Photo by Cristian Grecu
If you may recall, I ran a guaranteed Lauren Daigle review poll towards the end of February, clearing out much of my queue and filling an extra slot not previously filled. The top voted request from that poll was Come Alive (Dry Bones). So, let’s get right into it.
Before I begin, some of you have asked me to provide feedback in terms of usage in church. That is, should we sing this in our congregations or not? I will include this in my final comments starting with this review. When I have some extra time, I intend to add this to previous reviews containing a score of 6 or higher.
Lyrics can be found at https://genius.com/Lauren-daigle-come-alive-dry-bones-lyrics.
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.
1. What message does the song communicate?
Daigle presents a clear message about God’s deliverance from damnation to eternal life, utilizing Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 37 as her starting point, breathing into it New Testament context that points us to:
- Salvation from sins;
- Receiving the Holy Spirit; and
- Entering the final resurrection when Christ returns.
While Satan kills and destroys, God’s unending mercies and attribute of love compel Him to rescue us. Our response to this is to walk with faith, telling other people about Jesus with the hope that they will follow Him. Daigle also offers this as her prayer and compels us to live as Jesus did.
God is clearly identified, with little pronoun usage and describing several of His aforementioned attributes, including:
- Endless mercy;
- Unrelenting love;
- Rescuer; and
- Victor over death.
Side Note: To those sensitive to massive repetition, Bridge contains 8 repeats.
Score: 10/10
2. How much of the lyrics line up with Scripture?
All of it agrees with Scripture.
[Verse 1]
Lines 1-4: The enemy, Satan, who is the father of lies (John 8:44) leads people astray into sin. The result is slavery to sin (John 8:34, Romans 6:6, Romans 6:20-22, and 1 Corinthians 6:12). The result is a loss of innocence (Romans 3:23).
It also references the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32.
[Verse 2]
Line 1: That is, victory over death, rendering the devil powerless (Isaiah 25:8, Hosea 13:14, Luke 20:35-36, 1 Corinthians 15:24-26, 1 Corinthians 15:55-57, 2 Timothy 1:10, and Hebrews 2:14).
Line 2-4: Given that we do not know our future, Daigle describes our unwavering trust in God, utilizing Ezekiel 37:1-2 as her example. This also sets the stage for the Chorus.
[Chorus]
Lines 1-4: Quoting from Ezekiel 37:4-6, Daigle legitimately utilizes this Old Testament concept in New Testament context. The explanation for Ezekiel’s vision exists in Ezekiel 37:11:14: Israel’s hope is lost, spiritually and physically dead. God will cause them to resurrect in both senses, bringing them to their own land.
In the New Testament, the hope we have is in Jesus, who defeated death (see Verse 2, line 1), restoring hope to those who trust in Him (Matthew 11:28-30, Romans 5:1-8, Romans 8:24-39, Romans 15:13, 1 Corinthians 15:54-58, and 1 Peter 1:3-6). We will also experience the final resurrection (Luke 20:34-38, Acts 24:15-16, Romans 6:1-5, Romans 8:11-13, 1 Corinthians 15:20-26, 1 Corinthians 15:50-56, 2 Corinthians 4:13-14, and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), ushering in the new heaven and new earth, described in Revelation 21:1-7.
This is the message that Daigle calls us to preach, reminiscent of Christ’s final command in Matthew 28:18-20 before He ascended to the Father, that is, to make Christ-followers of all nations.
[Verse 3]
Line 1: Daigle lists two attributes of God, namely, that His mercies and love never ends. While the first is found in Lamentations 3:22, the second is true because God is love (1 John 4:8). All lines in this Verse are a prayer offered to God.
Line 2: I like the word that Daigle chose to use for salvation (Genesis 15:6, Exodus 33:19, Psalm 32:1-2, Romans 3:21-24, Romans 4:3-8, Romans 5:1-2, Romans 5:6-8, Romans 5:15-21, Romans 6:14, Romans 8:1-4, Romans 9:14-16, Romans 11:5-6, Galatians 2:21, Galatians 3:6, Galatians 5:4, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 2:4-9, 2 Thessalonians 2:16, Titus 2:11, 1 Timothy 1:15-16, and James 2:23). God is in the business of rescuing lost people.
