Indirect and Subtle Allusions to the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament (Part 2)
Unexpected and Creative Uses
This post is a continuation of a previous post discussing the subtle and indirect uses of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament. Click here to read the first post.
The intricate literary connections between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament have captured the imagination of readers for millennia. While the New Testament is full of direct quotations and explicit citations, closer examination unveils a collection of more subtle allusions and echoes throughout. These more indirect intertextual links, though less conspicuous, offer significant insight into the complex interpretive traditions that shaped early Christian thought.
Exploring such echoes requires a more nuanced approach and a recognition of the evolving nature of these interpretive traditions, acknowledging how readings from diverse Jewish and Christian communities intersected and informed one another over time. These intertextual connections demonstrate a level of dialogue between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament that transcends simple proof-texting. The New Testament authors engage in a dynamic process of interpretation, incorporating multiple strands of tradition to construct these theological narratives.
The study of these intertextual links holds relevance beyond the confines of biblical scholarship. It offers a window into the vibrant world of ancient interpretation, revealing the intricate ways in which communities engaged with and reshaped their inherited texts. By examining how the New Testament authors drew upon and transformed earlier traditions, we gain insight into the complex processes of meaning-making that shaped this literary period.
This line of inquiry raises intriguing questions about the nature of interpretation itself. How do communities navigate the tension between fidelity to received traditions and the need for creative engagement? How do shifting historical and cultural contexts shape the ways in which texts are read and reinterpreted? Such questions invite us to reflect on our own reading and interpretive practices and the ways in which we too participate in the ongoing process of interpretation.
The study of these less obvious intertextual connections between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament invites us to engage with the complexities of ancient interpretive traditions. It challenges us to move beyond simplistic readings and to embrace the multivalent nature of these texts, recognizing the ways in which they were woven together and reimagined for their own generation and community.
You have not strengthened the weak, healed the sick, bandaged the injured, brought back the strays, or sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled over them. They were scattered because they had no shepherd, and they became food for every wild beast. (Ezekiel 34:4-5)
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand, who is not a shepherd and does not own sheep, sees the wolf coming and abandons the sheep and runs away. So the wolf attacks the sheep and scatters them. (John 10:11-12)1
The first connection between these two passages is the central metaphor of the shepherd and the sheep. In Ezekiel, God condemns the “shepherds of Israel” for failing to properly care for and protect the flock. Similarly, in John, Jesus contrasts himself as the “good shepherd” with the “hired hand” who abandons the sheep. This metaphor forms the backbone of both passages.
There are several additional parallel phrases and concepts that link the two texts. Both speak of the sheep being scattered due to lack of a true shepherd. Ezekiel states they “became food for every wild beast”, while John describes the wolf attacking and scattering the sheep when the hired hand flees. The idea of shepherds failing to protect the flock from predators is common to both.
A third link is the role Jesus takes on as the true shepherd. In Ezekiel, God himself is described as the one gathering, leading, and saving the scattered flock. Likewise, in John, Jesus claims to be the one who calls, leads, protects, and lays down his life for the sheep. The divine representative steps in to properly shepherd where its current leaders have failed.
The actions of gathering, leading, saving, and delivering the sheep from danger are ascribed to both Ezekiel’s God and John’s Jesus. As Gary Manning highlights, specific verbal parallels between the two include references to gathering the scattered sheep and delivering/saving them.2 Additionally, the costly self-sacrifice of the good shepherd giving his life is highlighted in John’s account, mirroring Ezekiel’s promise of God as the true shepherd.
Then Moses said to the Lord, “O my Lord, I am not an eloquent man, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant, for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” (Exodus 4:10)
At that time Moses was born, and he was beautiful to God. For three months he was brought up in his father’s house, and when he had been abandoned, Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son. So Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in his words and deeds. (Acts 7:20-22)3
A key connection here centers on the apparent contradiction between Moses portraying himself as lacking eloquence in Exodus 4:10, yet later biblical texts and traditions depicting him as an educated and skilled orator. In Exodus, Moses claims to be “slow of speech and slow of tongue,” presenting himself as unsuited for the task God has given him due to a lack of rhetorical abilities. However, Acts 7:22 states that Moses “was powerful in his words and deeds,” suggesting advanced oratory skills which would have been an important highlight in that cultural environment.
This tension leads to the need for ancient interpreters to reconcile these conflicting presentations of Moses. As James Kugel notes, Moses’ eloquent speeches, especially in Deuteronomy, seem to contradict his self-described lack of eloquence in Exodus.4 This posed an interpretive challenge for ancient readers seeking to harmonize the differing accounts.
A third connection arises from the cultural context regarding the importance of eloquence and education. Kugel highlights that in the ancient world, eloquence was highly prized and seen as resulting from formal schooling. The idea that such a prominent figure as Moses lacked this training would have been difficult for ancient audiences to accept, particularly in the Greco-Roman culture of the 1st century.
