Photo by Matt Botsford
I made a boo-boo.
When I attempted to find the Billboard top 100 for Christian music for my first review, I failed to examine the date. As it turns out, NFâs âLet You Downâ was number 1 on October 7, 2017, not when I started reviewing lyrics. Therefore, I will complete my second review for the number 1 song for January 7, 2018.
Hillsong is a name with which I am familiar. My congregation regularly sings worship songs using some of their music. This one, in particular, is one of my favorites; however, I will not allow my favoritism to trump my objectivity. As of this writing, Hillsong Worship’s What a Beautiful Name is Number 1 on the Billboard Top 100 Christian Songs.
Note to new users: This is a different kind of review site! Read About the Berean Test and Evaluation Criteria prior to reading this review. I strongly encourage you to consider the potential blessings and dangers of this artistâs theology by visiting Resources.
1. What message does the song communicate?
The name of Jesus is beautiful, wonderful, and powerful. He is Creator, one with the Father, a rescuer, brings the Kingdom of God on earth, loving, defeated death, without rival or equal, is the name above all names, a king, to which nothing can stand against.
Score: 10/10
2. How much of the lyrics line up with Scripture?
All of it!
Lyrics posted with permission.*
[Verse 1]
You were the Word at the beginning
References the opening of John’s Gospel in John 1:1.
One with God the Lord Most High
Jesus’ declaration that He and the Father are one. See John 10:30.
Your hidden glory in creation
The glory of God is found in His creation. See Psalm 19:1-6 and John 1:14.
Now revealed in You our Christ
Jesus is revealed as the Creator of the universe, that is, the heavens and the earth. See John 1:3, John 1:10 Colossians 1:15-16, and 1 Corinthians 8:6.
[Chorus 1]
What a beautiful Name it is
What a beautiful Name it is
Though not found explicitly in Scripture, we can derive that the name of Jesus is beautiful. His Hebrew name “Yeshua” derives from “Joshua”, which means “to rescue” or “to deliver”. There is beauty in that name.
The Name of Jesus Christ my King
References to Jesus as King include Matthew 6:13, 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 1:5, Revelation 17:14, and Revelation 19:11-16
What a beautiful Name it is
Nothing compares to this
possible reference to Isaiah 40:18-20 and Psalm 71:20-22.
What a beautiful Name it is
The Name of Jesus
[Verse 2]
You didn’t want Heaven without us
God wants all of us to come to the knowledge of the Truth (1 Timothy 2:3-4), that is, Jesus (John 14:6). He also desires for us to repent (2 Peter 3:9) and to have a personal relationship with Him (Acts 17:27, Romans 8:15, John 15:1-11, Romans 11:16-24). Since Jesus is God (Isaiah 9:6-7, Isaiah 43:10-11, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26, John 1:1-3, John 1:14, John 5:17-18, John 8:23-25, John 8:28, John 10:30-33, John 14:9, John 20:28-29, Philippians 2:5-6, Colossians 1:16-19, Colossians 2:8-9, Titus 2:13, 1 Timothy 6:14-16, Hebrews 1:10-12, and Revelation 1:8, Revelation 22:13). While it sounds like heaven could not exist without man, this line communicates God’s desire, that His will is for heaven to not be without people. He wants us to repent and trust in Him (2 Peter 3:9).
So Jesus You brought Heaven down
The Kingdom of Heaven came through Jesus. See Matthew 4:17 and Philippians 2:5-11.
My sin was great Your love was greater
All have sinned (Romans 3:23) and it separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2, Romans 6:23). However, Christ’s love for us compelled Him to sacrifice Himself for our sins (John 3:16, Romans 5:6-8), which is greater than our sins (1 John 3:20; see Jeremiah 17:9 about the human heart).
What could separate us now?
References Romans 8:36-39, which lists a whole host of things that will not separate us from the love of God. Please notice that willful rebellion is not listed here.
[Chorus 2]
What a wonderful Name it is
What a wonderful Name it is
The Name of Jesus Christ my King
What a wonderful Name it is
Nothing compares to this
What a wonderful Name it is
The Name of Jesus
Same as Chorus 1, though with the word “wonderful” in place of “beautiful”. A possible reference to âwonderfulâ can be found in Isaiah 9:6.
[Bridge]
Death could not hold You
Jesus conquered death! See Acts 2:24, 1 Corinthians 15:55, and Revelation 1:18.
The veil tore before You
References the veil between the holy place and the “Holy of Holies” as part of the Israelite temple (Exodus 26:31-35). The veil tore right after Jesus died on the cross. See Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:28, and Luke 23:45.
You silenced the boast of sin and grave
Death has no mastery over Christ. See Romans 6:9.
The Heavens are roaring
The praise of Your glory
We see this in Revelation 19:1-6.
For You are raised to life again
Refers to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Bible verses include Matthew 28:1-15, Mark 16:1-13, Luke 24:1-12, John 20:1-18, Acts 1:31, 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 and several others.
You have no rival
You have no equal
Repeat references in Chorus 1 and 2 to line Nothing compares to this.
Now and forever God You reign
Repeat references in Chorus 1 and 2 to line The Name of Jesus Christ my King.
Yours is the Kingdom
Yours is the glory
Comes from the LORD’s prayer in Matthew 6:13; however, this clause does not appear in the earliest manuscript copies for Matthew’s Gospel.
Yours is the Name above all names
Combines the idea put forth in Matthew 6:13 (above) and intermixes it with Philippians 2:9 that, although slightly taken out of context, is still nonetheless biblically accurate.
[Chorus 3]
What a powerful Name it is
What a powerful Name it is
The Name of Jesus Christ my King
What a powerful Name it is
Same as Chorus 1, though with the word “powerful” in place of “beautiful” in Chorus 1 and “wonderful” in Chorus 2. See Genesis 1, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 1:10, John 1:14, Acts 4, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2.
Nothing can stand against
Nothing can stand against God! See Deuteronomy 11:25 and Proverbs 21:30.
What a powerful Name it is
The Name of Jesus
What a powerful Name it is
The Name of Jesus
What a powerful Name it is
The Name of Jesus
Repeated for emphasis.
Score: 10/10
3. How would an outsider interpret the song?
The name of Jesus is beautiful, wonderful, and powerful. Many will not understand the rest of it unless they have studied Christianity for themselves; However, the main thrust of this song will not be lost on the uninitiated.
While some may misinterpret the second Verse’s opening line, thinking that they are more important than even God, it would be based on reading Verse 2, line 1 in isolation. When examined in context, especially when it states that their sin is great, it makes it difficult for them to justify this conclusion.
Speaking of the word “sin”, though unbelievers typically see this as mere mistakes, Hillsong’s next line follows this up with “what could separate us now”, indicating that sin leads to separation from God.
Score: 10/10
4. What does this song glorify?
The name of Jesus!
Score: 10/10
Final Comments
Hillsong Worship’s What a Beautiful Name is a breath of fresh air. Loaded with Scripture, it brings glory to the beauty, wonder, and power in the name of Jesus. I did not find a single line that is not biblically or theologically sound. Unbelievers should easily interpret similarly.
I highly recommend this song for corporate worship.
Final Score: 10/10
Artist Info
Track:Â What a Beautiful Name (live) (listen to the song)
Artist:Â Hillsong Worship
Album:Â Let There Be Light (live)
Genre:Â Gospel, Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)
Release Year:Â 2016
Duration:Â 5:41
Agree? Disagree? Don’t be shy or have a cow! Calmly and politely state your case in a comment, below!Â
*Copyright Š 2016 Hillsong Music Publishing (APRA) (adm. in the US and Canada at CapitolCMGPublishing.com) All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Updates:
04/12/2023 – After prayerfully considering Steve Barhydt’s comments, I came to the conclusion that he is correct: Verse 2, line 1 is about God’s desire for what He wants for heaven, which includes people like us worth saving. I adjusted my commentary and restored the original score to 10/10.
04/04/2023 – I completely forgot to update section 2 with my commentary on why Verse 2’s first line is unbiblical! Thanks to David for reminding me. This lowered the overall score from 8.5/10 to 8/10.
05/07/2021 – Per Artist Theology announcement, I expanded the red text to encourage others to study Hillsong’s theology.
03/07/2021 – Cleaned up the grammar and fixed the date for the Billboard chart used in this review.
01/26/2021 – After much prayer and discussion with Neal Cruco and Tim Adams, along with decreased confidence about Verse 2’s opening line, I decided to alter this review. All sections were updated, except for Introduction. I reduced its overall score from 10/10 to 8.5/10.
Comments
Mike Jones
Verse 2? “You didn’t want Heaven without us, so Jesus you brought heaven down” I read your verses on it and I get what they’re saying. It just seems man centered to me. However, I love the song, I’ve done it church many times.
tastywallet
Thank you for your response! Can you explain more about why you think it is man-centered?
Matt
I’m not the original poster, but I can add my two cents —
There is biblical basis for God wanting man in heaven, but I think the way the line is stated is just off enough where it’s potentially problematic.
We are the recipients of the overflow of God’s perfect love for himself. As evidenced in Psalm 23, the explicitly stated reason for God showing all of this favor to David is “His name’s sake”. God loves us because he has perfect love for himself and we are made in his image. Most prophets have a similar take to Isaiah 6 where God (through Isaiah) says “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty. The whole earth is full of his glory.” We also see this in the handful of times we see the Father interact with Jesus, and every time Jesus mentions the Father (“my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased”, and Jesus’ take on the Father in John 14:28, John 14:31, and John 5:19)
God has no need for anything man can offer. Hebrews 10:8 – sacrifices, even those demanded by God do nothing for Him. They were merely temporary placeholders until Christ’s perfect sacrifice could come about.
Also, man is not made for Heaven, but for the new Earth. But that’s admittedly trivial. Heaven can be interpreted as eternity, or eternal life.
Those things combine to make me feel like that line is out of place. Firstly because it can be interpreted as saying that we have any importance outside of the importance God has assigned us in making us in His image. Second, because the grammar in the line puts the emphasis on “us” and not “You”. In my opinion, the line would be better written “We couldn’t reach Heaven without You”
All that to say this, I don’t think a 10/10 is an egregious overreach. I’d maybe say a 9 or 9.5.