Line 3: That is, the Holy Spirit, reminiscent of John 20:22.
Lines 4 and 5: Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), a statement that many in the world find hard to swallow, including Christians.
[Bridge]
Lines 1-4: In Ezekiel 37:5-10, God breathes on the dry bones so that they come back to life, reminiscent of God’s breath in Adam, where He became a living soul (Genesis 2:7). Also, Jesus in John 20:22 breathed onto His disciples and they received the Holy Spirit. Daigle prays to God, that He will bring the spiritually dead to life.
Lines 5-8: Repeats lines 1-4.
Score: 10/10
3. How would an outsider interpret the song?
Non-believers will likely become lost in the imagery Daigle describes. She utilizes heavy usage of Christian terminology that makes it difficult for them to comprehend without prior study; However, Verse 3 will shed some light on her message. While they will easily understand this as a religious song, It will take some minimal effort on their part to grasp figurative usage. This song was clearly not meant for the unsaved.
Score: 5/10
4. What does this song glorify?
It clearly and unabashedly brings glory to God as the One who brings our spiritual deadness to life.
Score: 10/10
Closing Comments
Lauren Daigle’s Come Alive (Dry Bones) is a breath of fresh air, after the latest low-scoring reviews of You Say, Look Up Child, and especially Rescue. Its lyrics are highly biblical. Her heavy utilization of “Christian-ese” makes unbeliever interpretation more difficult, lowering the overall score by a notch.
In terms of usage in churches, Verses 2 and 3 are worship, while the rest are actions on our part. Personally, I think it is great for at-home use, but doesn’t belong in corporate worship, especially given that the Chorus is not worship.
Final Score: 9/10
Artist Info
Track: Come Alive (Dry Bones) (listen to the song)
Artist: Lauren Daigle
Album: How Can It Be
Genre: Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)
Release Year: 2015
Duration: 3:55
Agree? Disagree? Don’t be shy or have a cow! Calmly and politely state your case in a comment, below.
Updates:
05/24/2021 – Updated my commentary to Bridge, which connects better with Ezekiel’s 37’s theme of dry bones.
03/25/2021 – Updated per repetition announcement. I moved my commentary to a side note and slightly increased section 1’s score. This did not affect the overall rating.
07/30/2020 – A little bird (Neal Cruco) told me that Merriam-Webster dictionary updated their dictionary for the word “Prodigal” Therefore, I am forced to take back my critique of this word, raising its score from 8/10 to 9/10.
Comments
Lydia
First I would like to say thank you so much for what you do! I have read articles you have posted on several different songs at different times, and have thoroughly enjoyed them. It is incredibly important to test what we watch, what we hear, and then what we say based on what we watch and hear, against scripture.
I think this is especially true in the context of “worship” music, or music we are listening to specifically to focus on God! Music speaks to us, it gets stuck in our head, and whether we intend to or not we extrapolate meaning and true this from it that may or may not be accurate, so staying aware is important.
Something struck me as very odd and kind of off, though, in this and it made me do my own Berean test to double check before I wrote, so please understand I am saying this having done due diligence and not off-the-cuff or to be antagonistic! Again I love what I read here. It actually has nothing to do with the song, but was about what felt to me like a dismissive, very western take on the story of the prodigal son. I point it out not to be argumentative, but because you very clearly strive to ground everything you say and scripture, as was the Berean way, so it struck me as odd that that was your response. It seems out of place in your writing. I hesitate to bring it up, but you mentioned it on multiple occasions, so it appears to be something you were emphasising.
