Daniel Gregg wrote:The trouble is I cannot see except = δὲ.
You're correct. In Paul, at least, "except" is ει μη or εαν μη.
Daniel Gregg wrote:The trouble is I cannot see except = δὲ.
Iver Larsen wrote:If we agree that σῶμα refers to substance/reality rather than body, then we could ask why the sentence was not written:
ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστός (ἐστιν). Paul has just mentioned the old covenant ritual laws and laws about Jewish festivals. All these things are called a shadow. But they are not just a shadow of Christ, but a shadow of the new order of things that Christ brought with the new covenant. Since we could add "things" in the first clause, I suggest we can add the same in the second: "But the reality [is the things] of Christ" . .
David Lim wrote:Iver Larsen wrote:If we agree that σῶμα refers to substance/reality rather than body, then we could ask why the sentence was not written:
ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστός (ἐστιν). Paul has just mentioned the old covenant ritual laws and laws about Jewish festivals. All these things are called a shadow. But they are not just a shadow of Christ, but a shadow of the new order of things that Christ brought with the new covenant. Since we could add "things" in the first clause, I suggest we can add the same in the second: "But the reality [is the things] of Christ" . .
I have a different interpretation from Iver:
Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα Χριστοῦ.
Let not anyone judge you in ..., which are shadows of the things which are to be, but the reality is of Christ.
Iver's rendering suggests that "the reality" consists of only "the things of Christ", which I think would require "το σωμα τα χριστου [εστιν]". Whereas I take the original to mean that "the reality comes through Christ", in the same way that the sentence "true love is of God" means. I don't know what the term is for that kind of genitive though.
timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:Marc Possoff wrote:First the shadows Paul is referring too is future tense.
How so?
Marc Possoff wrote:The ritual laws and Jewish festivals are shadows which we agree on. But Perseus project has a definition that fits the context of the text which implies that Christ is the one casting the shadows. The shadows are the ritual laws and Jewish festivals being cast by Christ.
Shadows= ritual laws, Jewish festivals
Christ= the one that's casting the ritual laws, Jewish festivals
Now the trick is to tie in the shadows and the one casting the shadows.
Look at it this way. I'm standing and see my shadow on the wall. I'm the reality, the shadow is of myself the reality.
Apply this to Christ. Christ is standing and what his shadow is are the ritual laws and Jewish festivals. Once the shadow is gone, then you only have Christ. The text implies a future tense. The shadows that Christ is casting are stil present because Paul says 'shadows of good things to come'.
Thinking out loud here.
Jason Hare wrote:Marc Possoff wrote:The ritual laws and Jewish festivals are shadows which we agree on. But Perseus project has a definition that fits the context of the text which implies that Christ is the one casting the shadows. The shadows are the ritual laws and Jewish festivals being cast by Christ.
Shadows= ritual laws, Jewish festivals
Christ= the one that's casting the ritual laws, Jewish festivals
Now the trick is to tie in the shadows and the one casting the shadows.
Look at it this way. I'm standing and see my shadow on the wall. I'm the reality, the shadow is of myself the reality.
Apply this to Christ. Christ is standing and what his shadow is are the ritual laws and Jewish festivals. Once the shadow is gone, then you only have Christ. The text implies a future tense. The shadows that Christ is casting are stil present because Paul says 'shadows of good things to come'.
Thinking out loud here.
The language of "shadow" vs. "body" is analogous to "type" and "antitype."
Iver Larsen wrote:The suggested implicit τὰ is not crucial, only my way of trying to clarify the intended thought. I would not object to: But the reality is of/from Christ.
Iver Larsen wrote:I do have a problem with your three dots, because ἅ refers back to what has been left out. A few manuscripts have ὅ rather than ἅ, and that would indicate a reference to the whole concept of judging, but that reading is probably not original.
Marc Possoff wrote:The meat, drink, sabbath days are shadows of things TO come. Which hasn't happened yet, future tense.
I'm being convinced that Paul is using light to heavy, a 'how much more' teaching.
Marc Possoff wrote:According to Thayer's the μελλοντων is future tense, the idea of expectation.
αλλ εβασιλευσεν ο θανατος απο αδαμ μεχρι μωσεως και επι τους μη αμαρτησαντας επι τω ομοιωματι της παραβασεως αδαμ ος εστιν τυπος του μελλοντος
David Lim wrote:No one doubts that "μελλοντων" connotes future, but it is simply with respect to the current perspective in focus, so beyond that it will probably depend on interpretation. The very same word is used in Heb 10:1 and Heb 11:20, in both cases not denoting future time with respect to the time of writing.
Return to What does this text mean?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests