Garrett's Exegesis Of Romans -- No. 1
Brethren who read the religious papers are aware of the fact that Leroy Garrett of Dallas, Texas, has lately cast his lot with W. Carl Ketcherside on the "located preacher" question, as well as on other issues before the church. They proclaim that it is sinful for a preacher to work full time with a congregation. The major argument which they use to prove the sinfulness of the practice, as well as its impossibility, is the distinction they make between preaching and teaching. Preaching, they say, is for the outsider, the unbeliever, and that no inspired man ever preached to the church. This preaching for the nonmember consists of a proclamation of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ — the good news of the gospel — to him. But after "good news" has once been proclaimed it can never be "news" to the same persons any more. And since Christians have already heard those fundamental principles of the gospel, it can never be news to them anymore. Therefore, according to them, it is not only wrong to preach to the church, but it is utterly impossible to do so. But they seem to overlook the fact that if the "good news" ceases to be "news" after it is once preached, then the gospel could never be preached to a sinner but once. After that you would have to try to reach him some other way. But how? Must we teach him? We could not do that, according to them, for teaching is for the church, not for the outsider. By this theory, then, if the alien is not converted by the preaching of one gospel sermon, he must remain hopelessly lost. There is nothing more that we can do for him.
Since preaching, according to them, is solely for the alien sinner, then it is wrong, as well as impossible, to employ a preacher to preach for the church. Well, then, since the church is to be taught, could he be employed to teach the church? No, no! This would be just as sinful as the other, for teaching the church is the work of the elders, or pastors; and for a preacher to undertake to teach the church would be for him to assume the position of pastor of the church. The elders must teach or feed the flock, and it cannot be done by proxy, they tell us. Hence, they could not employ a preacher to assist them in such work of teaching. From this position it is evident that there is no work that a preacher could do for the church, and the idea of a "located preacher" has no possible foundation in the scriptures. That such is their position is shown from the following quotation of Brother Garrett's found in the May, 1953, issue of Bible Talk:
"Evangelistic work is preaching to the lost but our evangelist' in the churches devotes most of his time to the church itself. So actually the located ministers are nothing but pastors, i.e., teachers and feeders of the church. This is the work of the elders. Consequently our 6,000 preachers for the most part are pastors to churches. Let the elders do this work of teaching and let the evangelists go forth preaching to those that have not heard the gospel. Never did a Bible preacher preach to a church, and that's about all our preachers will do (after being hired!)."
This quotation certainly shows that I have not misrepresented their position. Notice that Brother Garrett said to "let the elders do this work of teaching" for "this is the work of the elders." Preachers, therefore, have "no lot or part in this matter." They must preach to the lost.
The preceding considerations prepare us for a look at Brother Garrett's exegesis of some statements made in the Roman letter.
His attention was called, by another writer, to Paul's statement in Romans 1:15. "So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also." His attention was called to the fact that even if Paul did not "preach to the church at Rome," he declared that he was ready to do so. How Brother Garrett tried to "explain away" this statement may be seen in his own words in Bible Talk for the month of May. The following is what he said:
"1. Notice the so' in verse 15. Paul had said: 'I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
Then he adds: 'So, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.' The 'you' refers to those mentioned in verse 15, not to the church at Rome."
While Paul declared in verse 7 of the chapter that he was writing the letter "to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" and asserted in verse 15 that he was "ready to preach the gospel to you," he did not really mean it at all. He meant, according to Brother Garrett, that he was ready to preach the gospel "to the Greeks and Barbarians, to the wise and the unwise," and not to the church at all. Upon the basis of this exegesis we would have to conclude that among the church in Rome there were neither "Greeks nor Barbarians," neither "wise nor unwise." I wonder what sort of men made up the membership of the church at Rome anyway. If they were neither "Greeks nor Barbarians." neither "wise nor unwise," just what could they be? Could it be that they were all Jews? No, that could not be true, for in that case they would have to be wise Jews or unwise Jews. So I am still wondering what they were.
The brilliancy of this exegesis is further shown in the next paragraph:
"The 'you' does not necessarily apply to the church, for Romans 2:17-23 shows that the letter was to be read to outsiders."
I suppose, then, according to the theory, that the "reading of the letter to outsiders" would be "preaching the gospel to the lost." If this is not the meaning of his statement, it has no significance. I am curious to know if "reading the letter to outsiders" would be "preaching the gospel to the lost," what would it be when the letter was "read to the church"? Would that be preaching to the church? If not, why not? Then, too, if "reading the letter to the church" would be "preaching the gospel to the church," what was Paul doing when he "wrote the letter" to those called "beloved of God, called to be saints"? Would that be preaching the gospel to the church? If Brother Garrett stays with his position that "reading the letter" was "preaching the gospel," then he has the gospel preached to the church. But if he backs up on this and makes such reading "teaching the church," then he has teaching done to the outsider when the letter was read to him. Either way he takes it, he has himself entangled in the meshes of his own theory. Will he make "reading the letter to the church" mean "teaching the church" while he makes "reading the same thing to the outsider" mean "preaching the gospel to the lost"? If so, then why could not the evangelist today proclaim the same thing to both saint and sinner, and in so doing, teach the church but preach to the lost?
But let us hear him again:
"4. Verse 11 says, 'I long to see you (that's the church) that may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you.' So, his purpose in Rome was to give spiritual gifts to the church and to preach to the outsiders."
After calling them "saints" in verse 7 Paul goes on to say that he thanked God "for you all" because their "faith was spoken of throughout the whole world." Verse 8. Then in verse 9 he declared that "I make mention of you always in my prayers," and in such prayers he made request that he "might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you." Verse 10. Then verse 11 contains the statement, which Brother Garrett says refers to the church, about imparting to them some spiritual gift. In verse 12 he speaks about being "comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of, you and me." In addition to all of this he says 'in verse 13: "Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles." In all of these statements Brother Garrett would have no trouble in seeing that "you" referred to the church at Rome. But the very moment he hits verse 15 and finds Paul "ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome," he decides that "you" cannot refer to the church but to outsiders. Such an interpretation never would have been thought of if he had not been looking for support for a theory that has no New Testament sanction. If Paul did not intend, at least, to include the church at Rome by making such a statement, he could have very easily changed the person of the pronoun. Instead of continuing to speak in second person, he could have changed to third person and said: "I am ready to preach the gospel to them that are at Rome also." But he did not do so. However, beginning with verse 18 and continuing through the remainder of the chapter, when Paul discussed those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness" he changed to the third person pronouns, speaking of them instead of to them, declaring that "they are without excuse" (verse 20), and that "when they knew God, they glorified him not as God" (verse 21), but that while "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Verse 22) And so it runs through the remainder of the chapter as Paul uses "they" and "them" and "themselves." But he did not do so in verse 15 but declared: "I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also." Certainly, no sort of twisting can with any degree of reason make the language exclude the idea of preaching the gospel to the church at Rome. (To be continued)