Yes, squandering of inheritance is clearly a theme in this parable. Actually this parable is used in many global communications classes and missions training to point out how many different themes there are in this parable, and how different cultures focus on different ones. Cultures that have experienced famine will focus on how the father rescues the son after he experienced the tragedy of famine. Eastern cultures that focus on family loyalty see the emphasis as how the son disgraced the family and lived in a way that brought shame and dishonor, and how amazing it is that the father would take him back after such acts. As I began to state before, western cultures tend to focus on the squandering of money, because we put a very high emphasis on fiscal responsibility and often place our response to/care of the money we have been given as a form of godliness.
While there are several parables where the primary theme our investment/care of the gifts that God has given us, whether it be financial/material, family, or talents/spiritual gifts, this is not one of them. The theme of redemption is so clearly seen, no matter what context or cultural lens one sees it though. The son leaves the shelter and provision of his father’s home to live his own way, in a separate land, lives wildly and rebelliously, suffers for it, longs for home but recognizes his unworthiness, and is accepted with joy, excitement and entirely with our reservation by his father.
One could argue that the things he wasted his money on are as much the focus as is the loss of money (the brother refers to the prodigal’s waste on harlotry in v30, and many translations refer to “wild”, “reckless”, “riotous”, or even “debauched” living in v13, with the Greek translating as “wasteful” at times, and “loose” at times according to Strongs), but I would suggest that the focus is not on the son’s sins or lost inheritance at all – only two verses are spent on the son’s mistakes (v13-14). By contrast, there are five verses on the son’s feelings of shame and loss, unworthiness, and desire for repentance and home (15-19), and seven on the father’s rejoicing over his son’s return who “was dead and is found alive again, was lost and is found” (20-24, 31-32). To say that the passage regarding the prodigal “has more to do with wasteful spending than a wanderer restored” seems massive stretch given the 2/12 ratio.
Even without taking about this passage, however, I would suggest looking at context. Jesus often told several similar parables in a row to illustrate and emphasize the same point, and that is the case here. Immediately preceding the parable of the prodigal are two other similar parables about redemption, the restoring of what was lost. First (in 15:1-7) is the parable of the lost sheep (where the Shepherd leaves the ninety-nine sheep to go find the one that is lost, and then celebrates and rejoices over its return), followed by the parable of the lost coin (where a woman stops everything and searches for a missing coin – despite having others – and rejoices and celebrates over finding it) in v8-10. In case the message wasn’t clear enough to those listening, Jesus states: “Likewise I say to you, there is joy in the presence of angels and God over one sinner who repents.” (v.10)
Anyway. Again, I really, really appreciate your writing, and I think it is so important! I have enjoyed – and agreed with – so very many of your reviews, and I respect the effort that is clearly put into citing your sources in Scripture to back your statement. Perhaps that is why I found it odd that you asserted your view is fact on four occasions (even to the point of stating that most other people get it wrong), and did nothing to back it but a link to Webster’s dictionary. Not even a bible dictionary, much less Scripture references as you so carefully do with the other points you make (something I respect). I will happily read whatever you read to research come to your view and challenge my own thoughts!
Thanks again.
tastywallet
Lydia,
Thank you for taking the time to read my articles and to do your own “Berean Test” on one of my reviews! I fully admit that I don’t always get everything right. You might have noticed that some reviews contain an “Update” sub-section within the introductory text, crediting the individual who changed my mind. Transparency is highly important to me, something that some of my audience has come to appreciate about my review process.
In this particular article, what I attempted to communicate is that the word “Prodigal” has a particular definition. According to Merriam-Webster, a prodigal is “characterized by profuse or wasteful expenditure”. Many people automatically associate that particular word with a wayward son, but that is not how the word is defined. That is why I only referred to a dictionary, as opposed to using lots of Scripture. It is my belief that Lauren Daigle committed the same error in Come Alive (Dry Bones), by utilizing the word “prodigal” not in accordance with its definition.
In response to the rest of your reply, my understanding of this parable (along with lost coin and lost sheep) is that contextually, Jesus responds to the Pharisees, who grumbled and said to themselves “This man receives sinners and eats with them” at the opening of Luke 15. He then tells three parables, all with a common theme of the heavenly hosts celebrating because one sinner repented.
