Photo by Bryan Goff
Hillsong UNITED is a household name.Ā Originating from Hillsong Church, which is located in Sydney, Australia, they are a powerhouse in Contemporary Christian Music.Ā “Hillsong UNITED” is one of four major bands concocted from Hillsong Church.Ā The other three are Hillsong Worship, Hillsong Young and Free, and Hillsong Kids.
My last review ofĀ What a Beautiful NameĀ was very positive.Ā With such a strong presence in Christian music, and a glowing first review, I have high hopes for their song So Will I (100 Billion X).
Note to new users: This is a different kind of review site!Ā ReadĀ About the Berean TestĀ andĀ Evaluation Criteria prior to reading this review.Ā IĀ strongly encourageĀ you toĀ considerĀ theĀ potentialĀ blessings andĀ dangersĀ ofĀ this artistās theology by visitingĀ Resources.
1. What message does the song communicate?
God, the self-existent One, the Creator of our universe, does not speak in vain.Ā The Word of God is so powerful, when He speaks, things happen.Ā His Creation reveals His nature.Ā He sacrificed His life so that though it, we could find forgiveness of sins, despite our failure and shame.Ā He rose again and still lives today!
I will worship, sing praises to, obey, bow in reverence to, and roar greatness of God.Ā I will go where He sends me, cry out in silence, will surrender my life to Him, and will leave the grave behind (speaking of the final resurrection).
It contains one error within the song’s outro, that Christ would sacrifice Himself over and over again.Ā While a sentimental statement of Christ’s love for us, it implies that Jesus’ sacrifice was not “once and for all” as Scripture teaches (see section 2).
Score: 8/10
2. How much of the lyrics line up with Scripture?
Almost all of it!Ā However, there is an implication within Outro that is unbiblical.
Lyrics posted with permission.*
[Verse 1]
God of creation
God/Jesus is responsible for creating the universe (Genesis 1:1, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 8:3-8, Psalm 33:6, Psalm 96:5, Proverbs 3:19, Isaiah 37:16, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 45:18, Isaiah 66:1-2, John 1:1-3, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:16, and Revelation 4:11.
There at the start, before the beginning of time
Jesus existed before Abraham (John 8:58) and for all eternity (2 Timothy 1:9).
With no point of reference
You spoke to the dark and fleshed out the wonder of light
See Genesis 1:2-3.
[Chorus 1]
And as You speak
A hundred billion galaxies are born
In the vapour of Your breath the planets form
God spoke the universe into existence (Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6-9).
If the stars were made to worship, so will I
The entire earth will worship God (Psalm 66:4), so we should as well (Psalm 13:6, Psalm 18:49, Psalm 21:13, Psalm 27:6, Psalm 28:7, Psalm 51:14, Psalm 47:7, Psalm 59:16, Psalm 63:7, Psalm 66:4, Psalm 69:30, Psalm 89:1, Psalm 101:1,Psalm 104:33, Romans 15:9, and 1 Corinthians 14:5).
I can see Your heart in everything You’ve made
Every burning star, a signal fire of grace
The universe points to God’s existence (Psalm 19:1-4) and we are all without excuse (Romans 1:20). Refers to the doctrine of common grace.
If creation sings Your praises, so will I
Repeat idea of line 4, above.
[Verse 2]
God of Your promise
Far too many Scripture passages to refer to the promises of God and the prophecies that have come to fruition.Ā See pages on God’s promises and fulfilled prophecies concerning the Messiah.
You don’t speak in vain, no syllable empty or void
References Isaiah 55:11.
For once You have spoken
All nature and science, follow the sound of Your voice
When God speaks, creation happens.Ā See Genesis 1:3, Genesis 1:6-7, Genesis 1:9, Genesis 1:14-15, Genesis 1:20-21, Genesis 1:24 and Genesis 1:26-27.Ā There are far too many Bible passages to exhaustively include every instance of God’s Word coming to fruition.
[Chorus 2]
And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
See Genesis 1:20-21, Genesis 1:24 and Genesis 1:26-27.
Evolving in pursuit of what You said
This is very controversial. It all depends on the songwriterās definition of evolution. Is it change over time? Microevolution? Macroevolution? Nonetheless, it is clear that God is given credit as responsible for creation given other lines.Ā For this reason, I choose not to deduct points.
NOTE: For those who have reservations leading worship with this song due to this line, consider substituting the word “unfolding” to avoid controversy.Ā I found out recently that my church did just that.
