Greetings Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ. May the enabling grace of God be with us all!
I indicated that I would present a passage that more clearly indicates reconciliation as a process. Let’s first examine the following two verses. If I remember correctly, someone referred to these verses earlier in the thread:
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. (2 Cor 5:18 ESV)
At first blush, that sounds a lot as if the reconciliation is a completed fact, doesn’t it? But it ain’t necessarily so! What is the parsing of the word “καταλλαξαντος” (katallaxantos), the word that it translated as “reconciled” above? It is an aorist active participle. Let’s see what William Mounce wrote about participles:
The present participle describes a continuous action and is formed from the present stem of the verb.
The aorist participle describes an action without commenting on the nature of the action (undefined) and is formed from the aorist stem of a verb
The perfect participle describes a completed action with present effects, and is formed from the perfect stem of a verb. (William D. Mounce "Basics of Biblical Greek,
Ch 26, Sec 26.8)
If it were only a present participle, verse 18 would support those like myself who hold that the reconciliation is a process.
If it were only a perfect participle, verse 18 would support those who hold the reconciliation to be a past event.
However, being an aorist participle it does not in itself, support either position.
BUT, the very next verse begins with that little Greek word “ως.” That word is translated as “that is” by the EMTV, the ESV, and the NRSV. Those two little words “That is” indicates that what follows is a restatement of that in verse 18, and so to be consistent, we ought to translate the word in verse 17 also as “was reconciling” as a process.
In verse 18, the Greek word is “καταλλασσων,” the present active participle, which, according to Mounce quoted above, “describes a continuous action.” The verb is also preceded by “ην” (was)—thus "was reconciling (continuous action).
So verse 18 doesn’t contradict verse 17, but further explains it. Since the word in verse 17 is an aorist, we would not know the time aspect, if it were not for verse 18.
However, if I am correct, then the question arises as why virtually all translators render the word in verse 17 as “reconciled,” a past action. My guess is that they associate the aorist with past action since the aorist was often used in writing of past events.