Jason Hare wrote:So, ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων is future because of the tense of ἐστίν, while ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος is certainly future-in-the-past because of the context? The structure and the ideas are so similar in the two verses. It seems odd that this understanding of Colossians has been ruled out for whatever reason, even though it is the meaning of the context for sure - that the festivals and such were a shadow that was pointing to "coming things" that would be the reality - that is, the things concerning Jesus.
Not quite. I have been arguing that the context of Col 2 is present--the present judging of present behavior. The festivals and food laws are an important, on-going part in the writer's current, present reality. In Rom 5, on the other hand, Adam is still dead.
Normally, I would like to see some fairly clear indication in the context to shift the perspective time. Your proposal requires two shifts, from the present to the past between μὴ ... κρινέτω and ἅ ἐστιν and then back from the past to the present between ἅ ἐστιν and τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. I think before we multiply entities (here, shifts in perspective time) and run afoul of Occam's Razor, I think the simpler reading should first be ruled out.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala