In Matthew 16:28, Jesus tells His disciples that some of them would not taste death before seeing Him come in His Kingdom (see also Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27). What, specifically, is Jesus saying?

Some few think that Matthew 16:28 and its parallels teach that Jesus thought He would return before all the apostles died. Others think "coming in His kingdom" is a reference to Christ's "coming in judgment" against Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Some commentators believe this saying of Christ was fulfilled in the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. None of these views are adequate.

       Let's read this verse in its proper context:

       "[Jesus said,] 'Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.' Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him" (Matthew 16:28, 17:3).

       Verse 9 tells us that this was a "vision." It was a vision of the Kingdom of God! It was by means of this vision that "some standing here"Peter, James, and John were able to "see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." The Transfiguration was a preview of the kingdom, with Christ appearing in His glory.

       Some object on grounds that the phrase "shall not taste death" is an extraordinary way of referring to an event that would take place within a few days. Remember, however, that Jesus had just been talking about His own death and about the high cost of discipleship: "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." To encourage them, Jesus points out that before being called upon to lay down their lives, some of them would see (by way of vision) the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

The book of Jude speaks of angels who "left their own abode," and of a dispute between Michael the archangel and the devil over "the body of Moses." Some say that these examples come from two ancient sources, one called the Book of Enoch and the other called the Assumption of Moses. Did Jude rely on these works? Did he consider them inspired texts?

Many modern commentaries either imply or state outright that Jude depended upon the pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses in his references to sinning angels and Satan's dispute with Michael over the body of Moses. However, the similarities between the book of Jude and any apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works do not prove that Jude depended upon these sources or accepted them as inspired texts. He was no doubt familiar with them, and may have adapted descriptions found within them for his own use, but he was by no means citing them as authoritative. Similarly, the apostle Paul quoted pagan poets, but we are not to assume that Paul's use of pagan sources (Acts 17:28) lends support to the idea that the poets he quoted had written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

       It should be understood that the legends found in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works are often founded upon older traditions, some of which contain elements of truth. Rather than assume that Jude was depending upon the Book of Enoch, why not rather assume that Jude and the writer of Enoch were citing a common tradition? Some of the information given by Enoch is true, and Jude, writing under inspiration (and with an understanding of what was true and what was not), makes good use of that information. It should be pointed out, however, that there are some variations between Jude's and Enoch's descriptions. This may suggest that Jude's similar wording indicates his familiarity with the apocryphal work, but does not indicate that he was citing it directly.

       The same may be said of the similarities between Jude and the Assumption of Moses. Jude knew of the dispute between Michael and Satan, and, like the writer of Assumption, refers to that event. However, nothing in Jude's text indicates that he accepted the legends that had grown up around the factlegends such as the bodily assumption of Moses into heaven.

Matthew 1:1-16 gives the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Verse 17 states, "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations." There seems to be a missing generation in the second group of fourteen. Can you explain?

Expositors have proposed a number of solutions, but none of them can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Here's one way of solving the problem: In Hebrew, the numerical value of "David" is fourteen. David is included twice - at the end of the first group and beginning of the second - thus bringing the number of generations in the second group to fourteen. The three groups of fourteen emphasize David's number. This emphasis on David points to the Davidic King - the Messiah - prophesied in Scripture (Jeremiah 23:5). This is Matthew's way of saying that He has arrived.

What is the meaning of 1 Peter 3:19,20? It says, "By whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison. Who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited" Who are the "spirits in prison," and what did Jesus preach to them?

First Peter 3:18-20 states, "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water."

       Some have taken this passage to mean that the preincarnate Christ preached to fallen angels in the days of Noah, and that because they rejected His message, they are now in prison. Others have taken "spirits in prison" to mean the imprisoned souls of wicked humans who lived in the time of Noah. The first interpretation is doubtful on grammatical grounds; the second is doctrinally unsound, for the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the "immortality of the soul."

       The "spirits in prison" are undoubtedly fallen angels who are in some manner confined to certain boundaries, and whose disobedience was evident in the time of Noah, but it is doubtful that Christ's proclamation to them occurred in the pre-Flood period.

