I did indeed note your recognition that your “new creation” hermeneutic was as totalizing as my “new covenant” one; I just didn’t know what to do with it. Likewise for several other important qualifiers seasoning your comments.

I see a similar issue here to that of interpreting the Bible in general. Is the question of whether God revealed in part a long-term plan to people such as Adam or Abraham or Isaiah at issue? If we close it to inquiry, then we can’t entertain any idea of predictive prophecy in the Old Testament. But if it’s an open issue, then why not posit totalizing narratives that do allow for premature glimpses of Christ?

Or, given that we have hindsight, why must we put blinders back on in retelling a totalizing biblical story? Is it simply impossible for later events or revelation to clarify the earlier? Just because we might see that people in the past could imagine different ways Abraham’s seed might bless all peoples, are we restrained from shedding light on how in fact he is blessing the nations?

As Christians, we are not “outside the narrative.” We’re part of the story. How could we justify, for example, retelling the narrative in such a way that Jesus came and set up a political kingdom in the ancient near east—even if we know that’s what many were expecting earlier in the story?