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
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.
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!
Mike Waliczek
I have to respectfully disagree. They say “You didnât want Heaven without us”, not “You didn’t want us without Heaven”.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.