My question pertains to the relative clause ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων. The NIV translates the participle of μέλλω with past reference: "These things are a shadow of things that were to come."
Given the context of the phrase, would you say that understanding that in the past is better than in the future? Is he talking about things that are yet to come (perhaps the second advent, etc.) or things that were to come (that is, Christ and his accomplished work)? Do you feel that the Greek limits this in anyway, keeping in mind that the aorist of this verb is not used in any form in the New Testament.
I'd really appreciate your feedback, as it pertains to a discussion that I'm having with someone on another forum.