       The phrase "by the Spirit" is probably best rendered "in the spirit," as in the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible. Christ died "in the flesh" and was resurrected "in the spirit." The phrase "in the flesh" refers to His pre-resurrection state; the phrase "in the spirit" refers to His post-resurrection state. The words "by whom" are rendered "in which" in both the RSV and the NASB. The phrase refers to the state in which Christ "went and preached to the spirits in prison."

       Christ, then, died in the flesh and was made alive in the spirit, in which state (the resurrected state) He preached to the spirits. He did not preach a message of salvation to the spirits, as some have supposed. Rather, He "preached," or proclaimed, His sovereign Lordship to them. Just a few verses later, Peter says that Christ "has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities having been made subject to Him" (1 Peter 3:22). Notice that His resurrection to a new state of existence is associated with His authority over "angels and authorities." It makes sense, then, that His proclamation to the fallen angels was made after He was resurrected.

       The following paraphrase captures the essential meaning of 1 Peter 3:18-20: "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death as a human being, He was brought to life in a transformed state of existence completely free of the limitations of mortal human life. In this new state of existence, the resurrected Lord proclaimed His sovereign Lordship to the spirits in confinementthe fallen angels whose disobedience was evident in the days of Noah."

       Christ proclaimed His Lordship to the confined spirits, just as He has since proclaimed His Lordship to many through the preaching of the gospel, and just as He will ultimately proclaim His Lordship to all creation.

What did Paul mean when he spoke of being "baptized for the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:29)?

Some among the Corinthians were claiming that there is no resurrection from the dead. As part of his response, Paul asks, "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29).

       Expositors have offered numerous interpretations of the unusual words "baptized for the dead." Some have argued that this phrase could be translated "baptized in view of the dead," which would roughly coincide with the baptismal portrait of the burial of the spiritually dead "old man" and the raising to life of the "new man in Christ." Others claim that the strange expression refers to new members being baptized to replace members who have died. However, these explanations lack solid textual support.

       The most likely interpretation is that some among the Corinthian heretics were being baptized on behalf of deceased loved ones who had not received baptism during their lifetimes. Paul does not condone the practice; he merely notes the fact that some were doing it. His point is that if they do not believe in the resurrection of the dead, then it makes no sense for some of their number to practice baptism for the dead.

Considering Ephesians 2:20, 3:5, 4:11, and other scriptures about prophets' position in the New Testament, what is the Church of God International's position about prophets in the New Testament?

The scriptures you cite show beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were prophets in the apostolic church. The term prophet sometimes refers to a seer, or person who foretells future events. Agabus was such a prophet (Acts 11:28). However, the term, as it is used in the New Testament, usually refers to an inspired preacher. The prophet's (preacher's) inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit, but usually does not involve divine disclosures apart from what is revealed in Scripture. Rather, it involves the ability to comprehend Scripture and expound its message clearly.

       Paul wrote, "But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men" (1 Corinthians 14:3). This reflects the usual sense of "prophesying" in the apostolic church. Through supernatural illumination, certain persons had special insights into the Scriptures and were able to convey their understanding effectively, thus providing edification, exhortation, and comfort to the church. Their gift was also used as an evangelistic tool in bringing sinners to repentance and conversion.

David and other men of God in the Old Testament had multiple wives and concubines. Does this mean that God approves of polygamy?

The Bible nowhere upholds polygamy as a legitimate practice. God's will is expressed not only in the specific commandments of the law but in His creative acts as well. For example, Jesus shows how God's will regarding marriage and divorce is expressed in the Creation account. Compare Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:20-24 with Matthew 19:36. Notice that the Genesis account of man's creation does not explicitly say that divorce is contrary to the will of God. Yet, Jesus said, "Have you not read...," indicating that one should be able to understand from the account that marriage is a God-ordained institution and that divorce is contrary to God's will. Further, no explicit commandments regarding marital roles are found in the Genesis account, but Paul informs us that God's will in this matter is reflected in the creation order (1 Corinthians 11:3,8; 1 Timothy 2:12,13). As for God's will regarding polygamy, the implicit teaching of the Genesis account is clear. God gave Adam only the one wife. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife [not wives], and they [the two of themsee Matthew 19:5] shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

       The monogamous ideal is reflected in numerous Old Testament passages. The wife of a man who fears God "shall be like a fruitful vine" (Psalm 128:3). A man should rejoice with the wife of his youth, and "always be enraptured with her love" (Proverbs 5:1820). God speaks strongly against dealing treacherously with the "wife of your youth," who is "your companion and your wife by covenant" (Malachi 2:14,15). Note the singular in each reference.