Neal Cruco
Matt,
I really do not see how any of your points explain why this line is man-centered. As Vince and I have said in previous comments, God doesn’t need us, and the line doesn’t say otherwise. It says that he wants us. Big difference.
Furthermore, your suggested line says something entirely different from the the one you want to replace. “You didn’t want heaven without us” communicates God’s fervent desire to redeem us so we could be in heaven and enjoy Him forever. “We couldnât reach Heaven without Youâ communicates the depth of our sin and our inability to wash it away on our own. If you were looking for a line that says the same thing in a different way, this isn’t it.
I have not been able to find a single convincing argument against “You didn’t want heaven without us”. Yes, the line is man-centered, and that’s just fine- because the Gospel is man-centered. (That statement is dangerous without proper context, so keep reading.) It is God’s plan to redeem mankind, and it would have no purpose if we hadn’t sinned. We are the point of the Gospel.
Now, you and I both know that we aren’t worth the price that God had to pay, except by the measure of God’s love for us. The Gospel gives us no credit or glory for our own salvation- that all goes to Him, because He is worthy of it. But God’s motivation for sending His innocent Son to die a criminal’s death was all us. 100%. Given that, I cannot find any reason to protest against the line “You didn’t want heaven without us”.
Tim Adams
The line doesn’t say that God wants us, as you state. It says that Heaven, by implication His heavenly abode which consists of the Triune Fellowship, is somehow dissatisfying to Him. It’s man-centered because its essential claim is that by creating man, God was filling something lacking in His very existence. Not only is it man-centered, it’s an offense to God’s glory. Saying one thing is desired and the other is undesired is NOT the same thing. They are essentially and grammatically different. With the thousands of wonderful, truth-filled songs that we can sing, there is no need in the church for a song with questionable, at best, lyrics.
Neal Cruco
I suppose it depends on whether you think it’s right to say “After we sinned and separated ourselves from God, He wasn’t satisfied to leave us in that state.” That is, of course, the entire reason for God’s plan of salvation, and essentially what is meant by “You didn’t want heaven without us”. He clearly thought we were important enough to sacrifice His only Son for.
Nevertheless, if your conscience prohibits you from singing this song, then don’t. (Romans 14:23)
Vince Wright
Neal,
I think Tim is correct.
In logic, the fallacy of false equivalence occurs when we essentially equate two things that aren’t equal. We use the phrase “comparing apples to oranges” as a common example of this fallacy.
In the statement, “You didn’t want heaven without us”, This is not saying the same thing as “You wanted heaven with us”. It’s talking about something that God didn’t want, as opposed to something He wanted.
I think Hillsong could improve their wording, perhaps “You wanted us to be in heaven”. This more accurately expresses that God’s desire is for us to be in heaven with Him, as opposed to God avoiding a heaven without us. The latter sounds man-centric, that heaven is deficient without us. The former sounds God-centric, that God desires His children to be in heaven with Him.
Unless there’s a valid argument against this view, I intend to update my review this weekend.
-Vince Wright
Neal Cruco
Vince,
I have to disagree. “You didn’t want heaven without us” is essentially saying “After creating us and watching us fall into sin, You weren’t satisfied to exist eternally without redeeming us and bringing us back to Yourself.” I really do not see anything wrong with that statement. The word “want” communicates a preference, not a dependence.
“The statement âYou didnât want heaven without usâ is not saying the same thing as âYou wanted heaven with usâ. Itâs talking about something that God didnât want, as opposed to something He wanted.”
Yes, and the thing He doesn’t want is the absence of the thing He wants. Which makes the statements equivalent. It seems to me that claiming otherwise is like claiming that “true” != “NOT(false)”.
I’ve made the argument in favor of this line a few different ways in a few different comments here, but the gist of it is that God apparently saw heaven as deficient without us, or else He would not have paid such a high price to redeem us. Does that mean He was lonely without us or otherwise dependent on us? Not at all. Unlike false gods, He needs nothing from us, and there is nothing we can offer Him. (Nothing in my hand I bring / Simply to the cross I cling / Naked, come to Thee for dress / Helpless, look to Thee for grace / Wretched, to the fount I fly / Wash me, Savior, or I die) But He saw us as important enough to sacrifice His only Son for. My only worth is in His eyes, but that makes it no less high.
Were it not for Godâs desire to have us in heaven â spotless, redeemed, and enjoying Him forever â he would not have brought heaven down. The song doesnât say that He needed us. It doesnât say that He was lonely. If a father has a child who is recklessly indulging in wild and ungodly living, and he wants to bring them home, does he do it because heâs lonely? No, he does it because he is grieved by their sin. He will live just fine without them, but he will never be entirely satisfied.
But honestly, I need just one Biblical passage to support the line âYou didnât want heaven without usâ:
âThe Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, ***not willing for any to perish*** but for all to come to repentance.â â 2 Peter 3:9 (NASB) (emphasis mine)
In fact, I really donât even need that one, because the line itself states that God *wanted* us, not that He needed us. He could have never created us, and He would have been just fine. He could have abandoned all of us to hell after the Fall, and He would have been just fine. He doesnât need us. He needs nothing and no one except Himself. But He wanted us. He wanted to buy us back. He wanted us so badly that He sent His only Son to die in our place while we were still sinners. He did that for us! All for us! Heaven without us would have been just fine- for Him and every other being in it. But He didnât want that. It was all He needed, but not all He wanted.
Neal Cruco
Vince,
One other thing: I understand that this is an easily misunderstood line. I think it’s justified to knock off a bit of the “outsider” score because of that. But a potential for misunderstanding has never affected how well a statement lines up with Scripture.
Vince Wright
Neal,
Before I respond, I just wanted to let you know that I value your input. You’ve contributed a lot almost since this website’s infancy and kept me in-line with spelling errors, polling queue mismatches, and songs missing on the Song Review Index page. You are truly a gem!
I must admit, I’ve become increasingly torn over this lyric. I’ve thought hard on it and prayed over how I might update my review. I also went back to my notes on double-negation and its limitations on language.
I’d like to start with an example. Suppose I were to state, “most of the posts on social media is garbage”. Suppose you were to respond to me and say, “I don’t disagree with you”. Your response would be a double-negative statement. Does that mean that you agree with me? Not necessarily. The statement “I don’t disagree” doesn’t equate to “I agree with you”. Perhaps you hadn’t thought about my statement and, at the moment, you don’t agree or disagree. So, “I don’t disagree with you” is a weaker response than stating, “I agree with you”. They aren’t the same thing.
In propositional logic, double-negation teaches that, for every statement is true, then it’s also true that its negation is false. This principle works well when it comes to binary logic when applied to mathematics and computer science, but it doesn’t work as well with natural language. For the latter, we turn to intuitionistic logic as a better method to address linguistic cases such as my above example.
Under intuitionistic logic, the statement “You didn’t want heaven without us” is not the same thing as saying “You wanted heaven with us”. The first is a weaker way of saying the second, much like “I don’t disagree” is a weaker way of saying “I agree” in my example. Similar yes, but not equivalent.
Regarding “Iâve made the argument in favor of this line a few different ways in a few different comments here, but the gist of it is that God apparently saw heaven as deficient without us, or else He would not have paid such a high price to redeem us.”, I don’t believe that heaven was ever deficient without us. I think that God wanted us to enter into heaven because that was His will. As stated in 2 Peter 3:9, God doesn’t want any to perish, but I don’t think that’s a statement about heaven’s deficiency (or lack thereof).
In my review, I made the argument about want vs. need, but the more that I read comments on this line, along with a few side conversions I’ve had with church members on this, I’m beginning to see why some people think it’s man-centered. I’ll attempt to show this by examining three statements.
1. “You didn’t want heaven without us”
2. “You wanted heaven with us”
3. “You wanted us to go to heaven”
Of these three lines, the third is the best statement. While all three speaks of what God wants (as opposed to need), the first and second statements have a slight ring of man’s importance, as if heaven cannot exist without people. I think this is why some people believe that it’s man-centered, not because it is, but because there’s a ring of it in Hillsong’s lyric. The third statement puts the focus on what God wanted for us, as opposed to focusing on what God wanted for heaven. I think it’s a better way a communicating Hillsong’s likely intention without the ring of man-centeredness that is causing friction.
Finally, yes, I don’t intend to deduct points for Biblical accuracy, but I plan to take a few points away for all the other sections, with a slight change to my recommendation. I think that’s the fairest way to score it. This will bring the final score to 9/10, which it deserves for getting everything else right (and beautiful, if I might add).
-Vince Wright
Neal Cruco
Vince,
Thank you for your kind words! Before I get into my response, I want to say that I think it’s reasonable to deduct a bit for this line, considering the potential for misunderstanding. I believe it has caused more controversy on this line that any other issue, short of “reckless love”. So we are in agreement there, even though I see nothing wrong with the line.
“I donât believe that heaven was ever deficient without us. I think that God wanted us to enter into heaven because that was His will. As stated in 2 Peter 3:9, God doesnât want any to perish, but I donât think thatâs a statement about heavenâs deficiency (or lack thereof).”
I agree. To say that heaven was deficient without us is tantamount to saying that God needed us, which I have seen no one claiming. But why was it His will for us to be reunited with Him spiritually and (in the future) physically? Because He wasn’t satisfied with the alternative. He wanted something else.
I have been torn over this line as well, thinking of 2 Corinthians 3:1 and not wanting to get too high an opinion of myself. But I have become convinced that we are immeasurably valuable in God’s eyes – valuable enough for Him to send His beloved Son to beaten, bruised, rejected, and killed torturously – and that there is nothing wrong with saying that. God didn’t need us, but He wanted us with Him, and He must not have been satisfied to exist eternally without us. That is why I said that He must have seen heaven as deficient without us. It’s not a dependence – it’s a preference. As I said elsewhere, “Heaven without us would have been just fine- for Him and every other being in it. But He didnât want that. It was all He needed, but not all He wanted.”
