“There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

cf., Mat 16:28; Mar 9:1; Luk 9:27

Some Basic Facts from These Words

1. To “taste death” is to literally die [Heb 2:9; Joh 8:51-52 cf., Gen 21:16 *the Jews understanbly restated Jesus’ words, “see death” as “taste death” but was this what he meant cf., Job 38:17].
2. “They will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” sounds like they would taste death after they had seen the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Challenges With Interpreting These Words

1. If Jesus is going to physically come, as we and many believe, it means either that
   1. Some of the then disciples are still alive, since we believe the Lord hasn’t come or
   2. The Lord made a mistake or, even, just outright lied.
2. Thus, since neither of the deductions above is true, then it means either that
   1. We are wrong in thinking that the Lord will come in a physcal way and we are wrong in thinking he hasn’t come or
   2. We are missing something.
3. Now, since it is abundantly, I think, clear that the Lord will physically come in the sky above, the second deduction is evidently the case—we are missing something.

What It Cannot Mean

1. It evidently cannot mean that the Lord Jesus came as he later discussed on the mount of Olives before the last of the apostles died. This is certain as it is an event that even unbelievers in the Lord Jesus would recognize and it is an event in which the dead will rise. None of these has ever happened.
2. The Lord could not have meant that there were some among those then present with him that would not die until they had seen the Lord Jesus coming in the clouds and the trumpet is sounded and the dead are raised, etc. He couldn’t have meant this since all the disciples are evidently dead and since the coming of the Lord, as described in the Oliveth discourse, with all the preceding and acompanying events, has not taken place.

Since this is the case, what he means has to in some way be figurative.

What Jesus Really Meant Here

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. ¹⁸And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. [2Pe 1:16-18]

Jesus was referring to Peter, James and John seeing/witnessing his glory on the mount of transfiguration.

1. Peter referred to the event on the mountain as “the power and coming of the Lord” [2Pe 1:16]. This corresponds to Jesus saying that they would “see the kingdom of God come with power.” [Mar 9:1]
2. Peter referred to their seeing the glory of Jesus as being “eyewitnesses of his majesty” [2Pe 1:16]. This corresponds to Jesus saying that they would “see”
   1. “…the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” [Mat 16:28]
   2. “…the kingdom of God come with power.” [Mar 9:1]
   3. “…the kingdom of God.” [Luk 9:27]
3. It agrees with the implication of the words of Jesus that after seeing the kingdom they would taste death
4. It resolves the contradictions

Jesus said that they would see the kingdom come with power [Mar 9:1] and Peter, referring to the events on the mount of transfiguration, says “we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” [2Pe 1:16]. In other words, Jesus being transfigured before them was seeing the kingdom coming in power.

All the accounts of this words are followed by the account of the transfiguration of Jesus which shows that they all understood this transfiguration to be the event to which Jesus was referring.

Why Jesus Informs Them Of The Fact

In addition to the above, I think it would be useful to understand why Jesus even made this point. There surely is a purpose to his telling them and it is evidently not a promise since it only applies to some and not all of them.

1. According to Mark, he was talking to more than just the disciples, but to some other people as well [Mar 8:34].
2. He tells them this so that they would believe the apostles Peter, James and John [Mar 9:2ff] when, after his death and resurrection they would tell them of his glory which they were soon to witness on the mount of transfiguration [Mar 9:9; Mat 17:9].

After witnessing the event, Jesus commanded the three not to tell anyone until he was risen from the dead [Mat 17:9].

Apparently, the reason why Jesus told them this was so that they would believe those who would see it whenever then told them. Peter, James and John were the only ones privileged to witness this event, therefore, it was going to be through them that the other disciples would learn about it. Therefore, Jesus was preparing the disciples and the church at large to accept their testimony about his glory and majesty.

He did not need to tell them any such thing about his resurrection because they would all witness it. However, we would do well to note that even after his resurrection, he did not reveal that glory as he did on the mount of transfiguration to them.

All of this may seem kind of pointless, however, when we consider that even when he spoke plainly of rising from the dead, they did not understand what he meant, we would see how important it was. It was important that Jesus demonstrated what he meant by coming in glory and giving his disciples a sample of what his coming was really going to be like.

But for the eye witness of the three, what Jesus meant by coming with the glory of his Father wouldn’t have been beyond question and would have been subject to varied interpretations among the disciples. But thank God for their eye witness account.

Consder that even today, with their eye witness testimony of Jesus’ glory, there are still those who say that his coming is not physical. How much more confusion would there have been if not for their testimony.

Appendix—Support For 2Peter’s Authoirship

1. By the way, this actually proves the author of 2 Peter, which some reject to be Peter, to actually be the Apostle Peter. It proves it because his application of the event of the mount of Transfiguration to the coming of the Lord actually resolves the difficulty of the interpreting this passage which I do not think he had in mind to do. Without his application in 2Peter it would have been somewhat difficult to confidently state what Jesus meant.