       Jesus said, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" (Luke 16:18). Are we to assume that if a man stays married to his wife and yet marries another, he does not commit adultery? (The question is deliberately absurd, but makes the point nevertheless.)

       Some have objected to the view that polygamy did not have God's full approval in the Old Testament. The following are some of the most common objections:

       Objection 1: David and other men of God practiced polygamy and concubinage.

       Reply: While their cultural situation may "excuse" them to some extent, the fact remains that polygamy never was in accord with the good and perfect will of God. Scriptural narratives of the ancient men of God reveal many sins. The writers rarely paused to moralize, so we are often left with the impression that certain sins were somehow less than sinful.

       Objection 2: Exodus 21:7-11 permits polygamy.

       Reply: In verse 10, the term translated "duty of marriage" (KJV) should be rendered "oil" or "ointments." The passage says that if a man buys a female servant with intentions of marrying her, but then changes his mind, he is to continue providing for her.

       Objection 3: Leviticus 18:18 and Deuteronomy 21:1517 assume the existence of polygamy.

       Reply: True, but neither passage expresses divine approval of the practice. Deuteronomy 18:18 acknowledges the existence of prostitution, but does not imply divine approval.

       Objection 4: Second Samuel 12:7,8 says that God gave David the wives of Saul.

       Reply: This passage says that what was once Saul's is now David's. Nowhere are Saul's two wives found in the lists of David's wives. He took them into his safe-keeping and provided for them, but there is no indication that they became his wives.

       Objection 5: In 1 Timothy 3:2, Paul says that a bishop must be "the husband of one wife." This implies that polygamy existed and was practiced even within the church.

       Reply: First, Roman law did not permit polygamy. Second, the Greek expression for "husband of one wife" literally means "one-woman man." Paul is telling Timothy that church leaders should not be womanizers.

I have tried to understand the meaning of the phrase "in the sides of the north" in Isaiah 14:13. I have read the surrounding verses and have some ideas, but I am not sure. Can you help me?

Isaiah 14:13 is part of a "proverb ["taunt", NIV] against the king of Babylon" (Isaiah 14:4), and part of the larger "oracle concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw" (Isaiah 13:1, NIV). The verse reads, "For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north.'"

       The latter part of the verse may be rendered this way: "I will also sit in the mountain assembly in the farthest north." In the ancient world, it was commonly believed that a mountain assembly for the gods was located in the farthest north. However, the phrase "sides of the north" refers to Zion, the holy mountain and city of God, in Psalm 48:2. It is likely that the verse refers to both ideas since the passage is about an individual who seeks to elevate himself above all that is worshiped.

       The entire passage (verses 4-21) is a poetic description of the prideful self-exaltation of the king of Babylon. In the backdrop is the pattern of pride and vanity that caused Satan to become the devil. The point of verse 13 is that "Lucifer" (verse 12), because of his ever-swelling pride, sought to exalt himself and his throne above all other principalities and powers. "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds," he says in his heart; "I will be like the Most High" (verse 14).

If Joseph was not Jesus's real father, why is his (Joseph's) genealogy from David given and not Mary's? We have no way of knowing if Mary was of Davidic descent or not.

Matthew 1:16 tells us that Jacob was Joseph's father, while Luke 3:23 says that Eli was Joseph's father. Even a cursory examination of Matthew's and Luke's genealogies of Jesus reveals clearly that these are two different genealogies. Apparently, Joseph was Jacob's son by birth, and Eli's son by marriage. Eli, then, was the father of Mary, the wife of Joseph. Matthew 1:6 and Luke 3:32 reveal that both Joseph and Mary were David's descendants.

Did Jesus speak in parables in order to deliberately conceal the truth from certain people?

Parables enhance the understanding of those who earnestly seek God's will, but remain a mystery to those whose minds have been darkened by the deceitfulness of sin. God does not arbitrarily conceal the truth from anyone. It is concealed only from those who have shut their eyes and ears, spiritually speaking. However, if at any time they turn to God in repentance and seek His will, He will remove the blinders and lead them to greater understanding. When this happens, the parables of Jesus will benefit them enormously.

