404 David Allen overwhelming case in chapters 3-4, 11 and, to a lesser degree, chapters 6 and 12. The discussion below proposes that it likewise extends to chapter 13. Within these bookends of “continuity” (13,1.8) sit desired modes of paraenesis that have prior manifestation in figures from Israel’s past, and specifically those figures who have already formed part of Hebrews’ broader exegetical project. Those already commended for their faithful activity, or used for the articulation of dogmatic principles, are implicitly re-used to shape the paraenesis of 13,2-7. The common “unchanging” or “continuous” focus of the verses (13,1.8) fits well with the content of the inside verses (2-7) which endorse an approach of faithfulness that is unchanging from that demonstrated by the Old Testament faithful. III. The Use of the Old Testament in Heb 13,1-8 Verse 1 of the chapter, therefore, does not itself invite the application of OT imagery; instead, it is better seen as the bookend of the unit, the parallel to the declaration of Jesus Christ’s immutability in 13,8. Instead, the primary OT focus to the pericope begins with verse 2, which continues the appeal to anthropocentric love with its exhortation to embrace loving of the stranger. Unlike 13,1, however, which contains only the exhortation to sustained, unbroken fraternal love, verse 2 sets forth an exemplar or model for such filoxeniva. Although not a named allusion, the explanatory force of the ga;r (13,2) points towards it being a known exemplar, one with which the audience would have been familiar. The appeal to, or reminder of, someone who unknowingly entertained angels is possibly a reminiscence of Tobit (15), but, bearing in mind the raw material of the previous chapters, it is more likely a recollection of the consummate behaviour of the great figure of Abraham. Abraham has been an exemplary figure at frequent points throughout the letter (6,15; 11,8-19) and it makes most sense for such exemplary behaviour to persist here. Ellingworth further notes how the Testament to Abraham particularly “emphasizes Abraham’s hospitality to all” (16), especially the ignorance in regards to Michael, and the verse therefore begins a process of rooting exhortation in the prior behaviour of OT figures. This process continues into verse 13,3, though here it is more implicit. The wj" appears twice, but it is used not as a justification or premise for the action, but rather functions adverbially, to articulate the way in which the audience are to deal with those in prison. As such, it is not the basis or motivation for an appeal in the same way as the ga;r (13,2) makes that connection. Instead, the grounds for the appeal are rooted in the heroic actions of one of Israel’s leaders to whom Hebrews has already greatly referred. The connection is invited linguistically; Moses is lauded for his suffering (sugkakoucevomai) with an imprisoned, or enslaved, people (11,25) (17), the same attitude Hebrews’ author demands from his audience (kakoucevw – 13,3). The linguistic similarity is accentuated by the repetition of sun; in both instances, real, substantive identification with an imprisoned people is the (15) Cf. Tob 5,12; so DE SILVA, Perseverance, 488. (16) ELLINGWORTH, Epistle, 695.