I take this to be something of a paraphrase of John 3:16 by Karl Barth (even though he doesn’t identify it as such, explicitly):

Basically, the doctrine of the concursus [trans. accompanying] must be as follows. God, the only true God, so loved the world in His election of grace that in fulfilment of the covenant of grace instituted at the creation He willed to become a creature, and did in fact become a creature, in order to be its Saviour. And this same God accepts the creature even apart from the history of the covenant and its fulfilment. He takes it to Himself as such and in general in such sort that He co-operates with it, preceding, accompanying and following all its being and activity, so that all the activity of the creature is primarily and simultaneously and subsequently His own activity, and therefore a part of the actualisation of His own will revealed and triumphant in Jesus Christ.[1]

This might be said to be the supralapsarian backdrop to what finally actualizes in the economy of God’s life for the world in Jesus Christ. Indeed, aren’t such inklings what are required of prima facie teachings as we find in John 3:16. As TF Torrance would say, there is a “depth dimension” to Holy Scripture. That is to say, Scripture itself is hung together by something deeper than itself; i.e., than its syntax, philology, grammar, history, so on and so forth. This is what is going on in Barth’s development on a doctrine of God’s concursus vis-à-vis His creation, us. It is this type of theologizing above, from Barth, that something like the Dominical teaching found in John 3:16 moves and breathes from. Essentially, at bottom, what Barth is saying is that, “the answer is Jesus, what’s the question?”

[1] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics III/3 §49 [105] The Doctrine of Creation: Study Edition (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 107.