Vince Wright
Neal,
Just so that you are aware, I decided to reduce section 3 to 7/10. This keeps it consistent with other reviews, where I typically go 1 point less for unbeliever interpretation for the same issue.
-Vince Wright
Fred Milner
How about, “You wanted us with You in heaven”?
Vince Wright
Fred,
I like it!
-Vince Wright
William W. Smith
VERY WELL PUT AND I AGREE. I think people are reading things into this lyric that’s just not there. I also wonder that if a certain respected theologian and pastor had not been hyper critical of this song, if anyone would have even noticed a controversy. After all, the piety in this song
seems light in comparison to most gospel hymns. The key I think is to balance piety with transcendence in the same service. We don’t ever want to have a service where everything we say and do in worship has man as the object. A service with songs like “Jesus is All the World to Me”, “I Surrender All”, “Oh How I Love Jesus”, and “Let Me Tell You About My Jesus” only, may not be consider Biblical Worship. At the same time the gospel is very personal and we need to show that in what we sing and say and do together as true believers. Our God is truly “Holy Holy Holy”, “Immortal, Invisible”, “God of the Armies” and ‘A friend of sinners”, “Blessed Redeemer”, “Personal Savior” all at the same time. He is the Name above all names who didn’t want heaven without us.
Jim Gorman
Yes Tim I wholeheartedly agree with your reply. God is perfect. God doesn’t make mistakes.
Nathan Harms
Exactly! I love this song, but that line, âyou didnât want heaven without us,â makes me cringe every time. It smacks of the often spoken, â God was lonely, so he created humans.â
Wow! How wrong can you be?! God has no lack of anything⌠ever. God has never been âlonely.â He is entirely complete and satisfied in himself.
The line in question implies strongly that heaven is somehow lacking unless humans are there. Heaven was not lacking before humans were created, and neither is it so now.
Marty
Neal, right on, brother. God didnât want Heaven (to be) without us⌠that certainly does not say to me that God would no longer be happy with the Heaven He created. Only that His great love for us motivated Him to send His only son to redeem us, that we can be with Him and not suffer the separation caused by our sin. God was man-centered when He acted to save us. His love is a boundless, matchless love.
hopeful
When you lead worship, many of the people under the sound of your voice will not be born again, bible believing, truth seekers. The Gospel is simple. If we keep the lyrics simple enough to be scriptural, we do well. We do not want to mislead people who have a shallow knowledge of the word of God. Besides, the church is full of tares. God has allowed it and will separate them from the wheat in due time. What does it cost to fix that one line? I have seen so many people sing this beautiful song, but did you know that some change the lyrics when they sing it?
Dan
“hopeful” is right. Writers of worship songs need to be very careful in what they write. This line (that many here have rightfully criticized) is poorly written. Marty tries to make excuses for it by adding the words “to be” to explain the meaning. He says “God didn’t want Heaven (to be) without us.” Hey Marty, what if I added these words: “there to be.” Let’s sing “God didn’t want there to be a Heaven without us.” Is that okay? The simple fact is, the lyrics lack clarity. They could be interpreted as “If we weren’t going to be there, God didn’t even want there to be a Heaven.” Wrong? Of course. But so is the carelessness of the writer. We need to expect more from a worship song writer – and not letting sloppy writing go unchallenged. That’s the point everyone is making here.
Tom Lmeuel Dalagonan
Absolutely indeed, the only thing that we need to do while we’re worshipping God we just ask him to put the purified heart it means it is no longer us it is God who purify our self centered hearts so that before we give the highest praises for him we prayed first that he must be the centered and the only beautiful, wonderful and powerful name above all names on this earth…ask the cleansing move of our God and I definitely believe that he will do the same thing for his children or sons.
Hopeful
There are so many confused people in this world. This song comes from a church that leads the world into sin and apostasy. Allah and God are never the same. Allah has no son. God has a son. The church looks to Hollywood for its productions. Some of the productions are sinful and do not edify. Brian Houston does not like to preach what the Bible states about sin. Therefore, the lyrics, even if it is only one, must be changed. Why would you have an entire song that is truthful and then slip in one line that is just not true. This is how the devil works. Remember how Jesus called out Satan? “Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest NOT the things that be of God, but THOSE that be Of Men.” Hillsong needs to change the song…it’s called an edit. Books are updated all the time. Why can’t they update this song? True worship MUST be true! Then I think about the flood. Look at how many God saved. And look at Revelation. The chosen ones of Israel. Only 1/3 will turn to God and be saved. So I think it is not only proper, but mandatory for the Hillsong group to change the bad lyrics. Yes, Every song, Every time. This song led me to dig deeper. I loved it too much to just sing it. I wanted to know WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY…and this is when I discovered Hillsong and all of its shameful actions.
Tim
Well said and biblically discerned !
You past the test one of the very few!
Well done brother! Keep sounding the alarm !
None of our pastors will..
Steve Moore
GREAT SONG, and worth leading. I’ve led this many times, substituting the line:
“You could’ve had heaven without us, but Jesus you brought heaven down…”.
Subtle change, but important…
It’s wrong to imply God was ever lonely. I’ve actually heard bad preachers say that. In the beginning God was lonely, so he decided to make man and woman. That is sad and unbiblical.
This line is important. To project what God “wanted” and His motivation for “”bringing Heaven down”, is man-centered. It reminds me of the old “Above All” line. “You took the fall and thought of me…”. Maybe Jesus was ultimately thinking about pleasing the Father? Who are we to add what God “wanted” or “thought”?
You didn’t want (fill in the blank) without ME, so (you did something to include me).
I just feel better leading:
You could’ve had (heaven without us), but Jesus (you brought heaven down…).
It still states God’s love, but maintains His self-sufficient authority in sharing heaven.
Neal Cruco
Were it not for God’s desire to have us in heaven – spotless, redeemed, and enjoying Him forever – he would not have brought heaven down. The song doesn’t say that He needed us. It doesn’t say that He was lonely. If a father has a child who is recklessly indulging in wild and ungodly living, and he wants to bring them home, does he do it because he’s lonely? Is that the first conclusion that we would jump to?
Peter
I know this post is old, but I can’t understand why anybody wants to defend a bad line instead of wanting to fix it. In Neal’s example, if we said “The father didn’t want home without his wild child, so he brought his child home” it’s very different than “The father didn’t want his child to be wild, so he brought his child home”. They are different things! Just like others have stated, “You didn’t want heaven without us” is far different than “You wanted us to be able to be with you in Heaven”.
Words have meaning. Their meaning doesn’t change due to good intentions or because an author meant to say something else. They mean what they mean.
Rebecca Shelton
I appreciate your site and find it very helpful. As just a common person, my viewpoint concerning verse 2 – you didn’t want heaven without us so you brought heaven down…
It impacted me with a feeling of being greatly loved. Not man centered. If he didn’t love us enough to want us in heaven, then he certainly wouldn’t have died for us. But I can see your reasoning. I love the song.
Francisco
Ir should be … what of beautiful name He is
Ryan F.
We have changed the lyric to “We couldn’t reach heaven without you, so Jesus you brought heaven down.” This removed the one truly questionable lyric in my humble opinion.
We do the Travis Cottrell arrangement that puts this song with the chorus of “Agnus Dei”; our church SINGS on this one.
Nate Stein
When our church sings this song, the second verse starts like this:
We couldn’t have Heaven without You,
So Jesus, you brought heaven down
michael reyes
I totally agree with this. We need Jesus, Jesus doesn’t need us. The lyric “You didnt want heaven without us so you brought heaven down” make it sound like we complete God and heaven where in actuality that is not the case because we as in humans are not complete without God. Worship music is supposed to focus on God not ourselves unless it points us to God.
Grigs
I agree that the line seems man-centered. Replace the the nouns and itâs clear what the phrase is centered on.
âYou didnât want *pizza* without *Coke*, so *you had pizza Tuesday after youâd been to the store.*â Your plan and actions revolve around Coke.
âYou didnât want âyour birthday party* without *your mom*, so *you went back to where she lives and had the party there.*â Your plan and actions revolve around your mom.
If any other words stood in place of the nouns in this verse, we would all agree that the focal point of the sentence is what we adjusted the plan for, as if something is added to the subject which would otherwise make the subject incomplete or incapable of enjoying said object to the fullest if absent. I donât think Scripture would have us believe that this is true of God:
ânor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all thingsâ (Acts 17:25)
Rather than make it sound like we give God something He needs, without having which He would not want Heaven, Iâd rather the line say something to the effect of âYou didnât want us to be without Heaven, so Jesus, You brought Heaven down.â Thatâs actually a much better representation of the facts because it is actually we who received what we needed and not the other way around. Now, hopefully, Bible-believing Christians arenât going to hear this song and walk away spiritually disoriented and esteeming themselves âthe thing that God needs in order to enjoy Heaven,â but thatâs a not a good reason to sing the song or a good reason to write that line. God has always been and will always be as complete as He is ever going to be, and the angels actually worship Him incessantly already, worship being the only thing we can actually give Him, though not add to Him. In addition, God has been making His plans with all of His creation, not just us, in mind from as much of a beginning as we can even conceive. To say âHe didnât want Heaven without us, so He brought Heaven downâ and to say that this is how God operates is a bit of an overstatement and a reduction, all at the same time.
tastywallet
Grigs,
Thank you for this wonderful explanation! I’ve thought and prayed about it. I can see where you’re coming from, and you explained your position far better than Mike Jones did; However, I see things differently. The line says “you didn’t want heaven without us”. In other words, it is an expression of God’s desire, namely, to have heaven with us rather than without us. Putting things in the negative as Hillsong did does make this less clear, which is why your take is understandable.
I do agree with you in part, that it certainly has the ring of man-centeredness. I think your alternative explanation is a better representation of what Hillsong attempts to convey and avoids the ring altogether.
Thank you for reading my review and commenting on it, I appreciate that!
