Psalm 53 begins with one of the bluntest diagnoses of the human heart in all of Scripture: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” This does not mean that every sinner becomes a formal atheist. It means something deeper and more searching. The fool may never speak these words with his mouth, but he says them in his heart. His life gives voice to what his lips may not confess. He lives as though God does not see, as though God does not judge, as though God will not call him to account. He lives as though he is his own law, his own wisdom, his own refuge, and his own end.
This is the foolishness of sin. Sin is not merely weakness or ignorance or an unfortunate mistake. Sin is moral insanity, creaturely rebellion against the Creator. Sin is the heart turning away from the only fountain of life and then congratulating itself for being free. Man does not naturally seek after God. Man is not neutral, waiting politely for better evidence. By nature, man is in open rebellion against God. He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. He hides from God while pretending that God is absent.
The Fool Says in His Heart
The Hebrew word translated “fool” is nabal. It does not mean a harmless simpleton. It means someone perverse, vile, morally contemptible. This helps us understand why David’s life gives us such a striking illustration in 1 Samuel 25. David sends his young men to Nabal, asking for kindness after they had protected Nabal’s shepherds and flocks. Nabal answers with contempt: “Who is David? Who is the son of Jesse?” He speaks as though David is nothing, as though the Lord’s anointed may be dismissed, as though his own bread and water and meat are his alone. Nabal’s folly is not that he lacks information. He knows enough. His folly is moral. He despises God’s servant, refuses gratitude, and treats his possessions as though they were not entrusted to him by God.
This is what sin does. It makes a man clever and stupid at the same time. He may be shrewd in business, skillful in speech, impressive in public life, and still a fool before God. The wisdom literature makes this contrast again and again. The fool is not simply the person with a low intellect. The fool is the person who will not fear the Lord. Proverbs 1:7 teaches us that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,” but “fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Psalm 1 says the blessed man does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of scoffers. The way of wisdom is rooted in delighting in the law of the Lord. The way of folly is rooted in self-rule.
So Psalm 53 begins by stripping away illusion. “They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.” The words are comprehensive. They do not allow us to imagine a small pocket of untouched goodness in the natural heart. Sin has infected the whole man: mind, will, affections, desires, speech, and conduct. This does not mean every person is as outwardly wicked as he could be. God restrains evil in many ways. But it does mean that apart from grace, no part of man remains spiritually whole. Sin has not merely bruised us. It has corrupted us.
God Looks Down from Heaven
Then the psalm moves from man’s folly to God’s certain knowledge:
God looks down from heaven
on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God. (v. 2).
This language of God looking down does not suggest that God lacks knowledge. God does not need to investigate in order to learn. He knows all things from eternity. Rather, this is the language of divine judgment. God looks down as the righteous judge. He examines, exposes, and renders a true verdict.
Scripture uses this kind of language at several decisive moments in history. In Genesis 6:5, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth.” The thoughts of man’s heart were only evil continually. The earth was corrupt in God’s sight and filled with violence. God saw, and judgment followed. But so did mercy. God preserved Noah. God judged the world, but he cared for his servant and kept alive the seed through whom his purposes would continue.
In Genesis 11, the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the children of man had built. Babel was not merely an architectural project. It was organized human pride. It was man gathering against the command of God, seeking a name for himself, building upward in defiance. God came down, confused their language, and scattered them over the face of the earth. Judgment followed. But again, mercy followed too. In the very next movement of Genesis, God calls Abram. Out of the scattered nations, God chooses one man and promises that through him all the families of the earth will be blessed.
In Genesis 18, the Lord says that the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave. He goes down to see. Again, this is not because God is ignorant. It is the solemn approach of the Judge. And what follows? Judgment falls on Sodom and Gomorrah, but God rescues Lot. The pattern is clear. When God looks down, sinners should tremble, but God’s people should take comfort. His knowledge is not cold observation. It is covenantal knowledge. He sees the wickedness of man, and he sees the affliction of his people.
