Jesus told His disciples that some of them would not “taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Mt 16:28). This saying appears in the other Synoptics as well. Mark 9:1 describes it as “until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power,” while Luke 9:27 describes it as “until they see the kingdom of God.” Most focus on identifying the event that Jesus had in mind. I’ll come to that question shortly, but first I want to point out something I never noticed before: Jesus affirmed that at least some of His disciples would die. He said they would “taste death,” but that they would not taste death until they had some particular experience. This is important because many interpreters have claimed that Jesus promised His Second Coming would occur in the first century in His apostles’ lifetime. Here, however, Jesus testifies to the fact that at least some of His apostles would die.
One might object that the experience Jesus had in mind was the Second Coming, undermining my point. That brings us to the task of identifying the experience Jesus had in mind. He could not have been referring to the Second Coming because that would have precluded their death. Scripture teaches that those who are alive at the Second Coming will be instantly glorified (1 Cor 15:51-53). They will never taste death. If the experience Jesus had in mind was the Second Coming, then it would not be true that those who witnessed it would “taste death” afterward. Jesus expected His apostles to die, which means Jesus had no expectation that He would return in their lifetime.
If Jesus was not referring to the Second Coming, what was He referring to? The fact that all three Synoptics immediately follow Jesus’ saying with an account of the Transfiguration highly suggests that this was the experience Jesus had in mind. Peter, James, and John witnessed Jesus in His glory – a glory that would not be fully revealed to the world until the inauguration of the kingdom at Jesus’ Second Coming.
It’s quite interesting that when Peter reflects back on the Transfiguration in his second epistle (2 Pet 1:16-18), he uses the words “power” and “coming” to describe it. These are the same words used in Mark 9 to describe the event.
2 Pet 1:16-18 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
Mark 9:1 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”
According to tradition, Mark’s gospel was based on Peter’s testimony. It was even referred to as the “memoirs of Peter.” The fact that the terminology used by Peter to describe the Transfiguration in his epistle is consistent with the terminology used in Mark’s gospel (based on Peter’s testimony) is a further piece of evidence in favor of interpreting Jesus’ saying as a reference to the Transfiguration. Peter described the event to Mark in the same way he himself recounted the event in his epistle.
______________
Update on 5/9/25:
I’ve come to question the interpretation that Jesus was referring to His Transfiguration. By saying “there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” Jesus highly implies that some would die before this event while others would not. He appears to be providing a timeframe for when the event would occur: It wouldn’t happen so soon that all those under the sound of His voice would still be alive to experience it, but neither would it happen so far into the future that none of them would be alive to see it. All of them would die, but only some of them would experience the event prior to their death.
The Transfiguration, however, occurred just six to eight days later (Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28). It’s almost certain that none of those who heard Jesus’ prediction died within a week. If Jesus were referring to the Transfiguration, then, His statement appears to be wrong, or at least highly misleading. Imagine that I had a secret I planned to disclose in the future. I communicated my plan to a large group of my friends on a Zoom call, saying, “There are some on this call who will not taste death before they learn of my secret.” Surely, given my phraseology, they would expect the secret to be disclosed in the distant, rather than the near, future. If, then, I went on to disclose that secret just one week later, my friends would rightly conclude that either (1) I misled them about the timing of the disclosure, or (2) I changed my mind as to when I would disclose it. The same is true of Jesus’ disciples. Given Jesus’ phraseology, surely they would have expected this event to be in the distant future. If it were the Transfiguration, however, it occurred just one week later without any of them experiencing death.
To make matters worse, those who did not experience the event were not prevented from doing so by their death – as Jesus implied – but by Jesus’ choice not to include them in the experience. So why did Jesus bother mentioning their deaths at all? Why not just say “there are some standing here who will see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”?
It seems to me that we must conclude (1) that Jesus was wrong when He implied that some would die before they could witness the Transfiguration, (2) Jesus changed His mind about the timing of the Transfiguration, or (3) Jesus was not referring to the Transfiguration at all. Given a high Christology, Jesus could not have been mistaken. Option two is ad hoc, and thus I tentatively conclude that Jesus was not referring to the Transfiguration.
So what, then, was He referring to? It can’t be the Transfiguration because that happened too soon for anyone to die, and it can’t be the Second Coming because that happened too late for anyone to remain alive. It had to be an event that occurred within the lifetime of some of Jesus’ disciples. Right now, I’m not sure what event Jesus was referring to.