-TastyWallet
Neal Cruco
Of course the line is man-centered. So is the Gospel that it describes, in the sense that we are the entire reason God sent His Son to earth. The Gospel is God’s redemption plan for humanity. We are the sole reason for it. All glory goes to God, of course, for we have done nothing to earn this redemption (and a great deal to be unworthy of it). But if there was no Fall of man, there would be no Gospel. In this sense, it is entirely correct to describe us as the reason for sending Jesus to earth. To use your language, God’s plan and actions revolved around us.
Grigs
But see, I donât think itâs ever appropriate to put man at the center of Godâs actions, not even His grace. I suppose it can be argued that, because of His total sovereignty and omnipotence over time and His own will, all Godâs actions are of equal priority. I would say that Heâs so sovereign, that there is no separating Godâs purpose for man from His purpose for Himself, since He has a way of working all things together. But however significant the destiny of mankind is in accordance with Godâs will (and I would agree it is VERY significant), I do think that Scripture communicates ultimacy in regard to the exaltation of God, that is, Godâs exaltation of Himself by way of His providence over all He has created.
Perhaps to put it more concisely, John Piper has said that while the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, the chief end of God is to glorify Himself and enjoy Himself forever. I feel that verse 2 of this song communicates in contrast, even if only because of the implication of its phrasing, that the chief end of God is to enjoy man forever, and I think it is dangerous to exalt man to such a place of centrality, however much God loves man, which I agree is great beyond comprehension. But is Godâs right to be central in all things not also even greater, even further beyond comprehension?
Marty Culleton
Would you be okay with the words, âYou didnât want Heaven to be without us?â I believe thatâs the message of this beautiful song, and itâs the truth. And leaving out the two small words âto beâ was not done to be man-centric in my opinion, itâs just the style of speech used by the author. Clearly, in the end, if someone could misinterpret it as you did, itâs worthy of correction.
Ross
My interpretation the line “You didn’t WANT heaven wihout us” is that it signifies God’s desire to have His Children with Him. After all as Genesis illustrates, God created Adam to be His companion in the garden (type of Heaven), He wanted mankind to be with Him there. It expresses God’s desire, His want, not ours. If I said I don’t want a Holden without a V8 it means what it says, it doesn’t glorify the v8, it expresses my desire.
tastywallet
Ross,
Thanks for your comments! I can see both sides, yours and mine vs those who believe that this expresses a dependence of God upon us.
-TastyWallet
Catherine
I agree with Grigs, however. I feel like the way the song is written leaves room for people interpreting it as God needing us. I struggled with feeling the same way about this song, and therefore checked into several websites. One of them explains it VERY well, and I would encourage anyone with doubts to check it out. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/when-worship-lyrics-miss-the-mark
I’m not saying the writers of the song MEANT that it is man-centered. I’m saying that it could be interpreted like that, therefore they should have chosen a better way to convey their idea.
thoughtsmeander
At first I also thought it was man-centered. But the more I listened to it and sang it, the more it impressed me as what others here already expressed: God’s desire to have us with Him. He didn’t need us with Him, but He loved us and so wanted to. It’s their attempt to artistically describe grace.
From one of the songwriters:
“God is eternal and was fully God before (and after!) creation. His presence is perfect and complete and yet He chose firstly to create humanity, and then like so many times since the fall, to reconcile His people to Himself. There is nothing in the scriptures to indicate that God has ever been lonely, but the scriptures do demonstrate a loving God who actively desires reconciliation with humanity (John 3:16).
It is certainly not that God needed us, but as the lyric hopefully describes, God didnât want to leave us out of His eternal plan for salvation (John 17:24). While we were still sinners (our sin was great), God showed us that His love was greater, as Christ died for us (Rom 5:8). Now we can sing that nothing can separate from the love of God (Rom 8:35). When I stop to think of the grace and love of Holy God, I am filled with wonder.”
Steve Moore
I lead it with an alternate lyric:
You (could’ve had) Heaven without us
(But) Jesus, you brought Heaven down…
Easy and subtle lyric swap. For those of us who really want to avoid a misunderstanding of “lonely God needing us in Heaven”, this is still true to the joy of our Gospel message, without speaking to what God wanted or didn’t want.
Leading it this morning! I was thankful for some good references on the “name of God” being praised. Thanks for the citing Psalm 145!
tastywallet
Steve,
Awesome! Thanks for the feedback!
-Tastywallet
Charles Busada
John Piper speaks directly to this song, and the importance of clear lyrics by John Piper.
Spoiler: He advises not to use songs that can be misinterpreted as there are so many great ones out there that are clear.
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/when-worship-lyrics-miss-the-mark
Bumjoon Park
Hello, what are your thoughts on what Pastor John Piper said regarding this song? Also, I was wondering what your thoughts are for “Above All” as well. Surprised that no one asked for that song to be reviewed! Unfortunately, I already used up my one request per week. Maybe in following weeks, I will put that up for review. Thank you!
Neal Cruco
Bumjoon Park:
“Above All” has been requested, actually! It passed polling with flying colors and will be reviewed on July 19, a week from tomorrow.
Pric
first of all i love this song and I have heard different criticisms about it. I read it closely again and it IS a bit funny that the reasons as to why Jesus (or Jesus’ name) is worthy of our praise given in this song (e.g. because He was the word at the beginning..He silenced the boast of sin and grave, etc) are about who Jesus is as a God/being and what Jesus has done, NOTHING about His name. So it is a bit that we praise His name not Him.
If this song was to compare the NAME of Jesus to the name of other gods or idols or something, or to talk about the meanings of Jesus’ name, then it will make more sense to understand why we say it is a beautiful name. It says “YOU have no rival, YOU have no equal” not “YOUR NAME has no rival, YOUR NAME has no equal.” So this part jumps from praising Jesus’ name to Jesus Himself. Definitely a bit of confusion, not sure if this confusion is good for the sake of new believers or nonbelievers.
But if looking at it poetically or just the overall spirit of praise, it is a really good song.
Vince Wright
Pric,
Thank you for your comment! I don’t see any confusion because “You” is contextualized elsewhere in the song as Jesus. There is a subtle shift from third-person to first-person perspective, but I doubt that many will be confused by it.
-Vince Wright
Oscar
Jesus came to earth to do the will of His Father, see Matthew 5:17, Hebrews 10:7. Ofcourse, John 3:16 tells us about God’s love for the world, but righteousness had to be done. We broke God’s law, Jesus paid the fine. That was the main reason and purpose of His coming. Not us.
The man-centered discussion is not just about this one particular line in verse 2 of the song. You can discover this man-centered gospel in lots of songs, sermons, christian books and one-liners.
No big deal? One sentence in one song? Just a drop of water falling constantly on the same place excavates the stone. You’re ‘singing your faith inside’ by repeatedly singing the same message. So the message has to be true. A man-centered gospel is a false gospel, not found in any context of the Bible.
Vince Wright
Oscar,
Thank you for your challenge!
According to John 6:40, the will of the Father is for everyone to look upon Jesus and find eternal life. Therefore, coming for us would be in line with obeying the will of the Father and begs the question as to where we disagree.
The rest of your commentary seems to be directed towards other songs and mediums outside of this one, particular review. Since it exists outside of the scope of my commentary, I won’t address it here.
-Vince Wright
Grigs
While the issue at hand is technically âWhat is the quality of the song?,â such a question canât be asked without regard to a given or assumed culture. The prevailing habits of many modern songwriters do seem to be rather man-centered. Had this song been written in an alternate reality, where man-centeredness were never an issue, perhaps some of us wouldnât find so much danger in it. But being that itâs but one more âdrop of waterâ following a strong trend, it begs the question, what is the value of a song review that disregards the context or environment of a song? In this songâs case, the authoring church, many other forces within the marketed culture, and a substantial part of the body have given way to a low view of God, one where He exists for man, rather than the other way around.
Steve Barhydt
The question should not be, is the phrase “You didnât want Heaven without us” man centered?
But rather, is the phrase true or not?
From the creation of man in the Garden of Eden where we once had face-to-face fellowship with God (Gen. 3:8) to the new Heaven and new Earth (Rev. 21;3) that the answer to THAT question is a resounding “YES.” The entire story of the Bible is the establishment, loss, and re-establishment of His relationship with mankind.
Did He need to create us? Absolutely not.
Did He need to redeem us once we sinned? Again, absolutely not! He could have wiped the Earth clean and started over.
He did these things because He wanted to.
He wanted to because He is Love.
And because HE is Love, His Name is the most beautiful, wonderful, and powerful Name that can ever be.
Dan
For the most part, I think this is an excellent worship song, rightly focusing on worshiping the name of Jesus. It is a refreshing contrast from so many contemporary “worship songs” that focus on “how I feel” and using words that evoke strong sensory images and emotions – like God loving us like a hurricane or God’s love being “reckless” – both of which are lies. But I, like Grigs, Catherine, Steve, Charles, and Oscar, have real problems with the line in the second verse” “You didn’t want Heaven without us.” It is such a dramatic shift from the emphasis of the rest of the song. I’ll not repeat or expound on what the previous commenters have said, except to say “Good points.” That line is poorly written, out of place, fuzzy and unclear theologically. Yes, we could spend fifteen minutes to try to explain what the writers meant and find scripture to support it, but that’s not happening in the context of a three-minute song that is otherwise about the name of Jesus. To put it simply, the words were poorly chosen. I like the alternate lyrics suggested by Grigs and Steve. (I’m also surprised that you, Vince, gave this specific line a score of 10. I must say this score diminishes your credibility as a lyric analyst.) The bottom line: I will sing the song, omitting the second verse.
Neal Cruco
Dan,
No song can be properly analyzed while singing it, so I am not sure what you mean by “thatâs not happening in the context of a three-minute song”. But I need just one passage to support the line “You didn’t want heaven without us”:
“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” – 2 Peter 3:9 (NKJV)
In fact, I really don’t even need that one, because the line itself states that God *wanted* us, not that He needed us. He could have never created us, and He would have been just fine. He could have abandoned all of us to hell after the Fall, and He would have been just fine. He doesn’t need us. He needs nothing and no one except Himself. But He wanted us. He wanted to buy us back. He wanted us so badly that He sent His only Son to die in our place while we were still sinners. He did that for us! All for us! Heaven without us would have been just fine- for Him and every other being in it. But He didn’t want that. It was all He needed, but not all He wanted.