None Who Does Good
This is why Psalm 53 is both devastating and comforting.
They have all fallen away;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one. (v. 3)
This is God’s verdict on humanity. It is not a human exaggeration spoken in frustration. It is divine diagnosis. God looks down from heaven, and this is what he sees. No one understands. No one seeks after God. All have turned aside.
Paul takes up these words in Romans 3 and places them at the center of his argument that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin:
None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God. (vv. 10–11)
This removes every ground of boasting. The Gentile cannot boast in his natural wisdom. The Jew cannot boast in possessing the law. The moral person cannot boast in comparison with the immoral person. The religious person cannot boast in comparison with the irreligious person. “There is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23).
This is central to the gospel. We do not begin prayer as those who found God by our own insight. We do not begin worship as those who made the first move toward heaven. We do not begin repentance as those who were already seeking and then merely needed a little help. Adam and Eve, with the taste of the forbidden fruit still in their mouths, were not searching for God. They were hiding from him. So do we all. Left to ourselves, we conceal ourselves among the trees with our shame exposed, hoping God will pass us by. But God comes. He calls. He exposes. He covers. He promises.
The Lord Sees Those Who Devour His People
The psalm then turns to God’s certain judgment:
Have those who work evil no knowledge,
who eat up my people as they eat bread,
and do not call upon God? (53:4)
Sin is not only foolish in relation to God. It is cruel in relation to neighbor. Those who refuse to call on God often devour those made in God’s image. Another way to put it is that the vertical rebellion produces horizontal violence. Men who deny God in their hearts do not become harmless. They consume.
Israel knew this history well. Pharaoh ate up God’s people. He oppressed them, enslaved them, worked them ruthlessly, and sought to destroy their sons. The nations around Israel often devoured them. In the days of the judges, Israel was repeatedly handed over to enemies who plundered and oppressed them. Later, Assyria swallowed the northern kingdom. Babylon devoured Judah and carried the people into exile. Jeremiah cries out,
Pour out your wrath on the nations that know you not . . .
for they have devoured Jacob;
they have devoured him and consumed him,
and have laid waste his habitation. (Jer 10:25)
Yet even there, the problem was not only outside Israel. Isaiah says, “My people go into exile for lack of knowledge” (Isa 5:13). The nations devoured Israel, but Israel’s own foolishness had prepared the way. The people who were called to know the Lord often lived as though they did not know him. They had the temple, the sacrifices, the priesthood, the promises, and the law, but their hearts wandered. They trusted idols, alliances, wealth, and ritual. The folly described in Psalm 53 is not safely located outside the covenant community. It presses on all flesh. It warns the church not to presume.
David himself knew the pain of being devoured by enemies. Saul hunted him. Foreign enemies threatened him. Betrayers rose against him. He knew what it was to be encamped against. He knew what it was to have men treat his life lightly. And yet David also knew that God sees, he judges, and he vindicates. The wicked may appear fearless for a time, but Psalm 53:5 says, “There they are, in great terror, where there is no terror!” Those who seemed terrifying become terrified. Those who encamped against God’s people find themselves rejected by God. “God scatters the bones of him who encamps against you; you put them to shame, for God has rejected them.”
Psalm 14 is very close to Psalm 53. The two psalms are nearly identical in several lines, but there is a difference of emphasis. Psalm 14 highlights God’s presence as a refuge for the poor. Psalm 53 emphasizes God’s judgment and rejection of the sinner. Both are needed. God is a refuge to his people precisely because he is judge over their enemies. The comfort of the church is not that evil is imaginary or weak. The comfort of the church is that evil is seen, measured, judged, and finally overthrown by God.
Matthew Henry’s comment is apt: We need not look on those enemies with fear whom God looks on with contempt.1 Jesus teaches the same truth in Matthew 10:28: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Then Jesus immediately speaks of sparrows and the hairs of our head. The Father’s sovereign care extends to the smallest details. Not one sparrow falls apart from him. The hairs of your head are numbered. “Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (10:31).