If it all reveals Your nature, so will I
Concept repeated elsewhere.
I can see Your heart in everything You say
Every painted sky, a canvas of Your grace
See Chorus 1, lines 5-6.
If creation still obeys You, so will I
So will I, so will I
Too many Bible verses than I have time to list. This includes the Creation account (Genesis 1), all the miracles, natural disasters, diseases, and other natural phenomena.Ā Once again, the idea of “so will I”Ā is repeated elsewhere.
[Bridge]
If the stars were made to worship, so will I
If the mountains bow in reverence, so will I
If the oceans roar Your greatness, so will I
For if everything exists to lift You high, so will I
And if the wind goes where You send it, so will I
If the rocks cry out in silence, so will I
If the sum of all our praises still falls shy
Then we’ll sing again a hundred billion times!
Piggybacks on other prior references in Genesis 1, Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:20, and other places. Line 6 specifically references a statement by Jesus in Luke 19:39-40.
[Verse 3]
God of salvation
You chased down my heart through all of my failure and pride
Indeed, and those who are His cannot be snatched from His hand (John 10:28-29).Ā Our failures were paid on the cross.Ā See Isaiah 53:1-12, Matthew 27:32-56, Mark 15:21-41, Luke 23:26-43, John 19:17-37, Romans 5:6-8, Acts 2:36, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Colossians 2:13-14, and Hebrews 9:22.
On a hill You created
That is, calvary, also known as Golgotha, The Skull or The Place of the Skull (Matthew 27:33, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33 andĀ John 19:17).Ā Since Jesus was responsible for creating all things, He would have also created this hill.
The light of the world abandoned in darkness to die
Line 4 likely contains an oversight in capitalization. Jesus declares Himself as the light of the world in John 8:12.Ā This is possible excessive nitpicking on my part.Ā Also, the ālight of the worldā is in Matthew 5:14-16, which refers to the church; the body of believers; Christ-followers.Ā The church is the light of the world because of Jesus.
In addition, it says in Line 4 that Jesus was āabandoned in darkness to dieā. There is some dispute on this. When Jesus quotes from Psalm 22:1, it seems that He is expressing His feeling at the time, not making a theological fact. When one reads all of Psalm 22, it becomes clear starting in Psalm 22:19 that the Lord is not far off!
However, it also says in Habakkuk 1:13 that God is too pure to look at evil. Would that include His own Son, who bore our sins (1 Peter 2:24)? It is certainly possible. We know the Father was pleased to crush Jesus (Isaiah 53:10) not because He enjoyed it, but because through Jesusā death (His Servant), āit will justify the many, and He will bear their iniquitiesā (Isaiah 53:11).
[Chorus 3]
And as You speak
A hundred billion failures disappear
Where You lost Your life so I could find it here
The “great exchange” in which we as Christ-followers receive the righteousness of Christ and Christ receives the punishment for the sinfulness of mankind.Ā See Psalm 103:10-14, Proverbs 28:13, Isaiah 1:18, Isaiah 53:5, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 26:28, John 3:16, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:23, Romans 8:1, 1 Corinthians 10:13, Ephesians 1:7-8, 1 John 1:9, and 1 John 2:1-2.
If You left the grave behind You, so will I
Jesus rose from the dead proving that He defeated death.Ā See Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, Acts 1:3, Acts 3:15, Acts 4:33, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
We too will leave the grave behind in 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).
I can see Your heart in everything You’ve done
Derivative of Verse 1 and Chorus 1, which touches on Godās creation.
Every part designed in a work of art called love
If You gladly chose surrender, so will I
God showed us how much He loves us through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.Ā SeeĀ John 3:16, John 13:34, John 15:13, Romans 5:6-8, Romans 8:37-39, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 2:4-5, Ephesians 5:25, 1 John 4:8, and 1 John 4:16-19.
I can see in Your heart, eight billion different ways
Every precious one, a child You died to save
If You gave Your life to love them, so will I
Refers to the 8 billion or so people image-bearers (Genesis 1:27) who currently live on earth. Christ died to save us (2 Corinthians 5:15, Ephesians 5:2, Ephesians 5:25-27, Philippians 2:8, and 1 Thessalonians 5:10).
[Outro]
Like You would again a hundred billion times
While I understand Hillsong’s sentiment, that given the chance and given a precedent of a legal requirement for multiple sacrifices, Christ’s love for us compels Him to go through with it (John 3:16 and Romans 5:6-8), it is an exercise of futility.Ā Scripture tells us that Christ’s sacrifice was once and for all (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:26, and Hebrews 10:10).Ā It is a throwaway line that should have been thrown away!