As for whether the line is man-centered, I think the other comments cover it well enough. But I will say this: the focus is still on God and what He has done. Not us. There is no glory or honor or praise given to man, but only to God.
P.S. It always saddens me when one person’s credibility is diminished in another’s eyes because of a difference of interpretation. Especially when it happens between two Christians. Paul writes in Romans 14:12-13, “Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God. So letâs stop condemning each other. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall.” (NLT) We can do better than lowering our opinion of someone just because we interpret a line of a song differently.
Dan
I agree with a lot of what’s been said about the first line of verse 2. Jesus left heaven in obedience to the Father, and for His glory. This is a similar mistake by Cory Asbury when he decided to use “reckless” to describe God’s love. It’s almost like God cannot bear the thought of being without us humans. And yet he existed for eternity before he ever created Adam. Was God miserable up until that point? “Aha! I figured out what will really make me happy!” That’s what the line in verse 2 seems to imply. In that sense, it is a BIG deal. The rest of the song is great so I understand why you didn’t knock down too many points.
For churches, there is a simple solution that doesn’t require changing the original words. We only sing verse 1 in our church. No one has ever expressed an issue. In fact a couple decided to join our church because they noticed that we didn’t sing verse 2 and saw that we take these things seriously.
racefangurl
But there are those who wanna tweak the words. Do you disagree with the above comments that suggest ways to or is it just a matter or personal choice, to tweak the line to say “You could’ve had heaven without us, But…”, “You wanted heaven with us/wanted us to go to heaven/to be in heaven” or any other ideas people have? Maybe the tweakers believe changing the words is the way for them, since they like to sing the whole song. “You wanted us to go to heaven” somebody said reflects the artist intent, so they tweak the line to that.
Vince Wright
racefangurl,
Thank you for your comments!
I agree with Dan. Although you could tweak the lines, it’s a lot easier (and less time-consuming) to not sing the second Verse.
-Vince Wright
Original Dan
This is the “original Dan” who first commented back on August 30. (Not the same as the Dan who has commented over the past few days.) Back then I said I would sing the song, but without the second verse – and that’s still my inclination. Yes, there are alternate lyrics that could work. However, CCLI says that churches are not allowed to change lyrics without permission of the author. This presents an ethical dilemma for a worship leader who has problems with a lyric and believes there is a better choice of words. CCLI says you shouldn’t do it.
Vince Wright
Original Dan,
Thank you for your comments!
I can’t speak for other countries, but here in the United States, CCLI must follow United States Copyright Law. I’m not a copyright lawyer; However, I think you’re you’re correct: churches cannot change lyrics without the permission of the copyright holder. This is based on Chapter 1, section 101, which says,
“A âderivative workâ is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a âderivative workâ.”
and Chapter 1, section 106, that the copyright owner has exclusive rights to create derivative works.
There is an exclusion in section 110 for religious use, but it’s limited to performance during a worship service. I didn’t see anything there about derivative works; However, insofar as I am aware, churches pay license fees to print the lyrics in bulletins/pew books/etc, display lyrics on the screen, and broadcast the worship online.
-Vince Wright
Pieter
Thank you for your faithfulness and ministry. My two cents… “God so loved the world…”. I think the phrase “[God] didn’t want heaven without us” is perhaps a missed opportunity to clearly proclaim John 3:16 to outsiders and state why God “brought heaven down”. It is his Love, and in the end, it is all for His glory. He saved us because “His love is greater”, and the end is that we glorify Him for all eternity for this undeserved gift. Not primarily to have us in heaven, but primarily to glorify His Name? Granted, these ideas seem to be present in the song in bits and pieces, perhaps not clear enough.
Em
> Your hidden glory in creation
> Now revealed in You our Christ
I’m not sure about this. John 2:11 does say that Jesus manifested (revealed) His glory to his disciples, so artistically one could say it was hidden from them beforehand. However, they specified His glory ‘in creation’, which goes against Psalm 19:1, where God’s glory is very much not hidden: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.’
Just like verse 2, I can see what they were trying to do, but it’s poorly worded.
John S.
I believe the “hidden glory in creation” is referring to either one of two things: 1) Referring to the one who will strike the serpent’s head in Genesis 3 but will also be struck with the serpent’s bite; or 2) In romans where it talks about the general revelation of God seen in creation. Regardless, the fullness of God’s glory was revealed in the person of Christ in which creation, the Law, and the prophet’s pointed towards.
John S
I know this comment is probably a bit late to the game, but about the line in verse 2, I believe a lot of people are unnecessarily hung up on that line and are reading too much of their theology into it (particularly in the reformed camp. FYI, I am a reformed minister). But the song writer actually referred to John 17:24 concerning that line. I don’t believe the intent of the lyric is man-centered in that God had a felt need for us to be in heaven to feel fulfilled. He is sufficient in himself in the Godhead. But rather it reflects God’s will and desire and immeasurable love for us in our humanity that he would bring heaven to us through the person of Jesus Christ. It’s a very biblical concept. Why is Jesus’ name so beautiful? Because it is associated with the immeasurable love of God that he gave through the death and sacrifice of the Son, Jesus Christ.
Lee Lacey
I found your website and rushed to see if you had the same problem as I do with this song!! Yep!! I cannot get past “You didn’t want heaven without us”. I don’t have time to read all the other comments but bottom line- that’s a temptation we must avoid. Nothing about God’s will is about us! It’s all to His glory!! We add nothing to God or to heaven!
Felipe Leal
Try “We couldn’t reach Heaven without You
So Jesus You brought Heaven down” đ
Mike Waliczek
I have to respectfully disagree. They say “You didnât want Heaven without us”, not “You didn’t want us without Heaven”.
Felipe Leal
Thanks for this ever-useful website!
I love this song, the melody, rhythm and 99% of the lyrics except that line, which definitely sounds like God couldn’t be God without us.
I’m leading the songs tonight so I’ll change that line to:
“We couldn’t reach Heaven without you
So Jesus You brought Heaven down”.
Which I think shifts the emphasis from how cool we are, to how miserable we are without Jesus and how it was absolutely and completely necessary that Jesus did what He did and not that it is necessary for us to be in Heaven so Heaven is what it is.
Bless you brethren!
Henry
John 3:16
AMP)Â Â “For God so [greatly] loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave His [One and] only begotten Son, so that whoever believes and trusts in Him [as Savior] shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Consider this verse.
Jesus died so we can have heaven, eternal life. Do you think that could mean that He would like us to be there? Like He sacrificed His life to have us with Him in Heaven.
Something to think about.
Mike W
Yet, He was not obliged to save us at all. He was fully satisfied in His own eternal existence. He could’ve left us cursed after the fall, but His love and compassion saved us, not because He needed us, but for His glory.
HENRY KEYTER
The line in the song:
You didnât want Heaven without us
So Jesus You brought Heaven down
How does this translate into He needed us?
Mike W
It’s saying Heaven without us is lacking. It should say He didn’t want us without Heaven.
Marty
What song says God âneeded usâ in Heaven? For a song to say He didnât want Heaven to be without us is directly supported by John 3:16.
David
I’m sorry, but words have meaning. Right words have meaning, and wrong words have meaning.
You simply cannot call a song “Biblical” because of what you *think* the authors *meant* to say! You *must* look at it and compare it’s truth (or lack therof) based on what it actually says. Moreover, there has been so much discussion about this bad verse, Hillsong could easily have changed it, but they have not chosen to do so.
“You did not want heaven without us” is a lie! The Biblical Truth came right out of Jesus own mouth. “Behold, I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go, I will come again”. Nothing at all to do with Him somehow being lonely in Heaven without us. Nothing to do with him bringing it down so we could satisfy His lack of interest in a Heaven devoid of people.
Nowhere does the Bible elevate us to such great importance that we fill some void in God. No indeed, this line — as written — puts man squarely on even emotional plane with God, and states that God needs man. Biblical truth says He does not, which means this verse is contrary to Biblical truth.
Do I disagree that whoever penned this song just made a mistake? Not necessarily. Maybe they accidentally penned the wrong word. Or maybe they just didn’t understand the relationship between God and Man when they wrote it.
Vince Wright
David,
Thank you for your comments!
I didn’t realize until now that I forgot to update section 2 to show why this is unbiblical! I talked about this in all the other sections except for 2. Thanks for reminding me!
I updated it.
-Vince Wright
Steve Barhydt
Vince,
I have given a lot of thought over the last couple of days to the first line of the second verse, namely âYou didnât want heaven without usâ and wanted to share my observations with you.
In my opinion, (and I believe that you agree at least in principle) it is not necessary for every single phrase in a song to have solid, irrefutable scriptural backing as long as that phrase does not contradict what the Bible says about a certain subject. I seek to show you that this phrase does not undermine anything in the Word of God.
I believe that it is important to define the word âwantâ because the word has multiple meanings in English. From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/want definitions 1 and 2 states
****************Begin Quote*************
WANT verb
1 : to fail to possess especially in customary or required amount : LACK
2 a : to have a strong desire for
******************End Quote*************
The prevalent interpretation of the word âwantâ by the naysayers and yourself is the first definition.
In your words âthe wording makes it man-centered, that heaven simply cannot exist without people in it, or that God was lonely and NEEDED people to quench His boredom.â (emphasis mine)
I believe that the offending line of this song can be interpreted in two ways depending on where you put the emphasisâŚ
1) âYou didnât want HEAVEN without usâ Here the emphasis is on the word Heaven and does give the impression that Heaven needed us to be complete. God, Himself, lacked something because we were not with Him. God, somehow, âfails to possessâ a critical element of His existence. This is an application of the first definition of âwantâ. (Namely a âneedâ.)
2) âYou didnât want Heaven without USâ. Here the emphasis is on US. Heaven is not lacking, we are! Something in us is missing (or, more correctly, something in us is present) for us to be able go to Heaven. This is an application of the second definition of âwant.â Godâs âstrong desireâ was that we would be in Heaven with Him but a solution must be found for this to happen.