The fourth paragraph examines the background provided in Acts 7:20-22 as a creative resolution. By stating that Moses was raised in Pharaoh’s court and “trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” the author of Acts offers an explanation for Moses’ eloquence – he received the finest education available at the time. This detail fills the perceived gap left by Exodus’ silence on Moses’ upbringing and training.
These passages raise broader questions about the compositional processes behind the biblical texts and the agendas of their authors. The contrasting portrayals suggest differing perspectives or aims – was the Exodus author highlighting Moses’ humility, while Acts sought to affirm his status? Understanding these motivations provides insight into how the biblical texts were shaped by their historical, cultural, and literary contexts.
You approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, a mountain ablaze to the sky above it and yet dark with a thick cloud. Then the Lord spoke to you from the middle of the fire; you heard speech but you could not see anything—only a voice was heard. (Deuteronomy 4:11-12)
So he said, “Who are you, Lord?” He replied, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting! But stand up and enter the city, and you will be told what you must do.” (Now the men who were traveling with him stood there speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.) (Acts 9:5-7)5
The connection between these passages is the depiction of a theophanic encounter where a divine voice is heard, but no physical form is seen. In Deuteronomy 4, God speaks to the Israelites from the fire on Mount Horeb, yet they only hear the voice and do not see any visible manifestation. Similarly, in Acts 9, Paul’s companions hear the voice of Jesus but do not see anyone when Paul has his vision on the road to Damascus.
A second link lies in the emphasis on the auditory nature of the revelatory experience. Both texts highlight the sound or voice as the primary sensory perception, while visual perception is absent or limited. This auditory focus is underscored by phrases like “you heard speech” in Deuteronomy and “they heard the voice” in Acts.
The potential intertextual relationship between these accounts and other similar biblical references is in reference to theophanies or divine encounters. Ben Witherington suggests that the language used in Deuteronomy 4, along with Acts 9, may have also influenced later descriptions such as in Hebrews 12:18 which depicts a similar scene at the same location.6 Additionally, Jesus’ statement in John 5:37 about not seeing God’s form aligns with the pattern established in Deuteronomy.
Another connection arises when considering the theological implications of these auditory revelations. The emphasis on hearing the divine voice rather than seeing a physical form may point to a similar tradition of the transcendent, invisible nature of God. It could also underscore the primacy of God’s spoken word as the means of self-revelation and communication with humanity.
These passages raise interpretive questions about the nature and purpose of such theophanic encounters in the biblical narrative. What is the significance of the auditory emphasis over visual perception? How do these accounts shape our understanding of traditional understandings of divine-human interaction and the ways in which God chooses to reveal himself? Exploring these questions can deepen our appreciation for the symbolism and theology woven throughout the text.
The Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ But go to whomever I send you and say whatever I tell you. Do not be afraid of those to whom I send you, for I will be with you to protect you,” says the Lord. (Jeremiah 1:7-8)
But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this reason, to designate you in advance as a servant and witness to the things you have seen and to the things in which I will appear to you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you. (Acts 26:16-17)7
The first prominent connection here is the commissioning of an individual for a divine mission or calling. In Jeremiah 1, God appoints the young prophet and instructs him not to claim he is too young. Similarly, in Acts 26, Jesus appears to Paul and commissions him as a “servant and witness” to the things he has seen and will be shown. Both passages depict a direct encounter where a messenger is chosen for a specific purpose.
A second link involves the assurance given to allay fears or concerns about the mission. God tells Jeremiah not to be afraid of those he is sent to, promising divine protection. Likewise, Jesus tells Paul that he will rescue him from his own people and the Gentiles to whom he is being sent. These reassurances acknowledge the potential dangers faced but offer divine safeguarding.
Dale Allison notes the verbal agreement between Acts 26:16 and Ezekiel 2:1 in the Greek Septuagint. This specific intertextual connection suggests that Luke, the author of Acts, was drawing upon the prophetic call narratives of the Hebrew Bible when crafting the description of Paul’s experience.8
These texts relate to the concept of being sent or designated as a messenger. Both Jeremiah and Paul are described as commissioned to speak the words given to them by the divine sender. The verb “send” is used in each passage, underscoring their roles as divinely appointed envoys tasked with delivering a specific message or testimony.
These passages contribute to a broader biblical theme of representation and calling. They exemplify the literary pattern of God choosing and empowering individuals, often initially reluctant, to serve as his representatives and spokespersons. This motif of divine election and commissioning is woven throughout multiple narratives, highlighting a theme of God’s initiative in raising leaders to advance divine purpose.