But what measure could amount to Your desire?
That is, to show us His Grace towards us (Ephesians 2:6-7).
You’re the One who never leaves the one behind
References the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:1-7 and Matthew 18:12-14.
Score: 8/10
3. How would an outsider interpret the song?
It will be obvious to anyone who is not a Christ-follower that this song claims God is the Creator, that nature worships and obeys Him, and speaks on the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Score: 10/10
4. What does this song glorify?
The majesty and wonder of God and His great love for us; However, it is blunted only by Hillsong’s throwaway line: that Christ’s desire for compels Him to re-sacrifice Himself despite Scripture’s “once and for all” statements.
Score: 8/10
Closing Comments
Hillsong UNITED’s “So Will I” celebrates the creative power of God.Ā Its major flaw lies within Outro, stating that Jesus’ desire for us is so strong, He’d go through crucifixion multiple times, in contradiction to a “once and for all” sacrifice. Yet, through His word, God calls us to worship, surrender to, and obey God.Ā It is theologically thick, loaded with Scripture, and glorifies God’s grandeur and His sacrificial love for us.
Given the controversy over evolution and the error within Outro, this makes it difficult to recommend for corporate worship.
Final score: 8.5/10
Artist Info
Track: So Will I (100 Billion X) (listen to the song)
Artist: Hillsong UNITED
Album: Wonder
Genre:Ā Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)
Release Year: 2017
Duration: 6:51
Agree?Ā Disagree?Ā Don’t be shy or have a cow!Ā Calmly and politely state your case in a comment, below.
*Copyright Ā© 2017 Hillsong Music Publishing (APRA) (adm. in the US and Canada at CapitolCMGPublishing.com) All rights reserved. Used by permission.
Updates:
02/08/2023 – To remain consistent with the artist’s actual name, I capitalized the word “United”.
05/07/2021 – Per Artist Theology announcement, I expanded the red text to encourage others to study Hillsong’s theology.
05/16/2020 – In light of prayerfully considering Neal Cruco’s analysis of the 99 as angelic beings in his commentary to Reckless Love and commentary from Gary, I took the following actions:
- Restored my commentary on the song’s end.
- Added a second reference to the Parable of the Lost Sheep to the end of section 2.
- Added commentary to address Outro’s first line, “Like You would again a hundred billion times” in sections 1, 2, 4, and Conclusion.
- Fixed several spelling/grammar errors.
These combined efforts decreased its score from 9.5/10 to 8.5/10.
01/18/2020 – This review became inconsistent upon updating my review of Reckless Love based on my rejection of the Parable of the Lost Sheep in connection with God. I reflected that change here also. I’ve slightly lowered the score from 10/10 to 9.5/10. Thank you Daniel Namkung for pointing this out!
Comments
Jamie Power
Re the line “light of the world” would it be fair to say that Matt 4:16 implies that Jesus is the light?
Steve Barhydt
Jamie,
I’m not sure who your comment is directed towards.
There is no question that Jesus is the light of the world, John 8:12 (KJV)
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
However there are many verses that say that we, as followers of Jesus, are also ‘the light of the world”
In the very next chapter in John 9, Jesus says ‘4 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.’ knowing that He would someday leave the world (in a physical manifestation at least).
Once He ascended to the Father, WE were to become the ‘light’
In Matthew 5:14-16 (KJV) , Jesus Himself said that HIs followers are ‘the light of the world.
14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Eph. 5:8 (KJV)
5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
Phil. 2:14-15 (KJV)
2:14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
I Thess. 5:5 (KJV)
5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
Jolee
I love this song. I know the thing about evolution in verse 2 seems weird to putting a christian/worship song, but “evolve” means to gradually change. the song says “evolving in pursuit.” and “pursuit” means to follow someone. so the song is saying “to gradually change in following God.” so it means we are growing in God basically. thank you Vince!!!
Doug
Hi Neal,
Todayās English is every part of Vinceās evaluation criteria because that is how he communicates. He doesnāt communicate on this website in Hebrew or Greek, though he may research those words to help him communicate in todayās English.
As for the Romans references, both of these are āifā statements followed by a future truth supplied by God. In the song lyrics, it is āifā followed by something the writer/singer proclaims he/she will do for God. The former is a teaching moment, the latter is another problem of this song and many others. It is man focused: āSo will Iā
In my opinion, the best worship songs have extremely limited use of āIā and any use is strongly that of a humble nature, one that would match that of the sinner in Luke 18:13.
