Hebrews uses “tabernacle” rather than “temple” language in its cultic discourse. This preference
raises the question of why the author avoids temple terminology, despite Hebrews’ clear
emphasis on priesthood and sacrifice. Some scholars suggest that Hebrews grounds its cultic
system in the authority of the Pentateuch, viewing the wilderness tabernacle, rather than the post-
exilic temple, as a genuine archetype of true worship. Others argue that the tabernacle serves
better than the temple as the “shadow” (Heb 8:5) that typologically or cosmologically
foreshadows Jesus’ greater heavenly ministry. Still others, assuming Hebrews was composed
after 70 CE, claim that the author intentionally shifts emphasis from the destroyed temple to the
movable, and enduring model of tabernacle. My study aims to provide a fresh alternative,
proposing that the choice of tabernacle language is primarily motivated by the author’s intention
to use Israel’s wilderness memory as the cultural framework through which the audience is to
interpret their current reality, including rituals associated with Jesus. This interpretation becomes
especially plausible when considering how consistently Hebrews draws upon wilderness
memories in other sections to make sense of both Jesus’ apostleship and the identity of the
audience. By interpreting Jesus’ high priesthood and cultic system through the lens of the
wilderness tabernacle, the author seeks to frame the audience’s harsh reality as a wilderness
journey. Just as Moses once directed and guided Israel toward the promised land, so now Jesus,
as apostle and high priest, leads the community toward the rest upon whose threshold they
currently stand.