I will readily admit that the second interpretation (which I believe to be the correct interpretation) is âman-centered.â And Iâm okay with that for the following reasonsâŚ
There is, in the Bible, two different types of âman-centerednessâ. One leads to destruction and the other to eternal life.
1) Humanistic man-centeredness in which man puts himself at the center of his own plans…
a. Nebuchadnezzar Daniel 4:28-37
b. Arrogant planning James 4:13-16
2) God-planned man-centeredness in which God puts mankind at the center of His plansâŚ
a. In Creation – Genesis 1:26-28, Genesis 2:7 All of the rest of creation was spoken into existence. Man was formed (i.e. molded) Man was, and is, the pinnacle of Creation by Godâs design not ours.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h3335/kjv/wlc/0-1/
×ָ׌֡ר yâtsar, yaw-tsar’; probably identical with H3334 (through the squeezing into shape); (compare H3331); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively, to determine (i.e. form a resolution):âĂ earthen, fashion, form, frame, make(-r), potter, purpose.
b. In Salvation – Romans 5:6-11 (KJV) (emphasis mine)
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward US, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for US.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
c. In Eternity – Ephesians 2:4-7 (emphasis mine)
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved US,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened US together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised US up together, and made US sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward US through Christ Jesus.
Itâs very clear from these and many other verses that God put us at the center of His plans. This is not pride or conceit but rather follows a concept laid out in Romans 12:3…
From https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/guzik_david/study-guide/romans/romans-12.cfm?a=1058003
****************Begin Quote*************
B. Living out the spiritual gifts God has given.
1. (Romans 12:3) A warning to live in humility.
For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.
a. To everyone among you: Paul will soon speak about how we should exercise spiritual gifts in the body of Christ, but a warning about humility is in order, given the inordinate pride that often arises from those who regard themselves as spiritually gifted.
i. We should remember that spiritual giftedness does not equal spiritual maturity. Just because a person has substantial spiritual gifts does not mean they are necessarily spiritually mature or a worthy example.
b. Not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think: Paul does not tell the believer to take an attitude that finds pleasure in humiliation or degradation. Rather, the idea is that we should see the truth about ourselves and live in light of it. When we see ourselves as we really are, it is impossible to be given over to pride.
c. God has dealt to each one a measure of faith: This means that we should see even our saving faith as a gift from God, and that we have no basis for pride or a superior opinion of ourselves.Now letâs look at the rest of verse 2 to see if the context tells us which interpretation of âwantâ is truly supported.
****************End Quote*************
I want to pull out the phrase “When we see ourselves as we really are, it is impossible to be given over to pride.” This is true Christian humility not some self-degrading “worm” theology.
Now letâs look at the rest of verse 2 to see if the context tells us which interpretation of âwantâ is truly supported.
Second line âSo Jesus You brought Heaven downâ
Despite the criticism of some, this line is 100 percent Biblical.
For Jesus to have âbrought Heaven downâ it prompts a couple of questions…
1) âWhat makes Heaven Heaven?.â Is it the angels? It will be awesome to finally see them but no. Is it being reunited our departed loved ones who died in the faith? Again, wonderful but no.
This question is answered in Rev 21 among other scripturesâŚ
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
âAnd God Himself shall be with them.â Heaven is where the manifest presence of God is. Notice that I said the âmanifest presenceâ not just the presence of God. God is omnipresent and, as such, is everywhere. However, there are times and places where God is there in a palpable sense. Exodus 33:18-23 shows us that God has a body, itâs just not like ours.
So if Heaven is where God is manifest (and the Scripture shows that it is) , itâs not at all hard to understand how âJesus brought Heaven down.â
The first chapter of the Gospel according to John states (John 1:1-5,14-18)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
The above verses plainly teach that Jesus was God from before the beginning and, when He came to earth in the Incarnation, God now walked among us.
The Apostle Paul in Col 1:15-20
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
The word used for “image” here is amazing. From Vines expository Dictionary of New Testament words https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1504/kjv/tr/0-1/
*****************Begin Quote*************************
(d) of Christ in relation to God, 2Cr 4:4, “the image of God,” i.e., essentially and absolutely the perfect expression and representation of the Archetype, God the Father; in Col 1:15, “the image of the invisible God” gives the additional thought suggested by the word “invisible,” that Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of God to created beings; the likeness expressed in this manifestation is involved in the essential relations in the Godhead, and is therefore unique and perfect; “he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,” Jhn 14:9. “The epithet “invisible.”… must not be confined to the apprehension of the bodily senses, but will include the cognizance of the inward eye also” (Lightfoot).
*****************End Quote*************************
The first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew states in verse 23 (Quoting Isaiah 7:14)
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
“God with us” Wow! This was the first time since the Garden of Eden that, for an extended period of time, God Himself physically walked on the earth. Heaven was still above us. God the Father was still on the throne. However, the manifest Presence of God in the form of Jesus Christ was here. And, as such, Heaven had been “brought down.”
If that don’t get you “lit”, your pilot light’s out đ
2) “Why did Jesus bring Heaven down?”
The clear teaching of Paul in Galatians 4:4-5
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
He came âto redeem them that were under the lawâ (thatâs all of us folks) âthat we might receive the adoption of sons.â (that can be all of us, folks) We were at the center of His plan.
Again, from the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 1:15-17
15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
16 But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.
17 To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.[ Amen.
The bottom line truth is that âWe could not go up until He came down.â
Line 3 of the second verse is âMy sin was great Your love was greaterâ
These eight words demolish the claim that the first line of this verse is humanistically man-centered and, at the same time, demolish the claim that the first line of this verse portrays God as âlonelyâ or needing something from us.
âMy sin was greatâ There is no pride in this. No boasting. No “God and / or Heaven needs me” Just abject spiritual poverty. Notice too that the focus has changed from âusâ in the first line to âmyâ in this line. This is intensely personal and shows that everything that was lacking in me was because of me and âmy sin.â
âYour love was greaterâ The answer to my insufficiency was one thing that God abounds in, âLOVEâ
Psa 103:8-11 (ESV)
8 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and ABOUNDING IN STEADFAST LOVE
9 He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever.
10 He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities.
11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him;
It is because of this great steadfast love that He âdidnât want Heaven without us.â
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
It was not, is not, and never can be a âwantâ as in a âlackâ but has always been a âwantâ as in a âdesire.â
1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Line 4 sums the total thought up nicely âWhat could separate us now?â The answer is, of course, âNothing.â (Barring, as you have correctly stated, âwillful rebellionâ)
In summary (yeah, I know, âabout timeâ đ).
It is always important to remember that most songs are poetic in nature, in that the songwriter will use linguistic devices (such as metaphors, hyperbole, similes, alliteration etc.) to portray the thought that they are trying to make.
One thing to consider when looking at why a lyric is written the way that it was is another âtoolâ of song writing (or poetry in general) called âmeterâ.
From https://www.masterclass.com/articles/poetry-101-what-is-meter-learn-the-difference-between-qualitative-and-quantitative-meter-in-poetry-with-examples
*****************Begin Quote*************************
Meter is the basic rhythmic structure of a line within a work of poetry. Meter consists of two components:
1. The number of syllables
2. A pattern of emphasis on those syllables
*****************End Quote*************************
As a songwriter myself of about 30 songs (a very long time ago), for me, meter was one of the more difficult things to get right. Rhyming was relatively easy (I used to read the dictionary as a kid so I have a good vocabulary.) Rhythm was tougher.
If you have too many or not enough syllables in a line of music, it becomes increasingly harder to sign.
Many times a line is written the way that it is because that what fits into the meter of the verse (flowing both musically and in the same line of thought.) The songwriter, knowing what he has in mind for the whole verse / song, doesnât stress out over an interpretation other than the one that he is presenting.
Now this is no excuse for bad theology in a song but, as I said at the opening of this lengthy post in regards to Biblical backing for every phrase being unnecessary; as long as the phrase doesnât contradict what the Bible says about a certain subject we should figure out the context to see if our interpretation âfitsâ
Vince, you yourself said âI did not find a single line that is not biblically or theologically sound.â
As I have said many times in my comments, a song should not be penalized for how it MIGHT be taken especially if it must be taken out of context to arrive at a false conclusion.
The Bible itself has been misinterpreted (innocently and maliciously) since it was written. Through proper hermeneutics (exegesis [pulling out of a verse the meaning, this is a good practice] as opposed to eisegesis [reading into a verse a meaning, this is a very bad practice and leads to false doctrine]) we âweed outâ faulty interpretations.
The same interpretive tools should be used on lyrics to determine their Biblical accuracy. Vince, I donât mean this to be a criticism of you in particular. You normally do a fantastic job of this. In this song, however, I think that you have a bit of âtunnel visionâ caused by going line for line and, thereby, losing the overall context of the second verse. This “tunnel vision” was absent from your original 10/10 review and was later adopted by agreeing with the bad interpretation of other commentors. This caused you to look at the first line of the second verse in isolation.
The âLonely Godâ scenario is valid only if one interprets the word âwantâ as âneedâ. I believe that I have shown an equally valid, but more linguistically and Biblically plausible interpretation of âwantâ meaning âdesireâ
I do not believe that even the most Biblically ignorant unbeliever would read the second verse, in its entirety, and come away saying âWow, God needs me to make Heaven complete.â The phrase âmy sin was greatâ, in my opinion, prohibits this interpretation. Especially when coupled with âYour love was greaterâ which puts the focus back on God! There is nothing in this that even hints at God lacking something. It has to be âread intoâ the lyric.
We are of great importance to God (Scripture bears this out over and over again) but the glory is not ours but His because it was His plan and His love that bestowed that importance on us.
I apologize for the length of this post (long-winded even for me đ). I truly believe that this is a 10/10 great song that should be sung in church and doesnât deserve the negativity that has been read into this one line.