Also, you speak of the surrounding verses. Look at the one right before:
Romans 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
We have been buried
Christ was raised
Through the glory of the Father
There are no āifsā in this verse. Even though āifā is in the Bible, the surrounding verses always state things clearly. There is no ambiguity in Scripture.
And look at the other verses:
Romans 6:5-11
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
We know ā¦
Has been set freeā¦
We know ā¦
Will never ā¦
Death no longer has dominionā¦
He died to sin, once for allā¦
You also mustā¦
Look at the teeth of those words. Now thatās a sharp two-edged sword! (Hebrews 4:12)
Lastly, you said, āThe potential for othersā misunderstanding is irrelevant;ā
I donāt think this is ever irrelevant. Those who produce songs such as this are teachers on a grand scale. Think of how many people hear these songs, that are classified as worship songs. And when a church plays them and sings them, that church is teaching the same thing. And the Bible says in James 3:1..
āNot many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.ā
The admonishment here is we must take great care in how we present the gospel to non-believers. That is why I think Vinceās website is important. I believe so many churches arenāt careful enough about the songs they use to āteachā others. Music choice, lyrically, is vitally important.
Neal Cruco
Doug,
You say, “In my opinion, the best worship songs have extremely limited use of āIā…” Perhaps a study of the Psalms would change your mind. Here’s a comment from Steve Barhydt, another frequent commenter here, who did just that:
āFor those who complain that Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) is too self centered I offer the following quantitative analysis:
There are 2423 words in the English KJV in Psalm 119ā¦
The most used word is āthyā (referring to God) at 209 occurrences.
The second most used word is āIā at 142 occurrences.
Letās take this a step furtherā¦
Nouns and pronouns for God (Thy, Thine, Thou, Thee, Lord) are used 285 times. (or 11.76% of the total word usage.)
Nouns and pronouns for the Psalmist (I, me, my ,mine, myself) are used 312 times (or 12.88% of the total word usage.)
What does this mean and why is it important?
First, to claim that a song is too self centered and, therefore, should not be sung in church because it has too many personal pronouns (I, me, my) is unsupportable in light of the fact that the Holy Spirit had no issues with inspiring the psalmists to refer to themselves multiple times in their songs.
Second, a lot of Christian music is about the relationship the believer has with the Almighty God (or that the unbeliever could have with Him.) Relationships are NOT one-sided. Songs about relationships are not going to have just one side represented in the lyrics.
As long as what the āI/meā in the song is claiming or proclaiming does not contradict what the Scripture says about āI/meā, the song should be considered Biblical.ā
I also wanted to quote this excerpt from a reply Steve made to a comment on the review for “Yes I Will”:
“Psalm 138 ā 8 verses long , David refers to himself 13 times and the Lord 23 times. Is this too man centered?
If Psalm 138 passes your āman-centeredā test, what about Psalm 142, ā 7 verses long ā David refers to himself 32 times and the Lord only 9 times. Is this too man centered?”
I do not understand the point of most of your post or its relevance to my previous comment- which argued, in short, that Scripture uses “if” before statements whose truth isn’t actually in question, so there should be no problem with this song following in that tradition. If you are rebutting that, I ask that you rephrase your argument to be more clear and perhaps more concise.
Finally, I say again that the potential for people to misunderstand this song is irrelevant to its Scriptural accuracy. Jesus was frequently misunderstood when teaching to the public, as a study of the Gospel of John will show. His words were no less true because of that. We should not try to hold man’s words to a higher standard than His, since He is the supreme standard.
If you cannot in good conscience sing or support this song, then don’t. But please acknowledge that this is a matter of personal conscience and be gracious with those who disagree. Romans 14 is a good guide for such behavior.
Doug
Hi Neal,
As for as the Psalms go, yes, I am all for singing Scripture. Every Sunday!
But as for the inspired use of I-me pronouns being the same as using I-me in uninspired lyrics, I disagree. I perhaps could compromise on my previous position and say some usage is OK ā but not a song full of them.
Also, there are countless ārelationshipā songs that donāt belong in corporate music. Scroll down Vinceās list and you will find many of them.
You said, āFinally, I say again that the potential for people to misunderstand this song is irrelevant to its Scriptural accuracy.ā
And I say itās always relevant, should always be considered, and as I pointed out in my previous post, I do not believe the song is Scripturally accurate ā for the reasons I stated, using the supporting verses in my previous post.
