Roma 5:11

5:11 Not ¹  only this, but we also rejoice ²  in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received this reconciliation.

Roma 11:15

11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Roma 11:2

11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew! Do you not know what the scripture says about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

1 Korintus 5:1

Church Discipline

5:1 It is actually reported that sexual immorality exists among you, the kind of immorality that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with ³  his father’s wife.

1 Korintus 5:1

Church Discipline

5:1 It is actually reported that sexual immorality exists among you, the kind of immorality that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with ⁴  his father’s wife.

Kolose 1:20

1:20 and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, ⁵  whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Kolose 1:22

1:22 but now he has reconciled you ⁶  by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him –

[5:11]  ¹ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

[5:11]  ² tn Or “exult, boast.”

[5:1]  ³ tn Or “someone has married”; Grk “someone has,” but the verb ἔχω (ecw) is routinely used of marital relationships (cf. BDAG 420 s.v. 2.a), including sexual relationships. The exact nature of the relationship is uncertain in this case; it is not clear, for example, whether the man had actually married the woman or was merely cohabiting with her.

[5:1]  ⁴ tn Or “someone has married”; Grk “someone has,” but the verb ἔχω (ecw) is routinely used of marital relationships (cf. BDAG 420 s.v. 2.a), including sexual relationships. The exact nature of the relationship is uncertain in this case; it is not clear, for example, whether the man had actually married the woman or was merely cohabiting with her.

[1:20]  ⁵ tc The presence or absence of the second occurrence of the phrase δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (di’ autou, “through him”) is a difficult textual problem to solve. External evidence is fairly evenly divided. Many ancient and excellent witnesses lack the phrase (B D* F G I 0278 81 1175 1739 1881 2464 al latt sa), but equally important witnesses have it (Ì⁴⁶ א A C D¹ Ψ 048^vid 33 Ï). Both readings have strong Alexandrian support, which makes the problem difficult to decide on external evidence alone. Internal evidence points to the inclusion of the phrase as original. The word immediately preceding the phrase is the masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ (autou); thus the possibility of omission through homoioteleuton in various witnesses is likely. Scribes might have deleted the phrase because of perceived redundancy or awkwardness in the sense: The shorter reading is smoother and more elegant, so scribes would be prone to correct the text in that direction. As far as style is concerned, repetition of key words and phrases for emphasis is not foreign to the corpus Paulinum (see, e.g., Rom 8:23, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 12:7). In short, it is easier to account for the shorter reading arising from the longer reading than vice versa, so the longer reading is more likely original.

[1:22]  ⁶ tc Some of the better representatives of the Alexandrian and Western texts have a passive verb here instead of the active ἀποκατήλλαξεν (apokathllaxen, “he has reconciled”): ἀποκατηλλάγητε (apokathllaghte) in (Ì⁴⁶) B, ἀποκατήλλακται [sic] (apokathllaktai) in 33, and ἀποκαταλλαγέντες (apokatallagente") in D* F G. Yet the active verb is strongly supported by א A C D² Ψ 048 075 [0278] 1739 1881 Ï lat sy. Internally, the passive creates an anacoluthon in that it looks back to the accusative ὑμᾶς (Juma", “you”) of v. 21 and leaves the following παραστῆσαι (parasthsai) dangling (“you were reconciled…to present you”). The passive reading is certainly the harder reading. As such, it may well explain the rise of the other readings. At the same time, it is possible that the passive was produced by scribes who wanted some symmetry between the ποτε (pote, “at one time”) of v. 21 and the νυνὶ δέ (nuni de, “but now”) of v. 22: Since a passive periphrastic participle is used in v. 21, there may have a temptation to produce a corresponding passive form in v. 22, handling the ὑμᾶς of v. 21 by way of constructio ad sensum. Since παραστῆσαι occurs ten words later, it may not have been considered in this scribal modification. Further, the Western reading (ἀποκαταλλαγέντες) hardly seems to have arisen from ἀποκατηλλάγητε (contra TCGNT 555). As difficult as this decision is, the preferred reading is the active form because it is superior externally and seems to explain the rise of all forms of the passive readings.

[1:22]  tn The direct object is omitted in the Greek text, but it is clear from context that “you” (ὑμᾶς, Jumas) is implied.