This is not sentimental comfort. It is strong comfort. The God who sees the fool also sees the afflicted. The God who rejects the workers of evil also numbers the hairs of his children. The God who scatters the bones of those encamped against Zion also gathers his people under his care. The world is not governed by the appetites of the wicked. It is governed by the Lord.
Salvation Out of Zion
The psalm ends with longing:
Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
When God restores the fortunes of his people,
let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad. (53:6).
This is a prayer for salvation. It looks beyond mere relief from one enemy or one crisis. It gathers up the whole hope of God’s people. God will send salvation. He will restore his people. He will give Jacob reason to rejoice and Israel reason to be glad.
Throughout Israel’s history, God gave foretastes of this salvation. He brought Noah through the flood. He called Abraham after Babel. He rescued Lot from Sodom. He delivered Israel from Egypt. He brought his people through the Red Sea. He raised judges, kings, prophets, and deliverers. He brought Judah back from exile. Again and again, salvation came from the Lord. Again and again, God’s people learned that they could not save themselves. Their help had to come from Zion, from the place of God’s presence, promise, and rule.
Christ, the Wisdom and Salvation of God
But all those salvations pointed beyond themselves. They were real but not final. Israel needed more than rescue from Pharaoh, Assyria, Babylon, or even Rome. Israel needed rescue from sin. The nations needed the same. The fool’s deepest problem is not merely that he has enemies around him. It is that he is at enmity with God. The corrupt heart needs cleansing. The rebellious will needs renewal. The guilty sinner needs righteousness. The dead need life.
This is why Psalm 53 leads us to Christ. The cry, “Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion,” finds its answer in Jesus. The angel announced his name before his birth: “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” He did not come merely to improve the naturally wise. He came to save fools. He did not come because men were seeking God. He came because God was seeking sinners. He did not come because the world was morally promising. He came because “there is none who does good, not even one.”
At the cross, the foolishness of sin and the wisdom of God meet in the most searching way. There, human rebellion reaches its dreadful height. Men reject the Holy One. They mock the Son of God. They treat the Lord’s Christ as Nabal treated David: “Who is David? Who is the son of Jesse?” In effect, they say, “Who is this Jesus?” Yet at that very place, God accomplishes salvation. The cross exposes the corruption of man, and it reveals the grace of God. The world’s wisdom crucified the Lord of glory, but through that crucifixion God saved his people.
Paul says that the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” The believer says, by grace, “My Lord and my God.” The difference is not that the believer is naturally wiser. The difference is mercy. God looked down from heaven, saw our ruin, and did not leave us to ourselves. He sent his Son, gave his Spirit, opened blind eyes, and turned rebels into worshipers.
Let Jacob Rejoice
So Psalm 53 humbles and steadies us. It humbles us because we recognize ourselves in the indictment. Apart from grace, this psalm is our portrait. We are not saved because we were less foolish than others. We are saved because God intervened. It steadies us because the wicked do not have the last word. The enemies of God may devour for a time. They may mock, threaten, and encamp against God’s people. But God sees. He knows. He judges. God rejects the unrepentant wicked and preserves his own.
And it lifts our eyes to the joy of salvation. “Let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad” (53:6). Christian joy is not optimism built on denial. It is joy built on redemption. We know what sin is. We know what we are apart from Christ. We know the world is still full of folly, rebellion, violence, and unbelief. But we also know that salvation has come out of Zion. Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ reigns. Christ will come again.
Until then, Christian devotion begins where Psalm 53 teaches us to begin: with God’s own self-revelation in holy grace. Worship is not man climbing to God. It is our Spirit-given response to God’s saving intervention. Prayer is not the natural speech of autonomous man. It is the cry of those whom God has awakened. Repentance is not self-improvement. It is the returning of those whom God has sought and found. Faith is not our contribution to salvation. It is the empty hand receiving Christ.