Lastly, you said, āIf you cannot in good conscience sing or support this song, then donāt. But please acknowledge that this is a matter of personal conscience and be gracious with those who disagree. Romans 14 is a good guide for such behavior.ā
I do not sing this song. But you and your church are free to sing it every Sunday, if you wish. Everything a person does in worship is a matter of personal conscience. Only God knows the personās heart.
But this website is presented, at least in part (as I see it), so people can have a forum to discuss the worthiness of songs for corporate worship. And I donāt think that discussion violates the emphasis of Romans 14.
ā Doug
Steve Barhydt
Doug,
I want to address both your issue with the word āifā and that of personal pronouns.
First, the āIfās in this song are what is known as āZero Conditionalā phrases in English.
https://www.bespeaking.com/conditionals-in-english/#:~:text=A%20conditional%20clause%20is%20a,%2C%20limitations)%20had%20been%20met.
********************Begin Quote**********************
The Zero Conditional ā (Type 0)
The Zero Conditional is the simplest form of all the conditionals in English. It is formed in the following way:
If + present simple, ā¦ present simple
This is used when the result always happens. In other words, you can use this conditional for facts or cause and effects, whether what youāre speaking about is a scientific fact or a fact thatās only true for you.
For example:
If it rains a lot, we donāt need to water the grass in the yard. (Cause -> Effect)
If I eat a lot of sweets, I get sick afterwards. (Cause -> Effect)
If I press the āonā button, the TV turns on. (Fact)
I eat if I am hungry. (Fact)
*******************End Quote*********************
In Greek, these are very similar to āFirst Class Conditionalsā
https://www.preceptaustin.org/conditional-clauses-in-greek
******************Begin Quote***************
1. First class = (If) what follows is accepted as TRUE. Could be translated “since” or “because”. True statement or fulfilled condition.
Ei + any tense of indicative mood
1Peter 2:1+, Col 1:23+, Col 3:1+ Eph 3:2+; Eph 4:21+, etc
Caveat – not every first class condition can accurately be translated with “since” — see addendum below.
*******************End Quote*********************
For further reading please refer to https://www.preceptaustin.org/conditional-clauses-in-greek#since
In either the Greek āFirst Class Conditionalsā or the English āZero Conditionalā , the word āifā does not denote uncertainty.
In fact, it indicates the exact opposite.
The first part of the statement, the āifā clause, sets forth a condition that is either known to be factual or believed to be factual (there is no doubt in the mind of the author)
The second part of the statement, the āresultā, will always happen because the āifā statement is )or os believed to be) fact.
For example, āIf the temperature of pure water at one atmosphere falls below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the water will freeze.ā
There is no uncertainty, no skepticism, no questions. The first clause is known to be true and, regardless of the use of the word āifā, the result is assured.
So how does this relate to the many āifsā of this song?
Very simply, if the āifsā are known to be true (and I havenāt heard anyone disagreeing with the premise of the āifsā and Vince does a good job of proving the truth of them), then the results are going to be true in the life of the singer/songwriter should the singer/songwriter pursue the God of the ‘if’ clauses (That is āI will reveal Your Nature, āI will obey Youā, āI was made to worshipā, etc.)
Secondly, the phrase āSo will Iā is a declaration of the songwriter/singer devotion to giving God everything He deserves. As such, it is no more self/man-centered than Joshua 24:15
Jos 24:15 (KJV ā emphasis mine)
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for ME and MY house, we will serve the LORD.
You say āBut as for the inspired use of I-me pronouns being the same as using I-me in uninspired lyrics, I disagree. I perhaps could compromise on my previous position and say some usage is OK ā but not a song full of them.ā
So, we are to hold āuninspired lyricsā to a higher standard than the inspired Word of God? Iām not even sure how to address that other than to say that the Bible is the highest standard and if something, anything, was not a problematic for the Holy Spirit, it shouldnāt be so for us.
Also, it is not āa song full of themā. The phrase āSo Will Iā occurs 11 times but each of those occurrences has the same exact meaning (namely, the songwriterās desire to glorify God!). The rest of the lyrics are talking about the greatness of God.
There are 390 words to this song. Even taking the seemingly offensive āSo Will Iā 11 times, 91.5% of the words to this song are talking about God!
