Apologetic Observations from Romans 2
I. The Context of the Passage
The general subject of Romans 2:1‑16 is the coming judgment of God on men in general. Verse 11 states the rule that in this judgment there will be no partiality. There will be no “respect of persons”, (lit. according to Lenski) “taking a man’s face.” Note that verses 12, 13, 14 all begin with the word, “for.” This shows that verses 12‑15 are intended to support or prove the assertion of verse 11.
Verse 12 supports the assertion that there is no partiality with God by the fact that God deals with men according to the law they possessed.[1] As will be shown subsequently, verses 14 and 15 are immediately connected with verse 12a. The statement that those who sin without the law perish without the law is a simple assertion, but it raises several pressing questions. The questions raised are these: How can men sin, let alone perish, without the law? Verses 14 and 15 are intended to answer these questions.
II. The Structure of the Passage
The passage in view here is verses 12-16. This structure may seem difficult at first glance. Two considerations simplify it and show its interesting and logical character.
A. Verse 16 connects directly with verse 12.
Verses 13‑15 are parenthetical. In other words, they break up the flow of thought between verse 16 and verse 12. This is shown by the fact that verse 16 does not connect naturally or easily with verse 15. Why? Because the time period of verse 15 is the present, while verse 16 begins with the words “In the day” by which it designates the future day of judgment. This has led commentators to resort to several unnatural and awkward ways of making a direct connection between verse 16 and verse 15. Sometimes they have explained the phrase, “in the day,” as “until the day” (Calvin). Others have interpreted it to mean “in connection with the day” (Lenski). These understandings of this phrase are unusual, unnatural, and unnecessary. On the other hand, the connection with verse 12 is natural and straightforward.
This connection of verse 16 with verse 12 gives a natural and straightforward meaning. (In further support of this connection is the fact that verses 13‑15 explain verse 12. This fits the thesis that they are parenthetical in character.)
B. Verses 12‑15 have an ABBA (chiastic) structure.
What is an ABBA or chiastic structure? Chiastic is derived from the Greek letter which is shaped like the letter X. Note the diagram below.
v. 12a A‑-Those without the law perish.
v. 12b B‑-Those under the law perish.
v. 13 B‑-v. 12b explained and justified
v. 14, 15 A‑-v. 12a explained and justified
Note that the subjects of the A sections are the same and that the subjects of the B sections are the same.
v. 12a A‑-Those without law
v. 12b B‑-Those with law
v. 13 B‑-Those with law
v. 14, 15 A‑-Those without law
Note how verse 14 connects naturally with verse 12a. “For all who have sinned without law will perish without law … For when Gentiles who do not have the law …” We are interested in verses 12a, 14, and 15 because those sections deal with those without special revelation and how they know the law.
III. The Theme of the Passage
This theme is how God can be just in the sending to hell those who never had special revelation (what Paul describes here as the law). Paul in solving this problem is going to speak of the knowledge which makes it right to punish those without the law. It is this knowledge that is precisely the point we are interested in. We are, therefore, not taking Paul out of context. We are not asking the wrong question of this passage.
IV. The Outline of the Exposition of the Passage
- The Fact Stated (v. 12a)
- The Objection Assumed
- The Answer Elaborated (vv. 14, 15)
A. The Fact Stated (v. 12a)
i. The Interpretation of the Clause
Here I simply want to answer the question, What does the text mean?
a. The Meaning of “Without Law”
The normal meaning of this word is lawlessly in the sense of sinfully (Rom. 4:7, 6:19).[2] This is obviously not the meaning here. Here without law means to be outside the circle of special revelation (1 Cor. 9:21). Murray says, “The contrast is therefore between those who were outside the pale of special revelation and those who were within.”[3]
b. The Character of the Judgment
The judgment in view in both halves of verse 12 refers only to a judgment involving punishment. It is the judgment of condemnation. In proof of this note, first, the parallel between “perish” and “be judged.” Note, second, that the word “sinned” is repeated twice. This is judgment only of those who are, as to the summary of their lives, sinners. The result of this judgment, therefore, can only be condemnation and punishment.
c. The Meaning of “Sinned”
The tense is of this verb is the aorist past tense. This means two things.
(1) The standpoint of the verse is the day of judgment. It is only from the viewpoint of the judgment that the lives of all sinners may be viewed as already past.
(2) The entirety of the conduct of the persons is summed up in one word. Lenski, says “the aorists … sum up the whole course of works …”[4] Not one act, but a whole course of life is in view.
d. The Emphasis on Strict Justice
Note the emphasis on the exact justice, the precise correspondence or similarity of God’s judgment to man’s sin. There is correspondence at two points. (1) As to the manner of their perishing, they sinned without law, they also perish without law. (2) As to the identity of those perishing, all who sin, also perish. All means as many as, no more, no less.
ii. The Doctrine of the Clause
a. Those without special revelation can and do sin. “Specially revealed law is not the precondition of sin.”[5]
b. Those without special revelation sin and as a result perish. It is not merely that they are worthy of perishing.