The foolishness of sin is great, but the wisdom of God is greater. The corruption of man is deep, but the grace of God goes deeper still. The enemies of God’s people are real, but their judgment is certain. And the salvation of God’s people is not a wish suspended in the air. It has come in Jesus Christ, and it will be brought to fullness when he restores the fortunes of his people forever.
Let Jacob rejoice. Let Israel be glad. Let the church take heart. The God who looks down from heaven has not abandoned his people. He has sent salvation from Zion, and in Christ that salvation is sure.
Note
- Matthew Henry’s Commentary, BibleGateway, “Resources” on Ps 53:1–6.
©Everett Henes. All Rights Reserved.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Saturday Psalm Series
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Saturday Psalm Series
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Everett Henes
Everett Henes (MDiv, ThM, DMin) is pastor of Hillsdale Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where he has served since 2008. He is husband to Kimberly and father of five children and grandfather of five (and counting!). He teaches US History and Philosophy of History for Jackson College in Michigan. He is currently working towards a PhD in Humanities with a focus in US Religious History from Faulkner University. In his spare time, he enjoys competing in powerlifting and strongman and teaching homeschoolers Taekwondo.
More by Everett Henes ›
Everett, your article left me with a sincere question.
You describe the fool as the one who determines for himself what is good and evil. I don’t want to be that person.
When one faithful church concludes that something is sin and another concludes that it isn’t, while both claim to be submitting to Scripture, how do I know which interpretation truly reflects God’s moral law?
I suspect the Reformed tradition has a well-developed answer to this. How does it distinguish genuine reformation from innovation? I’d genuinely appreciate your help understanding it, because I want to submit to God’s law rather than my own understanding.
Hi Ryan,
Rev Henes can speak for himself, but my first advice would be to consult the Reformed confessions. They were formed by the churches precisely to address this question. They should be one of the first things God’s people consult when trying to sort out what God’s Word teaches. Check out this essay on this very question: How Should A Lay Christian Learn Theology?
Our confessions and catechisms have explanations of the moral law (e.g., the Ten Commandments). E.g., most of the third part of the Heidelberg Catechism is taken up with an explanation of the moral law of God. The Westminster Larger Catechism has an extensive exposition of the moral law.
The confessions/catechisms do not deal with every conceivable question under the sun but they will give every Christian a solid foundation for thinking through difficult ethical questions.
Hello Ryan,
Thank you for asking this so carefully. The desire behind your question is right: you want to receive God’s moral law rather than make yourself the final judge of good and evil. That was Adam and Eve’s error in the Garden, and an error that has been repeated throughout Biblical and world history.
The Reformed tradition distinguishes between private judgment and autonomous judgment. Every Christian must read, interpret, and apply Scripture. But no Christian may treat his own reason, desires, or instincts as the highest authority. Scripture alone is infallible. At the same time, the church matters. Christ has given pastors, elders, confessions, and councils to help us understand and apply his Word. Their authority is real, but it is ministerial rather than absolute. Churches may err, so their conclusions must always be tested by Scripture.
When churches disagree, I would ask several questions: Does the position arise from clear biblical teaching or necessary biblical inference? Does it account for the whole counsel of God rather than isolated texts? How has the church historically understood the issue? Is the newer interpretation correcting the church by Scripture, or accommodating Scripture to the assumptions of the age?
That last distinction is especially important. Genuine reformation says, “The church has departed from God’s Word, and here is the biblical case.” Innovation often begins with a conclusion supplied by the culture and then searches for a way to make Scripture permit it. A new interpretation is not automatically wrong, and an old interpretation is not automatically right. But novelty should bear a heavier burden of proof, especially when it overturns a broad and longstanding Christian consensus.
You are not acting like the fool merely because you must weigh competing interpretations. The decisive question is whether you approach Scripture saying, “Lord, teach me, correct me, and govern me,” or whether you accept only what confirms what you already want to believe.
Dr. Clark’s excellent counsel should be heard as well. Learning the Confessions and, I would particularly add the exposition of the Ten Commandments in the Westminster Larger Catechism, will go a long way in helping you to see what is truly a Biblically grounded declaration of sin vs one that is grounded in manmade traditions and/or the slipping sands of time.