Finally, Neilās Romans 14 comment. I believe, (Neil forgive me if Iām wrong) was in response to this statement of yoursā¦
āI donāt think this is ever irrelevant. Those who produce songs such as this are teachers on a grand scale. Think of how many people hear these songs, that are classified as worship songs. And when a church plays them and sings them, that church is teaching the same thing. And the Bible says in James 3:1..
āNot many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.ā
The admonishment here is we must take great care in how we present the gospel to non-believers. That is why I think Vinceās website is important. I believe so many churches arenāt careful enough about the songs they use to āteachā others. Music choice, lyrically, is vitally important.ā
You are assuming that your view of this song is the correct one (without offering any substantial proof and ignoring that which is offered to you) and then, seeking to admonish both the writers, the singers, and defenders of this song to ātake great care in how we present the gospel to non-believersā as if we are not already doing so.
In doing so, you are (in my opinion at least) passing judgement on us. This āviolates the emphasis of Romans 14ā
This is why I believe that Neil said āBut please acknowledge that this is a matter of personal conscience and be gracious with those who disagree. Romans 14 is a good guide for such behavior.ā
Doug
Hi Steve,
I believe this song is not proper for corporate worship. I believe many other songs are much better.
And if I was told I had to agree with things said in support of this song for corporate worship ā or be accused of ignoring what āis offeredā ā then I would simply have to stand accused.
I wrote: āBut as for the inspired use of I-me pronouns being the same as using I-me in uninspired lyrics, I disagree.ā
And you responded: āSo, we are to hold āuninspired lyricsā to a higher standard than the inspired Word of God? Iām not even sure how to address that other than to say that the Bible is the highest standard and if something, anything, was not a problematic for the Holy Spirit, it shouldnāt be so for us.ā
No uninspired lyrics will ever meet the standard of Scripture. None. Therefore, uninspired lyrics are not the same as inspired lyrics, such as the Psalms ā which I why I stated I have no problem signing the Psalms every Sunday. The song āSo Will Iā is not Scripture.
Lastly, I will try one more time on Romans 14.
Neal wrote: āThe potential for othersā misunderstanding is irrelevant;ā
I disagree. I donāt believe as Christians we should take that stance. We should always strive to help others understand the Gospel. It is the Great Commission: making disciples. We should not just assume others are guarding the truth and taking great care in how they present the Gospel to non-believers. If you are doing so, this is a wonderful thing and I commend your work.
ā Doug
Robyn Hurst
Hello,
Just found this site, and I love it! (was getting specifics on Oceans- that is how I found it)
Re: the outro line about Jesus dying again for us- it has never been a stumbling block for me, as it puts me in mind of the scripture which tells us that Jesus is the same today, yesterday and forever (Hebrews 13:8). He would not change His mind over the choice He made to do the Father’s will. God would not change His plan that had been there from the beginning.
The use of “would” is a grammatical conditional, meaning, IF there were a scenario in which His sacrifice were needed again, THEN He would do it. But as you said and is stated in scripture, His death was once for all. So, that won’t be necessary. But because of His nature, He *would* do it, if that scenario existed, because He doesn’t change who He is and how He loves us.
Just my thoughts, of course, but with scriptural & linguistic support.
Have a beautiful day!
Paul
The issue I havenāt seen addressed here is the reason for worship. āIf this, then thatā is a cause and effect argument. If clouds, then rain. If the world was made to worship so shall I. Thatās incorrect.
If they had said, āIf God made the world to worship AND made me with that same purpose in mind, then I shall live out my purpose.ā Then it would be correct. If they had attempted to say that poetically, it didnāt come through at all and the ambiguity is unhelpful.
Also, we do NOT live out our purpose just because we were made to do so, we worship God because he brought us from death to life – not in our own effort do we see him the way we should. Too much of the song assumes that everyone is going to read between the lines.
There are 8 billion other songs that are better for the church to worship God with.
Doug Fritz
Hi Vince,
Thank you for using Scripture to make your points.
But I believe it is possible there is a ātenseā issue. In the first three Scriptures you referenced, the first part gives a condition, and the second part is a future result.
Matthew 17:20
If you have faith (now or in the future), the size of a mustard seed, you will say . . . (future)
But this song speaks of a past event that is true, and still says āifā
And although your Corinthians example expresses a past tense, it does so with a double negative ā emphasizing the absurdity of one who would preach or have faith in something untrue.
And in verse 20 of that same Corinthians chapter, continuing the same message in context, it states that Christ has indeed been raised from the dead.
