I think I follow your logic. You mean 'reconcile' as in 'return to a former state'. This is a common use for estranged parties that once were close.
The reason I don't (so far) agree with it is that that use, or application, of "reconcile" is not the only one. As I read the passage, Paul describes the Gospel —not the reasons why the saved need to be reconciled again, but why unbelievers need to believe. At the risk of Arminians saying, "I've been saying that all along!", I repeat what we all know, that God has commanded all the lost to repent and to believe in Christ. If there are unbelievers in that congregation (and I would guess that there were several), Paul is urging them to be reconciled salvifically.
Alternately, it could, perhaps, be read that SINCE the wayward believers are reconciled to Christ to begin with—which reconciliation Paul describes according to the Gospel—that it is only reasonable that they should repent and return to Christ, as with estranged parties seeking reconciliation.
There is one curious use of the word "BE", possible, I think, in the Greek. (Definitely in Spanish, there is translated from the infinitive, "ser", to the English, "be". But the word, in the infinitive, "estar", is not at all the same; though it too is often translated as, "be", it can mean something more temporary than a usual state of being, and so, something along the lines of, "become". But even in English there is a more —what's the word—abstract?— use of "be" —roughly, to behave according to what you are.
I asked the question of AI, since it could do a faster lookup than I could. It gave me several things I was not looking for, but on the whole —well, let me copy what I asked it, and then the salient points of its response:
Question: ...is [Paul] talking, as it seems (since he goes on about the Gospel) about the lost being reconciled to God, or is he talking about the saved be-ing, or repenting according to their existing reconciliation. (Even in English, this sense of 'be' is all over the Bible, in my opinion. I often refer to things it says the believers must or should do, not as causal, but as a result of what they already are, by, "we do so because it is so.") Here, do you see in the Greek any special reason why this should be the use of "be", here?
AI (Chat GPT-5 mini):
Short answer: The Greek uses the aorist passive imperative συµβαλλέσθω (actually—sorry, correction: the verb is καταλλάγητε in 2 Cor 5:20) — specifically καταλλάγητε (“be reconciled” / “be reconciled to God”) which is an aorist passive imperative of καταλλάσσω. That form and mood favor an imperative call to action (addressing hearers as agents/recipients of a change), not a descriptive statement of status; it can apply to unbelievers (command to be reconciled) or to believers as an exhortation to realize/act on a present positional reality, depending on context and assumed audience.
Key points from the Greek grammar and sense:
- Verb and form: καταλλάγητε is aorist passive indicative? No — it is aorist passive imperative 2nd person plural (a command): “be reconciled” / “be reconciled to God.” Imperative requires a command or appeal.
- Aorist nuance: Aorist imperative typically calls for a decisive, single action (bring about reconciliation), not ongoing state. It highlights the action of becoming reconciled.
- Passive voice: The passive indicates the subject is acted upon — “let yourselves be reconciled,” i.e., God or Christ’s reconciling act is what effects it.
- Imperative passive + aorist => invitation/command to submit to God’s reconciling work (fits an appeal to the unreconciled).
- Context: 2 Cor 5:17–21 frames an evangelistic appeal: verses 18–19 describe God reconciling the world to himself, not counting men’s trespasses, and v.20 calls Paul and the Corinthians “ambassadors” urging reconciliation. The flow moves from theological basis (God’s reconciling work) to a mission/appeal. That grammatical imperative functions rhetorically as an evangelistic summons.
- Audience signals: Paul addresses “we” and “you” in the letter; v.20 (“we entreat you on Christ’s behalf”) uses the same verb sense of entreaty. The imperative καταλλάγητε in that rhetorical slot most naturally targets those who still need to be reconciled — i.e., the unbelieving world, and practically any listeners not yet reconciled. It can also function as an exhortation to nominal believers to accept and live out the reconciliation offered, but grammatically it is a command to undergo reconciliation, not merely a reminder of status.
- Alternative interpretive options: Some read it as hortatory to believers: “allow yourselves to be reconciled” — emphasizing ethical response from those already in Christ (consistent with “we are ambassadors” and ethical exhortations elsewhere). Grammatically possible, but the aorist imperative and the immediate context about God reconciling the world tip the balance toward an appeal to the unreconciled.
Conclusion (grammatical): The Greek imperative καταλλάγητε (aorist passive) points to a command/invitation to undergo reconciliation (an action/state-change), not merely a statement of existing status. Contextually it most naturally functions as an evangelistic appeal to those not yet reconciled, though it can be and has been applied pastorally to believers urged to accept and live out reconciliation.
So, (Makesends, again, here in the 'real' (haha) conversation). It is curious to me, and a bit more affirming what I had been thinking as to whom is being addressed, that the verb translated "be reconciled" is one word, and in the aorist, (which to me favors the notion of it being a command to the unsaved, though certainly it does not preclude it being a command to those behaving as though carnal), but specially, it pleases my Calvinistic thinking, that it is a passive verb, regardless of to whom it is addressed! See? —I TOLD y'all that even Sanctification is monergistic!