Thinking to Believe 
August 18, 2023 at 4:33 pm
I appreciate your scholarship and the way you approach the topics you discuss in your posts. I agree most of the time and therefore respond only infrequently. On this post, I agree that the language used by the Bible writers in citing this statement by Jesus could give rise to it being a reference to the transfiguration. But the number of times the Greek word erchomai is used and how it is often used in the Gospels (Matthew 2:23; 3:11, et al) leaves me wondering if the transfiguration could be a complete fulfillment of the Mark 9:1. The Greek term seems to suggest the thought of “having come” or “having arrived in its fulness” rather than a merely a three-person witness to a “glorious shining” experience that was likely incomprehensible at the time. Years later when they wrote about it, they were more more knowledgeable about what they had seen. Could the “arrival of the kingdom” phrase be completely fulfilled at the transfiguration? There is room for doubt there. It was only a week or so after this pronouncement that the transfiguration occurred. The “taste of death” phrase seems out of context in some way with that fact. Would a combination of factors—the transfiguration, the resurrection, and particularly Pentecost—complete the meaning of what Jesus was saying? The kingdom of God certainly “arrived in power and glory” on Pentecost. Perhaps either the transfiguration or Pentecost can stand alone as fulfillment of the verse but a completion of what Jesus came to do and to open to us by glory and power (“He sheds forth this which you know see and hear”) seems to be a more satisfying view, in my opinion.
Again, thanks for your many interesting and insightful posts.
JREnsey
LikeLike
August 21, 2023 at 5:18 pm
Interesting thoughts, Brother Ensey. If we interpret “come” in the sense of “having arrived in its fullness,” I think that would require us to understand Jesus as referring to the Second Coming because that is when the kingdom will be fully realized. It has already been inaugurated spiritually, but awaits its full, physical manifestation until the Second Coming. And yet, I don’t think Jesus could have been referring to the Second Coming for two reasons: (1) If He were, we would have to conclude that Jesus was mistaken since all of those He spoke to died before the Second Coming; (2) As I argued in my post, Jesus could not have been referring to the Second Coming because those who see His return will never taste death, and yet Jesus told the apostles they would taste death. If Jesus was not referring to the Second Coming, then I don’t think an interpretation that focuses on the kingdom “arriving in its fullness” can be the right interpretation.
You said the “not taste death” phrase doesn’t quite match the fact that the Transfiguration occurred just a week after Jesus’ saying. Are you saying that we would expect for the event in question to occur farther in the future (closer to the deaths of the apostles) rather than just a week away? If so, I can see why you would think that. What’s the point of referencing their deaths if the event they would experience was going to happen so quickly, and be so far removed from the time of their death? As I understand it, however, the statement is more idiomatic. Jesus’ point was simply that they would have this experience in their lifetime.
I think the heart of the matter is whether or not the Transfiguration alone fulfills Jesus’ prediction that they would see the kingdom of God coming in power (or the Son coming in His kingdom).” I think your suggestion that the resurrection and Pentecost may also be part of what Jesus had in mind is quite plausible. Perhaps it began with the Transfiguration, but was more fully revealed in the resurrection and Pentecost. Having said that, I would not diminish the significance of the Transfiguration as if it alone could not fulfill Jesus’ saying. It was more than just a glorious shining experience. I agree that the apostles would not have understood the full significance of what they had seen, but they did know it was significant when it happened. It had a major impact on the three apostles. They were so overwhelmed and flustered by the experience that Peter stupidly blurted out that he would make tents for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. The text describes them as being terrified. Not only did the hear the audible voice of God and see two major OT figures standing in front of them, but it was the first and only time they ever saw that Jesus was more than just a man. They saw His glory as God. They got a glimpse into the power of the kingdom that Jesus was bringing because they got a glimpse into the power of its King. This experience was so powerful that Jesus did not even want them telling anyone about it until after He had risen from the dead. The significance of this experience is also made clear by Peter’s epistle where he recounts the experience as proof that Jesus is not mythical. The three truly did get a glimpse of the kingdom in the Transfiguration, so I think it could be the fulfillment of Jesus’ statement, but as I said, I find it plausible that the resurrection and Pentecost may be connected to it as well.
LikeLike
August 20, 2025 at 12:39 pm
What other significant event occurred in this specific window? Could it perhaps be the destruction of the temple and the final ending of one age at the advent of another? How is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD70 by Rome different than Babylon conquering the same and at the behest of Yahweh?
LikeLike