They actually or really perish. Notice that one does not need to hear the gospel to sin and perish. Men do sin and actually perish who have never heard the gospel. This has several important applications: (1) Hearing the gospel is no one’s right. God has a perfect warrant to send people to hell without giving them the gospel. (2) It is sometimes said that man’s only sin is unbelief or failure to believe the gospel. It is said, “It is not the sin question, but the Son question.” This saying is false. Men do not go to hell only for rejecting Christ. (3) The implication of this verse seems to be that all those who live and die without the special revelation of the gospel perish in their sins. Is this true? Do all those without law, without special revelation, sin and perish? Or do some obey and not perish? Is there salvation without the gospel? Several considerations will help us answer this question. First, notice, as Murray says, that “there is no suggestion … that any who are `without law’ attain to … eternal life.”[6] Some have used this text to teach this, but it does not teach any such thing. Second, notice that there are other texts which teach that all men are sinners. Some of them are in this immediate context (Rom. 3:9‑20). It is true that there is no clear assertion in Romans 2:12a that all who are without law sin and perish. Yet, if we combine the other texts which teach that all men sin with our text, the conclusion must be that all those who are without special revelation perish in their sins. Notice the logic:
Major Premise: All who sin without the law perish.
Minor Premise: All do sin who are without the law.
Conclusion: All who are without the law perish.
Third, notice that there are other clear texts which teach that the only means of escape from the wrath of God revealed against all men is the gospel (Rom. 1:16, 17; 3:21; 10:14f). Therefore, we must conclude that there is no salvation apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ. We must remember that this gospel can only be known by those within the circle of special revelation. All who live without special revelation must, therefore, die without salvation. Thus, we must say that men have enough light by nature to perish, but not enough to be saved.
c. This perishing proceeds according to strict justice.
The perishing of the Gentiles is not a result of arbitrary sovereignty in which God is free to do anything He wants without question. It is rather an act of God’s exact justice. Of course, the idea of perishing “without law” is contrasted here with the idea of perishing within the circle of the law or special revelation. This contrast surely teaches that those without law will experience a less severe judgment than those perishing “under law” (Luke 12:47, 48; Matt. 11:22; 24; Luke 10:14). But we must not forget that less severe hell is still hell. Those without special revelation have enough revelation not only to deserve the judgment of eternal punishment, but to deserve it in strict justice. This warns us against so weakening or watering down our view of general revelation that we cannot explain or rationally justify the eternal punishment of those without special revelation.
B. The Objection Assumed
It is not specifically stated, but Paul assumes an objection to verse 12 a. He clearly is answering this unspoken objection in verses 14 and 15. The objection is this: How can those without the law sin, let alone perish?
i. The Fact of the Objection Assumed
The four times repeated emphasis on being without the law in verses 12a and 14 points to this objection. Paul regards the statement that men sin without law as problematic.
ii. The Validity of the Objection Assumed
Paul regards the objection as valid, having an element of truth. What I mean is that he regards it as growing out of an important truth of God’s Word. This truth is one Paul himself believed and was about to teach in this very letter. This truth is that if one is strictly speaking without the law in every sense, there is no sin, no imputation of sin, and no perishing for sin (Rom. 4:15, 5:13). With this truth in mind, it is natural to ask, If this is so how can those without law perish? The answer to this difficult question is found in verses 14 and 15. Indeed, the answer to this problem is whole point of verses 14 and 15.
C. The Answer Elaborated (vv. 14, 15)
i. Its Initial Assertion (v. 14b)
“these to themselves are law”
[or]
“they are (the) law to themselves”
These words, because they include the main verb and noun of the sentence, are the primary assertion of the passage. All else in verses 14 and 15 is grammatically secondary to this primary or initial assertion. When the question is asked, How is it possible, why is it just, for Gentiles to sin and perish without the law? Paul’s answer is simply that the Gentiles are the law to themselves! This short statement teaches us several things about the Gentiles’ confrontation with the law of God.
a. The Reality of Their Confrontation with the Law
In this clause we come to Paul’s simplest statement of his answer to the problem raised by the assertion of verse 12a. Gentiles sin. Their sin is imputed. They perish in their sin. All this occurs and only may occur, says Paul, because they are confronted with the law of God. Though not confronted with it as a written revelation, they still are confronted with it. They are the law for themselves.