Insofar as I am aware, the Pharisees in the Parable of the Prodigal Son are represented by the self-righteous older brother. While it does contain a spendthrift who repents (and there’s been a ton of sermons on that particular point), it is the end of the parable that speaks directly to the Pharisees and the main point He is communicating to them. The older brother’s father invites him to join in the celebration regarding his repentant younger brother. The parable ends in a cliffhanger, leaving the older brother to decide if he will celebrate or not. In the same way, Jesus invites the Pharisees to join in the celebration if and when these “sinners” that Jesus ate with repented.
I hope this clarifies my position. I appreciate your effort and hope that you continue to cross-check my articles and let me know if I erred. After all, that is part of the point of this website; that all of us would take more stock in comparing the things we listen to against Scripture.
-TastyWallet
Kurt Kelley
Context. WE dont call out to dry bones. Only GOD does. So while the concept of dry bones coming alive via the Spirit of the Lord, WE have nothing to do with it. So it is ascribing God-like power to every John or Jane Doe. And how is celebrating what WE do, worshiping God? I think she gets a lot of grace due to the fact that she is young, cute, and the biggest female CCM singer since Darlene Zsceck.
tastywallet
Kurt,
Thank you for reading my review and for expressing your thoughts! I see your point given the way Daigle writes the lyrics. It certainly sounds that way!
I went back and re-examined the Ezekiel passage in context. The Lord instructs Ezekiel, according to Ezekiel 37:12-14, to prophecy to the dry bones (Israel) that the Lord will restore them physically and spiritually. That is what Ezekiel did, to “call out to dry bones”. You are correct in saying that we have nothing to do with it; However, we have marching orders, according to Matthew 28:18-20, to make disciples out of all nations. In my view, telling others about Jesus is the New Testament equivalent of God’s instruction to Ezekiel.
Verse 3 from Daigle’s song tells us that only God can save, contextualizing the Chorus as the One who ultimately brings life to dead hearts.
Finally, I agree with your comment that Daigle seems to get a free pass due to her youth and popularity. That is not how I operate. In this case, I thought she earned her 8/10.
-TastyWallet
Mona Waite
Praise and worship is done in Spirit and truth. Truth is not only in scripture, but in Jesus. He is the way, the truth and the life. The Holy Spirit has shared things in revelation to me (and others I’m sure) that are truth to my Spirit, but not in scripture. Many of the Christian artist are anointed to bring reverence to Jesus, but so many critics are trying to pull them apart and many as far as saying they are not of Christ. I’m not saying your articles are in that category, but I know the scripture, and I am not a scholar. I also don’t think you need to know Greek in order for LD to bring you in the presence of our Lord!
Thank you for all of your effort to at least bring praise and worship to the forefront. In all you do, do it to the glory of God!
Thanks,
Mona
tastywallet
Mona,
Thanks for your thoughts! I appreciate the spirit in which you presented your case.
-TastyWallet
Lachlan Blackwood
How do you define worship? The chorus is not praise for sure, but encouraging a congregation with song to obey a command given by God to spread the gospel and preach to the lost I would still consider worship.
Vince Wright
Lachlan,
Great question!
The standard definition I use is to borrow from the old English word “woerthship”, which means, “to proclaim to another their value and worth”.
-Vince Wright
molehannah
Hey, I really wanted to say, as many already have, that I really appreciate the work that you do! I’m a regular user of the site as I’m still very much growing in leading worship and I’m very keen to ensure He is worshipped in Truth, not just Spirit.
I was quite surprised to come and see your review gave this song 10/10 for it’s lyrical content. I’ve been uncomfortable for a while in how, although not expressly stated, the song feels like it can lead us to believe that all wayward children will come back to faith. Declaring that God has the victory is of course Biblical but it doesn’t mean that every person will see this in their life. The flow of the first verses and chorus makes me feel almost a bit “name it and claim it” over people’s lives that have walked away. If we call out to their dead hearts and dry bones then we will see victory in all people’s lives. I’m not 100% I’ve explained this clearly but it’s the best I can do for now at least!