       When His disciples asked Him why He spoke in parables, Jesus replied, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says:

       "'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn to me to heal them.' But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it" (Matthew 13:10-17, Revised Standard Version).

       Knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of God "has not been given" to certain people because their "heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed."

       The parables of Jesus are not the cause of spiritual blindness. They conceal truth in the sense that they are indiscernible to those who have closed their own eyes. Jesus knew that divine secrets presented in the form of metaphors would hardly be understood by those insensible to spiritual things.

I have read in several published works that Jesus was not born on December 25, but rather on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles. Is this what your church teaches?

While it is not possible to be certain about the time of Christ's birth, several reasonable arguments in favor of the fall of the year have been made. According to one argument, the priestly service of Zacharias (who would father John the Baptist) very likely took place in June. This is based upon the fact that he was "of the division of Abijah" (Luke 1:5), which was the eighth division in line of service, and the assumption that the first division began serving in the first month (spring) of the calendar. Each division served for eight days, from one Sabbath to the next. Assuming that John the Baptist was conceived within a short time after Zacharias returned home (see Luke 1:23,24), and that Zacharias's service occurred in early June, we may place John's birth in the early spring. Since Jesus was born six months after John (Luke 1:2426,36), we may place the birth of Christ in the fall, which is the time of year the Feast of Tabernacles occurs.

       The argument seems plausible, but you will notice that it partly depends upon at least two assumptions: that Zacharias served in June, and that John was conceived immediately after Zacharias returned home. While a fall birth is likely, the uncertainties make it impossible to pinpoint the precise time of Christ's birth.

       If Christ was born on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, it seems odd that none of the Evangelists mention it. They clearly associate the death of Christ with the Passover (Matthew 26; Mark 14: Luke 22: John 13,18), and the coming of the Holy Spirit with the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The fact that the Feast of Tabernacles is not mentioned in either birth narrative gives no support to the theory that Christ was born during the feast. If His birth occurred on the first day of the feast, or at any time during the feast, it seems particularly odd that even Luke's detailed account makes no mention of it.

The book of Genesis says that when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree, God said, "Man has become like Us, knowing good and evil." If God has existed forever, where did the evil that God knows and presumably has always known come from? If God is the sole Creator, did He create evil? If so, why?

God did not create evil; He created the potential for evil. He made creatures capable of choosing whether they would obey Him. Evil entered the picture when the first choice to disobey God was made.

       After Adam and Eve took the forbidden fruit and were punished as a result. God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil (Genesis 3:22). Previous to this sin, the serpent had told the woman that eating the forbidden fruit would not result in death, but would cause them to "be like God, knowing good and evil" (verses 4,5).

       The irony is that man was already "like God" (Genesis 1:26), but, under the devil's influence, he sought more than was rightfully his. By eating the forbidden fruit, man took upon himself the divine prerogative of deciding what is good and what is evil.

       In the Creation narrative, God exercises His divine prerogative when He declares that His creative work is "good." On the first day of Creation Week, He "saw the light, that it was good" (Genesis 1:4). On the third day, He made the dry land appear, and "saw that it was good" (verse 10). Throughout the account, God sees that His creative work is good (verses 11,12,18,21,25,31).

       Later, after being warned that eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would result in death, the woman, influenced by Satan, "saw that the [forbidden] tree was good for food" (Genesis 3:6). By eating the forbidden fruit, the woman and her husband became "like God" in the sense that they had taken to themselves the divine prerogative of deciding what is good. They had declared that which was deadly (and expressly forbidden) to be good.

You say that God did not create evil. Doesn't this contradict Isaiah 45:7, which clearly states that God creates evil?

The problem lies in the definition of the term "evil." The term can refer to (1) ungodly behavior, or to (2) calamities that befall individuals, groups, and nations.

In Isaiah 45:7, God does not say that He is the Author of ungodliness. The New King James Version correctly translates the verse as follows: "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity, I, the Lord, do all these things."

       God brings calamity upon ungodly men, but He does not make men ungodly.

       The kind of evil God does not create is mentioned in James 1:13-15: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death."

       God gave humankind the power to choose whether to obey Him. He therefore created the potential for ungodly (evil) behavior, but is not the Author of ungodliness.

- The End -