of the King (Matt. 12:, 13:), could say after the Transfiguration, "We see not yet all

things put under Him, but we see Jesus . . . . . crowned with glory and honour".

We now turn our attention to the close of Heb. 2: 9, "that He by the grace of God

should taste death for every man". How are we to understand the expression "taste

death"? Is it merely a synonym for death itself? Some say so, but we distrust this

interpretation of so many expressions as synonyms. We feel that there must be a clear

reason why this word is used here, and therefore we turn to the Scriptures for light upon

its meaning.

The word is translated in the A.V. "eat" three times, and "taste" twelve times. We

shall never plumb the profoundest depths of the Scriptures "unto perfection", but we shall

never find them lapsing into the slightest approach to error or slovenly usage of language.

That Homer may nod is proverbial; that the Scriptures are infallible is one of the first

articles of faith. It is also the impression consistently gained by continual searching. We

are not at all surprised therefore in the case of such divinely-arranged words to find that

the first occurrence of the expression "taste of death" takes us back to the close of

Matt. 16:, immediately before the record of the Transfiguration. There is one feature

common to all passages referring to the Transfiguration in the Gospels: immediately

before the reference is the statement concerning losing the soul for Christ's sake. Now

Peter's epistles have as their theme present suffering followed by future glory. This is the

lesson also of Matthew, chapters 16: and 17:

To John 8: 52 we need not refer, for the Lord said "see death" (verse 51) and we

are not certain enough of those children of the devil (verse 44) to follow them here. That

to "taste" does not mean to "drink" (Matt. 27: 34) show and thus in the figurative sense

also, to taste of death need not necessarily mean to die. When the ruler of the feast

"tasted" the water that was made wine, he certainly did not drink the entire amount which

the Saviour had miraculously provided, and when the Lord said "none of those men

which were bidden shall taste of my supper", it is equivalent to the more modern

colloquial phrase, "they shall not have a bit of it". When Peter became hungry and would

have `tasted' he wanted a very little, not a full meal (Acts 10: 10). Again, the phrase in

Acts 20: 11 does not indicate what we call a meal. The curse under which the enemies

of Paul bound themselves was not that they would not eat, but that they would not even

taste food, so great was their enmity. Those who during this present evil age experienced

in any measure the powers of the age to come are said to have "tasted" of the heavenly

gift, and to have "tasted" the good word of God (Heb. 6: 4, 5). They sampled these

things, but it will be true of them, as of the Queen of Sheba, that "the half has not yet

been told".

I Peter 2: 2, 3 is quite in line with the rest. The new-born babes, though feeding on

the milk of the Word, have but "tasted" that the Lord is gracious. As they grow thereby

and feed upon the stronger food, they will realize that blessed truth more. Every passage

we have referred to leads us to draw distinctions between tasting and fully eating.

Coming back to Matt. 16: 28 let us notice how this helps us: