408 David Allen reason for such a lack of novelty is precisely their prior manifestation in Israel’s metanarrative — or at least in Hebrews’ retelling of it. 2) On the basis of such continued usage, the exhortations of chapter 13 cease to be dislocated from what has gone before, but rather build upon, or work with, the OT imagery that pervades chapters 1–12. Hebrews 13,1-8 provide a further development in the overall epistolary argument, sharing the foregoing technique of rooting paraenesis in the narratives of Israel. The life of faithfulness portrayed in 13,1-8 is premised upon the life of faithfulness depicted in chapter 11; the parade of heroes is the raw material that allows the writer to speculate on these otherwise random exhortations. The context for the audience’s faithfulness may have changed under the new covenant dispensation, but the core mode, or framework in which the faithfulness is exhibited remains constant, and premised upon a model given earlier on in the letter. This is consistent with the letter’s paraenetic material elsewhere in the letter, namely that Hebrews’ paraenesis remains essentially unchanged from the old covenant dispensation (27), and this continuity persists in 13,1-8. The exhortations are commensurate with Hebrews’ overall hortatory program of exhortation to faithfulness, a model of faithfulness ultimately fulfilled in Christ, but which also has prior exemplary manifestation in the heroes who have gone before. 3) Within this mode of continuity, there is also a simultaneous reversal or mirroring of the use of the OT in the prior sections of the book. The bulk of the letter (i.e. Hebrews 1–12) casts the OT protagonists as looking forward to perfection under Christ; the Christ event sees the fulfilment of Israel’s roll call of heroes, with the trajectory of Israel’s narrative heading forwards towards the Christ event (11,39–12,2). Chronologically, so to speak, the old covenant makes way for the new (8,6-13). Hebrews 13,1-8, on the other hand, exhorts its readers to look backwards and learn from the model (or otherwise) behaviour of these same OT figures. The text therefore adopts a quasi-“Janus faced” approach to the OT figures; whilst they look forward to Christ, the audience are to look backwards to them. 4) A word on methodology is perhaps invited. In terms of OT in the NT discourse, the connections we have identified are narratival, rather than textual, with appeal made to the imagery of the story rather than specific word plays or verbal citations. Questions then of authorial intent need to be thought through; the interchange with the OT by Hebrews is as much premised upon his own usage of the LXX as on the LXX itself. What we have here then, we venture, is a slightly different take on the OT in the NT debate. It differs therefore from the classic mode of the discipline, offering a third stage — one might call it Hebrews’ (later) use of Hebrews’ use of the OT. Interpretation comes from Hebrews’ own use — or perhaps re-use — of how it has already portrayed such figures; the usage is secondary, rather than primary. Appeal is made to the author’s own (prior) depiction of the individual, rather than merely to how the OT records them (the characteristic portrayals of Moses and Esau being cases in point). (27) See ALLEN, Deuteronomy, 224-225.