Mike Waliczek
When there are many people understanding a song a certain way, there’s probably good reason to be wary. Our sin being great is unrelated to the idea that God needs us in Heaven. The former can still be true and the latter false. I just have one question: why did God save us? Was it for our sake? No, it was for His glory (Isaiah 43:7, 25, Psalm 50:15, 86:9, 1 Cor. 10:31, Eph. 1:13-14). It`s still about Him in the end.
Steve Barhydt
Mike,
Thanks for your comment.
First, ‘many people’ can be wrong. That is a logical fallacy known as ‘Argumentum ad populum’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Neal Cruco (another regular commenter on this website; see his comments above) and myself believe that they are wrong. I have laid out a detailed case for my point of view.
Secondly, there is absolutely nothing in the context of the second verse that suggests that God needs us. That must be read into it. The word ‘want’ can be interpreted both as ‘need’ (i.e. lack) or ‘desire’.
I believe that the context of the second verse favors ‘desire’.
I reference “my sin was great” to show that, in the songwriter’s mind, he does not see anything within him that God needs; which is the complaint against the first line of the second verse. (i.e. the ‘Lonely God’ scenario.)
‘Your love was greater’ indicates that the songwriter understands that God has what he needs.
Third, “Why did God save us?”
I would say that it is both, for our sake AND for His glory!
Romans 5:8 (emphasis mine)
But God commendeth his LOVE TOWARD US, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died FOR US.
The phrase “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” means “for our sake”. Why did He send Christ to die for us, “his LOVE toward us”
The culmination of the greatest treatise on salvation ever written is in Romans 8:37-39 (emphasis mine)
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through HIN THAT LOVED US.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the LOVE OF GOD, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
You quote Isaiah 43:7
Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
I’ll respond with Isaiah 43:4 (emphasis mine)
Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I HAVE LOVED THEE thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.
You quote Ephesians 1:13-14
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Back up a bit to Ephesians 1:4-6 (emphasis mine)
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him IN LOVE:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted IN THE BELOVED.
What God did, He did in love. Yes, His Glory will be praised but HIs motive is love.
Read on into Ephesians 2:4-7 (emphasis mine)
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for HIS GREAT LOVE WHEREWITH HE LOVED US,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
The other verses that you gave have little to nothing to do with salvation.
When taken in context there is no Biblical conflict between God acting out of love for us and HIs glory.
We must be very careful when referencing Scriptures that say that everything is about the glory of God lest we turn our loving God into a narcissist
https://gcdiscipleship.com/article-feed/is-god-a-narcissist (Quoting from this source does not mean that I agree with everything contained therein.)
**************Begin Quote****************
God isnât bashful. He invites, enjoys, and yes, even commands our praise. But he does so as one who wants to be praised for his humble love. He longs for the whole world to know him as the God who stoops low to meet us where we are. He wants his nameâthe Humble Lord of the Universeâto be on our lips forever because he knows that worshipping him will be for our good. And our good is what heâs been after from the dawn of creation. His jealousy for his glory canât be separated from his humiliating commitment to our redemption.
**************End Quote****************
God did not have to make us.. but He did.
God did not have to give Adam and Eve the promise of a coming Savior that would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15) ⌠but He did.
God did not have to send Jesus to redeem us… but He did.
I believe that the entirety of the Biblical narrative shows that He did everything out of love knwoing that we would glorify Him accordingly.
Vince Wright
Steve,
As usual, thank you for your thoughtful and lengthy response!
As I was prayerfully considering your points, I noticed that the statement “You didn’t want heaven without us” is a double negative! Put positively, it would be written “You wanted heaven with us”. Seeing it in this form, I remembered a logical principle known as the Law of Excluded Middle. In short, this law states that for any proposition, either the proposition is true or its negation is. There is no middle ground between the proposition and its negation. It’s one or the other, never both, and never neither.
That begs two important questions: what is the negation of “You wanted heaven with us”, and is the negation true?
For the first question, the negation is “You didn’t want heaven with us”.
For the second question, it doesn’t take long to see that the negation is blatantly false. If He didn’t want heaven with us, then He never would have gone through with sending Jesus to die for our sins. Heck, he wouldn’t have created us! Based on the law of excluded middle, the statement “You wanted heaven with us” must be true.
Most of what you said is completely unnecessary to convince me that you are correct, but it was a good read nonetheless! Keep doing that, as I really enjoy your long-winded posts! The second definition based on the explanation you gave, combined with my logical analysis of its negation under the Law of Excluded Middle, was enough to convince me that you are correct. God had a strong desire to want heaven to include us, not because we’re great or awesome, but because He thought we were worth saving and because He loves us (John 3:16, Romans 5:6-8, and 1 John 4:9-10). As you said, Hillsong Worship makes these points in the next lines of Verse 2.
I updated my commentary and adjusted the song’s score back to 10. I’ll update the Song Review Index sometime next week.
-Vince Wright
Steve Barhydt
I did not even catch the double negative in that line. (Logical discussions sometimes give me a headache :))
Excellent job on noticing that.
I am so happy to see this restored to its proper place. It is a truly amazing and powerful song.
Dan J
I stumbled upon this website after trying to find out the meaning of a hymn lyric and I praise God for this site!
As far as this song goes, I think the confusion comes because of the way we may use the similar phrase (e.g. “I DIDN’T WANT to go to his place WITHOUT you because I don’t know anyone there.”) When we use it, we normally use the phrase to cover our lack. If non-churchgoers or normal churchgoers whose not thinking too much hears this, they MAY feel that God has some deficiency He needs to cover. If there’s even a slight possibility of confusion and misinterpretation in the praise song for corporate worship, I think 10/10 is too much.
We shouldn’t demand too much from the congregation who sings without much explanation.
Steve Barhydt
Dan J,
If you refer to the posts above from April 12 between Vince and myself, you will see that your argument is only supportable by taking the first line of the second verse in isolation from the rest of the verse.
Vince gives an excellent logical argument based on the ‘Law of Excluded Middle’ and I make an attempt (long-winded as always for me) to give a linguistic defense as to why, when taken in context, the word ‘want’ cannot mean ‘lack’ but, instead, indicates a ‘strong desire.’
You say “If thereâs even a slight possibility of confusion and misinterpretation in the praise song for corporate worship, I think 10/10 is too much.”
The problem that I have with this approach (and several commenters on this website take it) is that there is more than ‘a slight possibility of confusion and misinterpretation’ for the majority of the Bible. Every false teaching started with the misinterpretation of a Biblical text (whether accidental or intentional) Most often this is due to it being taken out of context.
Would we rate the more difficult passages of Scripture less than 10/10 or tell people to shy away from them because they are hard to understand? Of course not!
The whole premise of the website ‘The Berean Test’ is based on Acts 17:11 https://www.thebereantest.com/about-the-berean-test
âNow these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.â (Acts 17:11, NASB, emphasis mine)
The fact that Vince has developed this amazing website where he does most of the ‘leg work’ for us does not remove the responsibility of each congregation (or in reality, each person) to understand what they are signing.
Mike W
Steve, we’re not grading Scripture. Vince is grading songs. One of his criteria is how an outsider would interpret the song, based on a scale from 1-10. So, are all songs to be 10/10 now because they can all be misinterpreted?
Steve Barhydt
Mike,
For the stated purpose of his website, âThe Berean Test is about applying critical thinking skills to compare lyrical content from popular Christian artists against the Bible for accuracyâ , Vince must first interpret the song in light of the scriptures. This interpretation leads to a âgradeâ.
Whether we are interpreting Scripture or songs, the tools are the same; namely the two differing methods of hermeneutics (exegesis and eisegesis)
**********************Begin quote******************
Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means âto lead out of.â That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.
The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means âto lead into,â which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.
Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.
The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?
Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreterâs idea.
https://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html
*****************End quote**************
It is my contention that the only people who will see Godâs lacking something in the words, âYou didnât want heaven without usâ will have to âeisegeteâ it into the meaning by ignoring the context of the rest of the verse.
Because of the principles of proper hermeneutics, I complete reject Dan J (and many otherâs) notion that âIf thereâs even a slight possibility of confusion and misinterpretation in the praise song for corporate worship, I think 10/10 is too much.â
There is a âpossibility of confusion and misinterpretationâ in everything ever written or said. Hence, my referring to the potential for Biblical misinterpretation doesnât stop us from reading or proclaiming the Word of God.
You ask “So, are all songs to be 10/10 now because they can all be misinterpreted?”
Of course not!
From Vince’s own words https://www.thebereantest.com/criteria-for-evaluating-christian-music
****************Begin Quote**************
3. How would an outsider interpret the song?
This principle is based on 1 Thessalonians 5:22, which tells us to âabstain from every form of evilâ, which includes the appearance of evil. While I do not wish to be overly legalistic and to allow freedom on such matters (see Romans 14), we must also avoid communicating the wrong message to those outside the camp of Christ.
While each individual unbeliever is an individual and will have a unique interpretation, my opinion on this matter (unless stated otherwise) is about the average non-christian with little to no knowledge about Christianity. The score will also reflect personal benefit and helping them/hindering them from considering Jesus.
****************End Quote**************
The first thing that I would say about this section of Vinceâs reviews is that, by its very nature, the most subjective part of his analysis. More âweightâ is given (twice as much) to the âHow much of the lyrics line up with Scripture?â section (as it should be.)
That said, I’m sure that Vince has some other criteria when he is evaluating for this section of his review, but (based on his other reviews) a few things come to my mind…
1) Is the song easily recognizable as a âChristianâ song? âJesus is my boyfriendâ type songs are going to get a lower score in the section than songs that openly declare who God is.
2) Is the song vague or worse, misleading, about Who God is and what He has done or can do for us? If so, it deserves a lower score because the unbeliever will come away from the song with ‘the wrong messageâ Songs that lean heavily into Word of Faith teaching may give the false impression that God ALWAYS answers prayer in the affirmative and, when such prayers are not answered, cause doubt and unbelief to take root in someoneâs heart and mind.
3) Is the song heavy in ‘Christianese’ (that âinsiderâ language that we speak when with other believers)? Is so, it deserves a lower score because the ‘average non-christian’ is not going to fully understand it; again potentially leading to ‘the wrong message’ being communicated.