I say this so you will not corrupt yourselves by making an image in the form of any kind of figure. This includes the likeness of a human male or female, any kind of land animal, any bird that flies in the sky, anything that crawls on the ground, or any fish in the deep waters under the earth. (Deuteronomy 4:16-18)
For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. (Romans 1:21-23)9
The prohibition against making idolatrous images or representations of created beings figures prominently in these early passages in Romans. Deuteronomy 4 explicitly warns against corrupting oneself by crafting figures in the likeness of humans, animals, birds, or sea creatures. Similarly, Romans 1 condemns the exchange of the glory of God for images resembling mortal humans, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles. Both passages reject the creation of idols modeled after earthly creatures.
The specific language used to describe these prohibited images or likenesses includes key terms like “image” (ikon in Greek) and “likeness” appear in both texts, suggesting a direct linguistic parallel. Additionally, the lists of created beings mirror each other, mentioning humans, animals, birds, and creatures that crawl or swim. This provides motivation to explore the broader context and implications of these warnings against idolatry. In Deuteronomy, the command is situated within the broader Mosaic law and its emphasis on exclusive worship of the one true God. For Paul in Romans, the critique of idolatry serves as an indictment of human behavior that stands in contrast to divine expectations.
The connection is highlighted in the analysis provided by David Burnett. He notes that Paul’s language in Romans 1:23 directly echoes the wording of Deuteronomy 4:15-19, suggesting a conscious intertextual allusion. Furthermore, Burnett argues that this Deuteronomic background informs Paul’s discussion of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15, drawing on further conceptual parallels.10
Pay attention to my plea for help. Because of your faithfulness and justice, answer me. Do not sit in judgment on your servant, for no one alive is innocent before you. (Psalm 143:1-2)
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)11
The first key connection here is the affirmation that no one is righteous or innocent before God. In Psalm 143:2, the psalmist acknowledges that no living being can claim sinlessness in God’s sight and in turn pleas for clemency. Similarly, in Romans 3:20, Paul states that no one will be justified or declared righteous by works of the law. Both passages underscore the universality of human behavior in falling short of an ideal.
The specific wording used in these passages, as noted by Ian Gibb, reveals a deeper connection.12 Surprisingly, Paul’s quotation in Romans 3:20 diverges from both the Hebrew and Greek versions of Psalm 143:2. While the psalm refers to “all living”, Paul uses the expression “all flesh”. This linguistic shift may highlight Paul’s broader theological perspective on the more pervasive and personal nature of sin.
This example highlights the freedom often employed by the authors of the New Testament in creating their literature. Unlike typically modern sensibilities, these authors, particularly the Rabbinically trained Paul, often had no issue manipulating or altering their sources in order to highlight subtleties and emphasize readings more meaningful to their own audiences in new contexts.
The intricate literary connections in these examples reveal the more subtle relationships between the New Testament writings to the Hebrew Bible. Rather than just surface-level citations or proof-texting, these echoes attest to the New Testament authors’ immersion both in their inherited interpretive traditions and their own continuing innovations.
These intertextual connections are more than just literary practice; they witness to a history of developing theological traditions. Simultaneously, this intertextual interplay opens up new perspectives of interpretation, inviting modern readers to engage in their own dynamic dialogue with the text. The New Testament authors offered their own fresh perspectives and unexpected readings that at times challenge conventional boundaries. In their hands, the Hebrew Bible becomes a living text, producing new insights and resonances.
These connections underscore the vibrant interpretive communities that shaped and nurtured the biblical texts. The New Testament authors did not operate in a vacuum but drew upon an existing history interpretation, engaging with the diverse readings that had accrued over generations of reflection on the Hebrew bible. Their writings bear witness to the enduring relevance and malleability of these sacred texts, finding new layers of meaning for communities trying to discern the divine voice in the middle of the complexities of human experience.
The sophistication of these intertextual connections challenge simplistic notions of the relationship between the New Testament and Hebrew Bible. They reveal a multi-layered dialogue, one that invites readers to remain attentive to the subtle echoes in their own reading. In doing so, all are called to embrace the complexity of these textual relationships.
Manning, Gary T. Shepherd, Vine, and Bones: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John (pp. 1-31) T&T Clark, 2010
Kugel, James L. The Bible as it Was (pp. 295-296) Harvard University Press, 1998
Witherington, Ben Torah Old and New: Exegesis, Intertextuality, and Hermeneutics (pp. 397-401) Fortress Press, 2018
Allison, Dale C. Acts 9:1–9, 22:6–11, 26:12–18: Paul and Ezekiel (pp. 807-26) Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 135, No. 4, 2016
Burnett, David A. A Neglected Deuteronomic Scriptural Matrix for the Nature of the Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthians 15:39–42 (pp. 187-212) Fortress Academic, 2019
Gibb, Ian Paul and the Psalms: Paul’s Hermeneutic and Worldview (pp. 154-155) University of Glasgow, 2017