However, this song does not come back and say, āI know Jesus rose from the deadā and ātherefore I worshipā
It is a song of repeated āifsā
I also think it is important to view the language of this song in a contemporary sense ā because it is contemporary.
Here is the definition of āifā
(introducing a conditional clause)
āon the condition or supposition that; in the event that.ā
āA state of affairs that must exist or be brought about before something else is possible or permitted.ā
And consider that a supposition is an uncertain belief.
The song says: āIf You left the grave behind You, so will Iā
Fact: Jesus rose
The song: worship is not possible or permitted unless Jesus rose.
And when supposition is added to the current definition, the song suggests āJesus roseā is an uncertain belief.
We canāt look at the song as if it is Scripture. It must be viewed in terms of what it means in todayās English. And the word āifā in todayās English does not, by definition, imply certainty.
Also, adding āthenā doesnāt change the uncertainty of the first statement in each āifā line. It only presents a possible response āifā the first part is true.
We must also understand the song writer could easily have cleared this up by using āsinceā ā or even better by simply stating, āyou left the grave behind youā which removes any ambiguity.
And this is very important if we are singing a song of worship. We must consider there may be unbelievers to our right and to our left during worship. We want to lead them with truth, not leave them with any question about what we are singing.
Look at the words of Chris Tomlinās āUncreated One.ā It is one beautiful truth after another about Jesus. It can be done!
I would also add this: If a song creates this much debate ā over five years now! ā shouldnāt that make us question whether it is really needed in the corporate worship lineup? Letās go with the 10s and 9.5s and praise God with solid lyrics that donāt create such debate!!
Thank you for your work on this website. I believe it is an important endeavor!
Sincerely, in Christ,
Doug Fritz
Vince Wright
Doug,
Thank you for your comments! You’ve given me a lot to think about. I need a few days to process this.
-Vince Wright
Neal Cruco
Hi Vince,
If you’ll allow, I’d like to put in my two cents here. Doug’s argument seems to be the same one I’ve heard from commenters before: “people could misunderstand this song, so it’s not theologically sound and doesn’t deserve a high rating on your scale”. He says, “We canāt look at the song as if it is Scripture. It must be viewed in terms of what it means in todayās English.” But that argument falls flat to me. I may be wrong, but “today’s English” has never been a part of your evaluation criteria. Instead, you evaluate song lyrics through the lens of Scripture. And this use of “if” has a very clear precedent in Scripture:
āFor IF we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. … Now IF we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.ā Romansā¬ ā6ā¬:ā5ā¬,ā8ā¬ (ESV, emphasis mine)
The surrounding verses (like v 2) make it clear that Paul is not doubting the spiritual state of his audience. Thus I cannot see this song’s use of “if” statements as anything but following in a clear Scriptural tradition. Their meaning has always been very clear to me. The potential for others’ misunderstanding is irrelevant; the teachings of Jesus Himself were misunderstood by his audience more often than not. Shall we hold man’s words to a higher standard than His? In my opinion, the only place where “potential for misunderstanding” would be relevant is in the outsider score, not in the score of the message or the biblical accuracy of the lyrics.
Vince Wright
Neal,
Thank you for your comments!
I agree with you. If anything, these comments are directed towards section 3. Even then, the potential misunderstanding is not significant enough to warrant an update.
-Vince Wright
mowglismom
Line 2 of Chorus 2 (“A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath”) is unbiblical. While it is true that God created everything that is, including every creature, mankind is different than all of the other creatures. Mankind is the only one that the Bible says is created in God’s image and likeness (Gen 1:26). The Bible states that God breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils and the man became a living soul (Gen 2:7). It doesn’t say that about any of the other creatures. The fact that we are “living souls” sets us apart from the rest of creation. To say that other creatures “catch (the Lord’s) breath” is to equate them to mankind, which is wrong.
Vince Wright
mowglismom,
Thank you for your comments!
Take a look at the article at https://www.all-creatures.org/book/book-alcr5.html. It makes the case that both man and animal receive the same source of “breath” to live, move, and have our being, despite the animals not explicitly stated as “created in the image of God” or that they “became a living soul”. What do you think?
-Vince Wright
mowglismom
After doing my own deep dive into concordances and commentaries, my opinion is that the way the author of the link applies definitions and commentaries is problematic. While it probably wouldn’t be very helpful for me to go through and comment on the article line-by-line, I do think we can examine the author’s interpretation of Matthew 10:29 as an example of what I mean by “problematic.”