I hope that helps and feel free to ask any follow up question you might have!
Blessings,
Everett
sDg
Thank you, Dr. Clark. It’s an honor to receive a response from you. I’ve been raised in the Reformed church since birth, have been thoroughly catechized in the Three Forms of Unity (though I’m less familiar with the Westminster Standards), and I’ve purchased and read your “Recovering the Reformed Confession”.
I think my question is one step further down the road. Your article explains that the confessions provide the framework by which I should evaluate theologians and their interpretations of Scripture. But when theologians who affirm the same confessions reach different conclusions about what God calls sin, how does the Reformed tradition distinguish faithful reformation from unfaithful innovation? I’m asking because I receive competing messages about what is and is not sin from NAPARC pastors, and I’m trying to understand the hermeneutic, or limiting principle, that tells me which interpretation more faithfully reflects God’s moral law.
Ryan,
Pastor Henes gave us some very wise advice. The might also point to the doctrine of Christian liberty. I have heard well-meaning ministers say things from orthodox Reformed pulpits that did not square with what we confess. I recall being in an evening service and being told, in a congregation in my denomination/federation (not my own congregation) that, in baptism, every baptized person is united to Christ. We do not confess that. Indeed, the URCs would later reject that (federal vision) doctrine. The Three Forms of Unity were essential tools we used to measure to truth of the claims of the federal visionists. This particular minister claimed to agree with our confessions but, in fact, he did not. Neither Scripture nor our confessions are a wax nose to be twisted this way and that, depending on the subjective judgment of individuals.
Ministers are not infallible (and neither are our confessions) but the Word of God is and we receive our confessions as the church’s interpretation and application of God’s infallible Word. Where the church has officially interpreted and applied God’s Word we are bound, unless and until the confession is shown to be in error. The Scriptures contain no error and are incapable of error and they are sufficiently clear to provide all that we need for the Christian faith and the Christian life.
One useful diagnostic question here is then “what do we confess?” If we do not confess a specific view (e.g., contraception) then it is a matter of Christian liberty. A minister is entitled to his opinion and ministers will disagree, sometimes passionately, about an extra-confessional issue. E.g., I am convinced that God’s Word teaches that God entered into a legal, natural, covenant with Adam as the federal head of all humanity conditioned upon Adam’s perfect obedience. That covenant came to be called the covenant of works. Belgic Confession art. 14 speaks of a “commandment of life.” When the Belgic and the Heidelberg were written the idea of a pre-fall legal covenant was in its infancy. It was being taught but the church was not ready to confess it explicitly. So, in the Three Forms Churches there are minister who accept and uphold the covenant of works and there are those who say, “we do not confess it. It’s extra-confessional.” So, we agree to disagree and we live together. In a Presbyterian church, however, which confesses the Westminster Standards, it’s not an extra-confessional matter. It is explicitly and repeatedly confessed and thus the laity have a right to expect the minister to uphold and defend an essential confessional doctrine.
In all our P&R churches we agree that images of any person of the Trinity are forbidden. No minister has a right to teach contrary to the confession of the churches.
In the Three Forms Churches, we have a high view of the Christian Sabbath but we say less about it than do the Presbyterian churches. E.g., I have friends whose scruples do not permit any recreation of any sort in between Lord’s Day services. I’m unwilling to bind people’s consciences on that matter. I draw the line at missing the worship service because sports. I would strongly advise against organized athletic contests on the Lord’s Day but I cannot say that a family having a picnic between services may not throw a softball. These are matters of liberty.
So, as those who listen to sermons we have to determine whether what is being said is agreed dogma or a personal opinion. We are not bound to a minister’s opinion. A wise minister will say, “our churches are not agreed on this particular interpretative question but my view is….” It is less helpful for a minister to issue an opinion and give the impression that it is binding on the conscience of the people. Failure to make a distinction between opinion and dogma creates confusion in the minds of Christ’s sheep.