With that in mind, in my opinion, the overall message of this song violates nothing in Vinceâs ânon-believer criteriaâ .
1) It is very easy to understand as Vince rightly points out in his review.
2) The minor âChristianeseâ that is there is quickly overwhelmed by the message of the power in Jesusâ name.
3) The most important thing about this song is that there is nothing in the lyrics that would turn unbelievers away. The contested second verse is a beautiful summation of the doctrines of the Godâs Amazing Love, the Incarnation, our Redemption, and the promise of Eternal Life.
We must remember, as well, that even though the unbeliever may or may not have an understanding of Biblical concepts, this doesnât mean that they are not intelligent enough to interpret the lyrics when read, heard or sang in the proper context.
I will reiterate here what I stated in a past comment on this very song. A song should not be penalized for how it MIGHT be taken especially if it must be taken out of context to arrive at a false conclusion.
Based on all of the above, I believe that the 10/10 rating on this song is perfectly justifiable.
Dan J
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your reply. Even with biblical explanation, I still feel awkward singing that verse 2 line. There’s a part of me that cannot sing with all my heart. I guess I may be the “weak brother” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8. I think the awkwardness of singing this praise comes from my culture that idolized self. From the environment/culture I am in, there’s lot of “Be yourself” and “love yourself” ideas that makes much of self rather than of God. I think that’s why I feel this awkwardness singing this particular verse.
Whenever there’s sermons or praise songs that sounds like they’re making ourselves more than who we are, I get this awkwardness. But that’s just me. If this worship song stirs the heart of the majority to love God more, I will gladly sing.
I am so thankful for you brothers, clarifying this praise song.
Steve Barhydt
Dan J,
My brother in Christ, if you cannot sing the second verse of this song with a clear conscience then, by all means, do not sing it!
I do not believe that this makes you a âweaker brotherâ. I think that that particular scripture has more weighty things in mind.
There are lines in songs that I will not sing. Most notably, John Mark Mcmillanâs âHow He Loves.â with the line in the second verse âSo heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss.â This is one of the worst lines of Christian music ever written (Not that I have a strong opinion on it đ) .
Even when I am on the worship team at my church and they sing this song, I will not sing this line. I do not consider myself a âweakâ Christian for refusing to do so.
Even though it outside the scope of this website, I want to offer you a few words about a proper âself viewâ. (Vince, if this is inappropriate for the website, please feel free to delete.)
Please remember that our view of self must be correctly balanced. There is a tendency in some Christian circles to lean towards self-abasement ( to the point of âWormâ theology) because of the worldâs overly heightened practices of self-exaltation. Neither of these are Biblical views.
Instead of spending time in this forum, I would direct you the following article on gotquestions.com https://www.gotquestions.org/self-image.html
As to you singing this song, if you can do so with an absolutely clear conscience , devoid of any âawkwardnessâ, sing it with all your heart.
But if you cannot, continue to pray about it, until you are able to do so. If you never can, thatâs alright, your heart before God is far more important than one song.
God bless.
Mike
Thank you, I know what eisegeis and exegesis are. The key word is still “outsiders”. How are they to interpret a song correctly against Scripture if they don’t even know or understand Scripture? The lengths of defending this line is crazy..
Steve Barhydt
Mike,
If you truly know the difference between eisegesis and exegesis, please stop eisegeting (âreading something intoâ) my words. You did so to my Apr 21.2023 09:02 AM comment and you are doing so again.
No one is asking unbelievers (i.e. outsiders) to âinterpret a song correctly against Scriptureâ. Thatâs what Vince does so well in this wonderful website.
We should, however, expect anyone who hears this song to properly interpret it given an HONEST CONTEXTUAL reading of the lyrics.
As I have said before, âVince gives an excellent logical argument based on the âLaw of Excluded Middleâ and I make an attempt (long-winded as always for me) to give a linguistic defense as to why, when taken in context, the word âwantâ cannot mean âlackâ but, instead, indicates a âstrong desire.ââ
Please note that both Vinceâs logical argument and my linguistic defense are completely outside of the thorough Biblical analysis of this song.
Vince sums up his review by saying, âI did not find a single line that is not biblically or theologically sound. Unbelievers should EASILY interpret similarly, â (emphasis mine) proving that, in Vinceâs mind, there is enough within the song itself to point them to Jesus. (Therefore the 10/10 rating).
Finally, I donât defend the âlineâ, I defend the âverseâ and, herein, is the crux of the matter.
What I find âcrazyâ is that so many people ignore basic interpretive methods when reading this LINE by superimposing some type of self-aggrandizement when nothing in the VERSE suggests it.
J
I have an even closer match for “What a wonderful Name it is”: depending on whether you believe the Angel of the Lord is Jesus, He literally says His name is wonderful in Judges 13:18
Peter Long
Most of the song is great! But that one line about Jesus not wanting Heaven without us is so terrible I won’t sing it as written. Stay with me, because I have a solution. But first let’s acknowledge the gravity of that error. Clearly it does not align with the truth of scripture. Quite the opposite, it contradicts scripture, I won’t list all the passages it contradicts, but I will call out Jesus words, “Behold, I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go, I will come again”. Jesus is not sitting around in Heaven wishing we were there. He, in his love, grace, and mercy determined that He would prepare a new place for us, since we destroyed the first.
It also places the importance of man above that of God. As if we could somehow fulfill God himself???!!! We should be terribly humbled by a God who is willing to make a new heaven and a new earth, after our own actions brought destruction upon His perfect act of creation. “You didn’t want Heaven without us” does not reflect an ounce of humility.
But, again, the rest of the song is great and God honoring. What should we do? Throw the whole thing out? I suggest there is an easy way to fix the song, so we can sing it in church — knowing that we are fully glorifying our King and our Savior with our words. Simply re-write that one offending line to align with Truth. Everyone makes mistakes, just as the author of this song made a grievous error. That is part of being human.
A simple fix: “We couldn’t see Heaven without You”. Shift it back to Him, away from us.
As an aside, I can’t understand why people want to defend that line instead of simply acknowledging it is wrong and setting about to fix it.
Steve Barhydt
Peter,
Thereâs a saying thatâs been around since the early 1960âs, âIf it ain’t broken, don’t fix itâ.
Many of us donât believe that this song needs fixed.
Read Neal Cruco’s comments (Jan 22.2021 | 07:12 pm , Jan 25.2021 | 12:19 pm)
Read my comments, (particularly the one at Apr 12.2023 | 10:46 am and Apr 12.2023 | 03:17 pm. ) I know that these comments are very long, but if âbrevity is the soul of witâ, I believe that lengthy analysis is the soul of interpretation.
Read Vince’s final response to my comment on (Apr 12.2023 | 01:45 pm)
In my Apr 12.2023 | 10:46 am comment, I refute all of your arguments (“It also places the importance of man above that of God”, “we could somehow fulfill God himself”, etc.). I give many scripture references as well as a linguistical argument that “want” cannot be interpreted as “need” if the whole song is taken in context.
Speaking of context, you misquote John 14:2-3 by stopping short of what the passage actually says, âBehold, I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go, I will come againâ
Let’s be proper Bereans by looking at John 14:1-6 instead of ‘cherry-picking’ two phrases out of the middle of the passage (KJV) emphasis mine…
1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and RECEIVE YOU UNTO MYSELF; THAT WHERE I AM, THERE YE MAY BE ALSO.
4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Notice what happens when He comes again. He will “RECEIVE YOU UNTO MYSELF; THAT WHERE I AM, THERE YE MAY BE ALSO.”
The reason that He is going to come again is to take us where He wants us to be, namely with Him in Heaven.
The fuller context of the passage does not support what you are claiming.
Furthermore, nobody who is defending this song thinks that “Jesus is … sitting around in Heaven wishing we were there” (I rephrased your statement in the positive because that is what you are asserting that we believe.)
Instead, we believe that He is in Heaven doing what He said, getting a place ready to us to be there. Why? Because ‘He didn’t want Heaven without us.’
You assert ââYou didnât want Heaven without usâ does not reflect an ounce of humility.â
I have shown that the humility is in the context of the rest of the verse.
I will quote myself from my Apr 12.2023 | 10:46 am commentâŚ
*****************Begin Quote**********************
Line 3 of the second verse is âMy sin was great Your love was greaterâ
These eight words demolish the claim that the first line of this verse is humanistically man-centered and, at the same time, demolish the claim that the first line of this verse portrays God as âlonelyâ or needing something from us.
âMy sin was greatâ There is no pride in this. No boasting. No âGod and / or Heaven needs meâ Just abject spiritual poverty. Notice too that the focus has changed from âusâ in the first line to âmyâ in this line. This is intensely personal and shows that everything that was lacking in me was because of me and âmy sin.â
âYour love was greaterâ The answer to my insufficiency was one thing that God abounds in, âLOVEâ
Psa 103:8-11 (ESV)
*****************End Quote**********************
You say âClearly it does not align with the truth of scripture. Quite the opposite, it contradicts scripture, I wonât list all the passages it contradicts.â
Why not? Please do list them, every single one but IN CONTEXT. The Chapter-verse references are sufficient along with your interpretation as to why a given passage supports your assertion.
Only then can we have a Biblically based discussion as opposed to the philosophical one that you have put forth.
You may have noticed a consistent theme in this reply, namely CONTEXT. There can be no proper interpretation of anything without it. From Bible verses to a recipe for Chocolate Chip cookies, from song meanings to figuring out complex math equations, everything is about context.
You finish by stating a conundrum âI canât understand why people want to defend that line instead of simply acknowledging it is wrong and setting about to fix it.â
At the risk of appearing conceited, I will finish by quoting from myself again, this time from from my Apr 23.2023 | 01:40 pm comment on this song.
*****************Begin Quote**********************
Finally, I donât defend the âlineâ, I defend the âverseâ and, herein, is the crux of the matter.
What I find âcrazyâ is that so many people ignore basic interpretive methods when reading this LINE by superimposing some type of self-aggrandizement when nothing in the VERSE suggests it.
*****************End Quote**********************