p179 [F Rowan] [To the same] MY DEAR BROTHER, - … I forgot perhaps to say in my former letter that ἵνα in John must not be taken as ἵνα in other books. I will not say it is never telic, as they call it - "in order that" - but it is constantly used for ὅτι, and has no force of purpose. There is thus no consequence in it, ἵνα in John not having the force of "in order that."

The αὐτὴ in your interpretation - "this [is life eternal]" - would refer to nothing at all. The knowledge of the Father and the Son is identical with, and the form of eternal life in our minds (spiritual apprehension in the soul). The Father sent the Son that we might live through Him. The Son of God was manifested in this, and when hearing Christ's word we believe on Him that sent Him, we have everlasting life (John 5). 1 John 1 shews that Christ is eternal life; but as God begets us by the word, it is in believing on Him as thus sent and the Son, that we have eternal life, having received Him. We are "all children [sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus." It is thus I do receive Christ who is eternal life, and having the Son I have the Father also.

The divine nature* gives more the character of the divine life in us. I have no doubt the ancient saints were quickened by the Son; they were born of God, or could not have entered into the kingdom. But life and incorruptibility were brought to light by the gospel. Eternal life is twice mentioned in the Old Testament - Psalm 133 and Daniel 12 - but both refer to the millennium; and the heirs being under age differed nothing from servants, though lords of all. It never came out as revealed eternal life till He who was eternal life was there. But they were quickened that they might live to God.
{*"Is eternal life distinguished or to be kept distinct from the divine nature? Could we say that the patriarchs, etc., had the divine nature but not eternal life?"}

Boston, June, 1872.

[52107E]