IS GOD'S PLAN ALL ABOUT US?

The adult Sunday school class I oversaw for years at one church was probably like most others in that we always made sure we had a healthy dose of practical application in each lesson. This used to drive one member of the class crazy since he came from a strong Calvinist background and would interrupt most classes by telling us that we were off-base in neglecting the sovereignty of God. At the time it was rather irritating to both teachers and most of the people in the class, but that man did have a good point that we had all too often overlooked.

Thus, I was interested in reading an essay in Christianity Today magazine by Andrew Torrance which addressed this subject. He points out that we all tend to have a rather self-centered view of God's creation which needs correcting. He then presents examples of how that view plays out regarding three specific issues.

The Creation

When we view the creation of the universe as being solely centered on making a home for humanity, it becomes an ideal place for us to live in harmony with God provided we make the proper choices, which our original parents failed to do. Thus, God had to come up with a totally different plan to eventually bring that about.

But when we see God's creation of mankind as a means of reflecting God's glory and love to the world, “this calling anticipates the coming of the Son, 'the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation' (Col. 1:15). In this way God blesses humanity and declares it good.” Viewed in this light, the coming of Christ to the world was not God's plan B but his plan A all along.

God's Choice of Israel

If viewed from a human point of view, this becomes a deal that God made with a particular group of people – a contract in which He agreed to do one thing if they would do another. This, in effect, rewrites Genesis 17:7, Exodus 6:7, Leviticus 26:12 and other OT passages to read: “'If you will be my people, then I will be your God; 'If you keep the law, then I will be faithful to you.' This frames God's relationship with Israel as legally and morally conditioned on the people's faithfulness. And when Israel fails to uphold its side of the bargain, the relationship deteriorates, resulting in exile and separation from God.”

But if for a moment we look at the situation from God's viewpoint, His relationship with Israel remains despite their shortcomings, as Paul expresses it in Romans 11:28-29. Torrance says, “Even in times of defiance, Israel's identity remains intact. Their rebellion can only ever reflect a resistance to their true nature, a pretense of being other than who they truly are.”

There is one additional passage which Torrance does not quote, but which seems pertinent to this subject. God confirms his covenant with Israel through Ezekiel in 36:22-31. But to this He appends the words: “It is not for your sake that I will act, says the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel (RSV).” Then for whose sake is it, we might ask? That is addressed in the third example given by Torrance.

The Incarnation of Jesus

If we look at the sending of Christ to the earth the way I have always been taught to view it, it is God's fallback plan he came up with after mankind failed to live up to His standards again and again. “In this narrative, Jesus is not the ultimate purpose of creation but a means to humanity's ultimate end: eternal life in a perfected state. Achieving this, however, requires we accept redemption through faith. Creation's story, therefore, depends not solely on God's actions but also on human choices.”

But conversely, if it is centered on God, “creation is not an end in itself but part of God's eternal purpose, culminating in Jesus Christ.” Torrance goes to on to state, “The story of Easter is thus not about balancing or neutralizing sin but about the collapse of sin's false narrative under the weight of God's grace and truth. In Christ, creation is brought to the eternal conclusion God had always ordained for it.” So that again brings us back to the question as to God's ultimate purpose in the creation.

At this point, Torrance explains: “The reason for creation is rooted in the eternal love between the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit. Creation naturally flows out of this love...Creation only exists because God determined that God's love should overflow into something new – something other than God. The world is not meant to merge back into God but to exist as a gift – which the Father gives to the Son and the Son returns to the Father, all in the Spirit. This divine exchange revolves around the Incarnation. The Father sends the Son to identify with creation so that, in and through him, creation can return to the Father. In this way, God is for us in Christ by enabling us to be for God in Christ.”

I must admit, in conclusion, that much of Torrance's ideas are a bit above my not-so-theological understanding. I am much more geared toward biblical theology than systematic theology. The first of these two takes a bottom-up approach by beginning with the exegesis of individual passages in Scripture understood in their own contexts, and from those attempting to come up with a universal theological truth. In contrast, the systematic approach tends to start with a general theological thesis and then illustrating it with selected biblical passages. Each of these methodologies has its own strengths and weaknesses, which I will not attempt to enumerate, but for my own part I will continue to concentrate on the first approach as being the safest to pursue.