David Lim wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:OK. Consulting BDAG ἀγαπάω 2, it seems that this verb with the cognate accusative ἀγάπαν is an idiom that means "to show love." (Another example is John 17:26). In our case, the phrase διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς has two accusatives for ἠγάπησεν, so something idiomatic is going on. For a sense like "show," the situation here is more activity-like than state-like and so it fits with an aorist.
You mean "the cognate accusative αγαπην" right?
Yes. I went ahead and fixed the typo in my post.
David Lim wrote:But I still don't see what the problem with the aorist is. The aorist "ηγαπησεν" is used many times where it doesn't seem to mean "show love" in the sense of "do something to demonstrate one's love". (Mark 10:21, John 13:1) In fact, John 17:26 seems to convey exactly what I was trying to say, that "the love which God loved us with" is simply "the love which God had for us", which Jesus wants to "be in us also", not referring directly to any action of showing love but just the attitude of having the kind of love that God had for us.
An aorist with a state usually means either that the state is temporary and complete or that it signals entrance into the state (e.g., ingressive). I don't think either understanding works in Eph 2:4, and the immediate answer from you and Jason is that the verb refers to an activity instead of a state (if I understood you right).
In my dialect of English, "to love a love" isn't really English, certainly not idiomatic English. It has to be interpretated rather than calqued. If you're proposing "to have love for" rather than "to show love for" then you should explain why BDAG got it wrong. Also, in terms of Aktionart, your proposal is a state rather than an activity.
David Lim wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:Jason Hare wrote:Additionally, what exactly is the καὶ connecting here? Is it connecting ὤν to ὄντας??
Couldn't it be adverbial, "even when we were dead ...."?
Hmm does that "και" really have such import? Or could it be just conjunctive as I read it?
"Even" is a decent rendering for an ascensive καί, so it's a question of context. If the καί is conjuctive to connect ὤν to ὄντας, then how does the διά-clause fit into the structure of the sentence?