The author focuses on Matt 10:24-33 for context and says of those verses, “Jesus is talking to His disciples on the meaning of discipleship.” He goes on to state, “The main thrust of what Jesus is here saying is that those who confess Him are more important than those who do not…All of God’s creatures seem to have a special place in His heart.” Is that a true and accurate summarization? Is that really the main thrust of what Jesus is saying in that passage of Scripture? My answer is a resounding no.
Let’s go back further and read the entirety of Matthew 10 in order to get the full context. When we do, we see that Jesus is talking to His disciples about the COST of discipleship, specifically the persecution they will face as they go out and tell people about Him. The main point of verses 26-31 is that the disciples should not fear in the face of persecution, but instead trust the Father who is in control of all things. [Do not fear/Do not be afraid is repeated three times–see verses 26, 28, and 31.] The point of verses 32-33 is that discipleship (based on faith) leads to eternal salvation. [See Romans 10:8-15 and Matt 10:39]
I can agree with you that both man and animals have physical life and existence, and that in both cases that physical life and existence comes from God. However, I cannot make the leap with the author that the only difference between man and animals is their “position governmentally,” and I reject his assertion that “the same reference to God’s creation is being given in the same manner to both man and animals.” In his own words, “There are such simple truths in the Bible, if we just take the time to look. They aren’t shrouded in mystery. They are right in front of us, written in plain language, though sometimes the plain language might be in the Hebrew or Greek.” The Bible gives a clear account of creation in Genesis. That account plainly states that man is created in God’s image; it does not say that about animals.
Vince Wright
mowglismom,
Thank you for responding!
I agree with you: those are odd statements regarding the authors’ interpretation of Matthew 10:29 and that the ” only difference between man and animals is their āposition governmentally,ā”. However, I’m curious to your thoughts on the authors’ commentary “roo-akh” and “nesh-aw-maw”. This is where the thrust of the argument lies to make the case for both man and creature receiving the “breath of God”.
-Vince Wright
Amanda
I appreciate your Biblical analysis of these songs. Iāve heard multiple contemporary Christian artists make the following statement, but Iām not sure what their basis is for making it. It seems rather egocentric and unsupported biblically. Iād love to hear your thoughts on it:
āIf I had been the only sinner on earth, Jesus loves me so much that He would have come to earth and died on the cross to save me.ā
Vince Wright
Amanda,
Great question!
I think the best support for this can be found in what seems like an odd passage at first: Genesis 3:21. If you recall the context, Adam and Eve violated God’s Law to avoid eating of the tree of knowledge or they will die. They were naked, filled with shame. Yet, God provided the sacrifice. He clothed them. Scripture doesn’t say it, but many people see this as God bringing the sacrifice, killing an animal so that their shame could be covered. Although it wasn’t one, we see in Genesis 3 that God was willing to sacrifice to save two people. From this, we infer that He would be willing to do it with just one.
-Vince Wright
K Mendoza
Thanks for all your insights! I’m planning to use this as one of my resources as we try to study about worship in our discipleship group š
Vince Wright
K Mendoza,
Thanks for letting me know! I’m honored.
-Vince Wright
Kerry Ingold
A lot of criticism written here. I seem to recall a verse I think was written by Paul referring to even if preaching was done by people whose beliefs were not entirely correct, glory was still given to God because Christ was being preached! The example I take from all these comments is that peoples interpretations of the Bible vary as much as peopleās interpretation of the song. The result is a church originally cast to be a single entity being divided into hundreds if not thousands of denominations with slightly different beliefs . I believe this diversity in thinking came with the fall and it will get worse before it gets better. The true words from God in the Bible are the ones spoken by Jesus himself. I cannot help believing that each Apostleās humanity did not impact their teachings in some fashion, not in lies but in interpretation of Godās word to them. In the context of some comments here, I guess that would make me a heretic. I will the songwriters space in their verses and celebrate the tens of thousands of young people brought to Christ through the music.
Jason Henry
The hypothetical/hyperbolic statement “like you would again a hundred billion times” reminds me of another hypothetical/hyperbolic statement that I run into more often: “If you were the only person on earth, Christ would still have suffered and died for you.”
It’s not that either one is demonstrably false, it’s just that neither circumstance could ever possibly exist, and neither statement is found in Scripture so I feel weird assuming what God would or wouldn’t do in a non-existent circumstance.
Jason Henry
“Unfolding in pursuit of what you said” is a good substitute. I also like “they’re growing in pursuit of what you said.”