Commentary on Galatians (36)
GALATIANS 3:1-5
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing – if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
The word translated "foolish" here is not moros (as in "moron"), but anoetos. Christian writers are in the habit of denying that Scripture would call some people "foolish" in the sense of "stupid," or mentally deficient and defective. It is customary to understand the word in a moral sense, whatever that means. And in denying that both words mean stupid, commentators usually make themselves appear quite foolish.
On Galatians 3:1, John MacArthur writes, "This refers not to lack of intelligence, but to lack of obedience." But when Paul applies the same word to the Galatians in 3:3, MacArthur says that the apostle is "incredulous at how easily the Galatians had been duped." Which is it? Is Paul somehow referring to "lack of obedience" by the word, or "easily…duped"? Prejudice forces MacArthur to choose the former (3:1), exegesis compels him to select the latter (3:3).
Another commentator writes, "The Greek word does not mean that they were mentally deficient; rather anoetos suggests that the behavior of people who are intelligent yet are not using that intelligence to perceive the truth." First, even if the word literally means that one is not using his intelligence, it does not necessarily suggest that this person is intelligent. Then, the commentator proceeds to say that the Galatians are "illogical…inconsistent, contradictory, nonsensical." What is the difference between such people and stupid people? And he adds, "He was questioning, not their intelligence, but their lack of discernment." But again, what is the difference?
Ryken is more honest with the passage. He writes, "Paul was upset…here he practically splutters with indignation. And rightly so…. As far as Paul was able to tell, the Galatians were guilty of sheer spiritual stupidity. J. B. Phillips paraphrases him to say: 'O you dear idiots of Galatia…surely you can't be so idiotic!'" The only correct way to deal with the text is to acknowledge that this is in part a harsh and angry letter, and that when the apostle calls his readers stupid, he means stupid.
The idea that there is a moral stupidity (whatever that means) that is sharply distinguishable from an intellectual stupidity is inexplicable. Although man's mental deficiency has a spiritual origin or basis – thus the term "the noetic effects of sin" – it cannot be reduced to a purely moral defect to the exclusion of an actual retardation of the intellect. A good tree bears good fruit because it is a good tree, and a bad tree bears bad fruit because it is a bad tree. So just as people affirm and perform wicked things because they are wicked, they affirm and perform stupid things because they are stupid. This is imperative to safeguarding the biblical doctrine of sin, and thus also the biblical doctrine of salvation, or the complete gospel message. Christ is both our spiritual/moral and intellectual savior.
Among several other expressions that he uses, Paul calls the unbelievers "morons" (Gr. moros), and those who follow heresies "idiots" (Gr. anoetos, or mindless, foolish), as he does here. Instead of following the Bible's example in using such invectives under similar contexts, many Christians have adopted a foreign standard of social interaction. They have been deceived into thinking that biblical teaching somehow commends detached academic language and a formal professionalism in our expressions, so that perhaps without knowing what they are doing, they even join the world in condemning the apostle's approach, or at least condemn him indirectly by persecuting those who follow his example.
There is also a double standard in how they react to someone who models the inspired characters in Scripture. Church figures who had achieved hero status are often exempt from their criticisms, although they have done the same thing. If Calvin says it, it is orthodoxy; if I say the same thing, it is heresy. If Luther employs invectives, it is vigilance; if I employ invectives, it is arrogance. Of course, these people are respecter of persons, and they are hypocrites. Some would go as far as to fault Calvin, Luther, and the like for their practice, although they would still find some excuse for them, such as the customs of their day. However, they would still have to deal with all the harsh expressions in Scripture against unbelief and heresy.
Morally speaking, to uncritically follow current non-Christian practice is to betray Scripture's teachings and examples. It is sinful to suggest that the use of invectives is wrong when defending biblical doctrine and practice, because such a suggestion would condemn Scripture itself. Practically speaking, to adopt a non-Christian standard is to unnecessarily limit our rhetorical options in performing polemics, and to exclude strategies that often render our expositions and arguments more explicit, precise, forceful, and effective. In any case, although it is not always appropriate to employ invectives in polemics, we have no obligation to follow the non-Christian standard, and we must not yield when unthinking and hypocritical Christians criticize the practice.