Text: “[I]f the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

Analysis: That’s an excellent question, is it not? It rests upon a few presuppositions. First, that there is indeed a foundation. But what exactly is the foundation? Is it something immovable and fixed? Or is it something malleable and subject to change? If it changes, on what grounds does it change? Fluctuating, conflicting human preference? By what standard does one evaluate the foundation if and when it is removed from an unchanging absolute?

These should be basic questions because they go to the heart of ontology—to the heart of being itself. But what if cliches and juvenile talking points supplant deep, critical thinking? What then? Does it degenerate into a matter of human will? That is Nietzschean nihilism and ends in bloodshed.

Context, Context, Context: What David is driving at in Psalm 11 is that God is the unmovable, fixed, unchanging standard of righteousness. All other standards are by definition contingent. That’s the point of the rhetorical question, “if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

Encouragement: “For the LORD is righteous; he loves righteous deeds” (Psalm 11:7a). Righteousness is inseparable from God himself. To seek to define righteousness vs. unrighteousness, good vs. evil, light vs. dark without references to the one true and living God is having one’s feet firmly planted in midair. In other words, they’re not planted at all. They’re foundationless. And if you want to know what that looks like, just look around at the ideas being proffered. They’re unqualifiable assertions lacking a transcendent and objective foundation. That is why David calls the wise back to God, back to the unchanging, holy, righteous, fixed standard by which ethics is defined.