on a
   single goal, in spite of the many and various ways of God (Heb 1.1), toward
   which the believer is drawn.... The recognition of the one scope of
   scripture, which is Jesus Christ, does not function to restrict the full
   range of the biblical voices.

Unfortunately it has and still does restrict that range because it confuses historical reality with literature.

It is neither possible nor desirable to find a unity in the literary witness. The proof of that is the fact that no one has succeeded in capturing the alleged unity. The great variety in the literature, which practically everyone admits, prevents any unity worthy of the name. One cannot expect a unity from a literature that was composed of oral and written traditions over a period of a thousand years. From the point of view of literature, the early Christians had only the Old Testament as the word of God with which to interpret the new move made in Christ. This was expressed in terms of the "fulfillment" texts, a style of reading very much in mode at the time (Fitzmyer). Textual fulfillment was the best, practically the only, way for them to express the telos of God's plan. Hence they made many christological connections within their Bible, the Old Testament. This is too obvious to document, but one can be reminded of it by the opening words, and the entire message, of the Letter to the Hebrews. This approach was literary, giving expression to a belief, the historical design, that the Christians were celebrating. Christ was the figure to be explained--and by reference to the only Bible, the Old Testament (especially in its Greek form!). They inherited the theological beliefs of the Old Testament, but transfigured by Christ and Paul.

Recently F. Holmgren has had recourse to what he calls "creative" or "depth" interpretation by which both Jews (e.g., Qumran) and Christians wrested the Old Testament text to fit their current situation. The witness of the Old Testament was needed in order to explain who Christ was (140-42). Holmgren employs this "look-back exegesis" (54) in lieu of the promise/fulfillment motif in order to avoid the appearance of supersessionism (38-55). Surely every effort should be made to eliminate supersessionism, but does that necessitate the abandonment of promise/fulfillment? R. Kendall Soulen has rightly rejected a "standard model" of supersessionism which he has reconstructed from Christian sources. In its stead he proposes a canonical narrative or construal of the Bible that has two foci: the eschatological reign of the God of Israel, the Consummator of creation through promise and blessing, which provides the hermeneutical context for the Christian gospel about God's kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ (18-21; 109-13). His theological argument is well thought out, but it remains simply another construal of biblical literature. Holmgren and Soulen attempt to refute supersessionism on the basis of the biblical text, and both find the old "promise/fulfillment" approach inadequate if not misleading. Both advance "biblical" arguments. Is there another way to meet the problem? Supersessionism is an historical attitude. If it attained theological status for many, too many, Christians, it is not a valid biblical conclusion. The first Christians are clearly identified as Jewish in Acts; only gradually were they separated from their heritage, and Paul reminds the Romans not to "boast against the branches" (Rom l 1:18). There can be no denial that a supersessionist attitude has prevailed in practice, but promise/fulfillment is not to be identified with it.