I’d also appreciate a little more explanation of how it is “legitimate” to use the Ezekiel passage in the new testament context to Gentiles. Unless we are of Jewish origin, the prophecy as far as I can tell is not directly relevant to us because it’s a promost to the Israelite people and it feels like eisegesis or even perhaps narcigesis to put believers in the shoes of Ezekiel to call out to the dry bones.
Perhaps I’ve got the wrong end of the stick and I would be very happy to be convinced otherwise!
Thank you again for all you do.
Vince Wright
molehannah,
Thank you for your comments and compliments! I am happy that you’ve become a regular visitor. I hope that my content gave you something worth thinking about!
First, I can see why you might think that everyone will come back to the faith. However, let’s examine the statements more closely.
Verse 1 states that the enemy has carted off people away from God through lies. This is uncontroversial.
Verse 2 states that God’s is the victory, there’s more to come, and Daigle is unafraid. It’s not claiming how far-reaching this victory is.
Chorus is where Daigle calls out to dry bones “come alive”, and that an army will rise out of it. She doesn’t state how large the army is or that everyone who doesn’t follow Jesus will do so. If Daigle meant to say that all dry bones will come alive, she would have stated it as such. However, I can see how you might interpret it as “name it and claim it”, considering that she’s calling out to the dry bones, “come alive”. I see it as prayerful expectation. However, if it bothers you, then by all means don’t use it!
Second, yes, the original prophecy is specific to Israelites. However, much like how we talk about the “giants” in your life references David and Goliath, Daigle’s usage of “dry bones” is allegorical for lost people. Not everyone believes we should take that approach to Scripture. I am not among them.
-Vince Wright
A-D
I encountered your reviews just yesterday when looking up meanings for a very specific word phrase in another song. See, I translate songs from English to ASL (American Sign Language), which does not translate word for word. Instead I have to get to the heart of the message of the words, often made difficult with imagery used.
This song was near impossible for me at first. Understand that many d/Deaf do not have church/religious backgrounds. Case in point – a Deaf gentleman I was interpreting for had never heard the story of Jonah and the whale. I had to turn off my ears and brain from interpreting the sermon happening behind me to share the story of Jonah and answer this gentleman’s many, many questions. Common place story to us, the hearing, but not to the d/Deaf.
This song, talking about dry bones coming to life, is a nightmare to translate. Done literally, you end up signing about zombies walking around. Humorous but completely not the meaning, the meat, of the song.
After many nights of prayer and contemplation God and I finally came up with a translation of this song. Here is what resulted: (The ASL is written in capitals as is the established practice for representing signs into written words.)
As we call out to dry bones
COMMAND BELIEVE IMPOSSIBLE
Come alive, come alive
CAN HAPPEN, CAN HAPPEN
We call out to dead hearts
COMMAND HEART ATTITUDE
Come alive, come alive
CAN HAPPEN, CAN HAPPEN
Up out of the ashes
DESTROY FINISH
Let us see an army rise
GOOD + + HAPPEN FROM BAD
We call out to dry bones, come alive
COMMAND IMPOSSIBLE CAN HAPPEN
While maybe this is not quite in-line with your determination of the theological message of the song, it still presents a message of impossible happening and believing that it can/will.
I most sincerely appreciate your reviews, though I haven’t gotten too far into the many. Thank you for your insights. They truly are most helpful with me wrapping my head around some of these songs and giving me a new perspective on how to attack phrasing some of the complicated English/Christian-ese into ASL for Deaf ministries. Thank you!
Vince Wright
A-D,
Thank you for your comments!
I can’t imagine the difficulty of translating English to ASL. It sounds like the process is similar to the “thought for thought” approach that some Bible translators take like the NIV and the NLT. I appreciate that you use my reviews to assist you with this painstaking endeavor!
I did a quick Google search and found someone who attempted to convert this song to ASL. The Chorus starts at https://youtu.be/AZ_k2N7LRyM?t=222. It appears to be more of a literal translation. Maybe you could make use of it?
-Vince Wright