b. The Means of Their Confrontation with the Law
Not only does Paul say that the Gentiles confront themselves with the law, he also reveals the means or medium through which this confrontation occurs. They are “to or for themselves the law”. The meaning of this is made clear by parallel statements in these verses. This law is theirs “by nature” (v. 14a), “the work of the law [is] written in their hearts” (v. 15a). Murray says, “the law of God confronts them and registers itself in their consciousness by reason of what they natively and constitutionally are.”[7]
The relevance of this for Christian apologetics and epistemology should be evident. The apostle teaches that men who are without special revelation confront themselves with the law of God. They cannot plead ignorance of God’s law. The existence of God’s law (and, therefore, of God) does not need to be proved to them by rational argument. Rational argument and special revelation may clarify, may intensify, and may remind them of the demands of God’s law. It is not the origin or basis of their confrontation with God’s law. This is innate and natural.
c. The Identity of the Law with which they are Confronted
It might seem to be (and, in fact, it is) evident from verse 12a that it is the law of God which is here mentioned. Sin is the transgression of the law of God. Perishing takes place only at the hands of an angry God. In the clause under consideration, however, the term, law, does not have the article (t-h-e). Further, in other cases in verses 14 and 15 the term, law, also occurs without the article. The question is, then, How should these occurrences be translated? What does Paul mean by “law” in the statement, “they are law to themselves?” Does he mean law in the abstract? The law of God? Or something else? What law is it with which the Gentiles are confronted?
Before exploring these questions, it will be helpful to place the data clearly before us. There are five occurrences of law in verses 14 and 15. In the Greek three of these occurrences are without the article, but two of these three occurrences are translated with the article by both the NIV and the NASB.
[1] (v. 14) No Article in the Greek “who do not have the law”
[2] (v. 14) Article in the Greek “the things of the law”
[3] (v. 14) No Article in the Greek “these, not having the law”
[4] (v. 14) No Article in the Greek “are a law to themselves”
[5] (v. 15) Article in the Greek “the work of the law”
It is clear from this information that there are three reasons why the article should be supplied in the translation of occurrences [1], [3], and [4] and the reference be understood to be to “the law of God.” First, the term, law, without the article often refers to the law of God specifically and is often translated as if the article were present in Romans (Rom. 2:13, 25, 27, 7:25, 13:8, 10).
Second, when Paul says in verse 14 (in the first and third occurrences) that Gentiles do not “have law”, he cannot mean that they were without law of any kind. They had many laws and many different kinds of law. What they lacked was the written law of God. These occurrences must be, therefore, translated as a specific reference to the law of God.
Third, Paul says twice (in occurrences [2] and [5]) that the law with which the Gentiles are confronted via their own persons is the law of God, i.e., the law of God given to Israel. Note verse 14a, verse 15a.
The occurrence in verse 15a is particularly important because it refers to the law written on stone in the Old Covenant, which is now written on the heart in the New Covenant. This shows the fundamental identity of the law of nature with the law of the Old Covenant and the law of the New Covenant. We are not to make a distinction between Jew and Gentile on the basis of what law they possessed. Both possess the same law. They simply have it in a different form and with a different clarity.[8] Romans 3:2 and 9:3‑5 teach, of course, that having the written law of God was a great advantage and blessing to the Jews. Thus, these passages show that there was a higher degree of clarity and responsibility imparted to men by having the written law. Nevertheless, the difference has to do with the degree of light‑-not the identity of the law they possess.
By way of application we may say that Paul teaches in Romans 2:14, 15 the basic unity, continuity, and identity of the law of creation (nature), the law of the Old Covenant, and the law of the New Covenant. No doubt, there are elements of distinction and difference between God’s commands in these different periods, but Paul emphatically assumes that the unity between them is basic and general.
THE BASIC UNITY OF THE LAW OF GOD IN ALL AGES
THE BEGINNING OF CREATION‑-THE OLD COVENANT‑-THE NEW COVENANT
===============================================================
T H E L A W O F G O D
===============================================================
This rebukes any and all who speak of the doing away of the Old Covenant law without carefully limiting what they mean. In order to abolish the law of the Old Covenant one would have to abolish both the law of nature and the law of the New Covenant.
Fourth, we are now prepared to discuss the translation of occurrence [4]. How should the word, law, in the clause under discussion (“these to themselves are law”) be translated? Since, in the first place, all of the other occurrences in verses 14 and 15 are specific references to the law of God, and since, in the second place, twice in these verses Paul specifically ascribes confrontation with the law of God to Gentiles, we ought to translate the clause under discussion “they are the law to themselves.” They are to themselves, not some law or other, but the law of God.[9] The point of importance in all this is that it shows the extent of the knowledge of the law which Gentiles possess. It is not a mere vestige or remnant of knowledge of the moral law which Paul says that the Gentiles have, but the knowledge of the law of God itself.
ii. Its Rational Explanation (v. 15a)
“in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts”
In this clause Paul reveals why he is sure that the Gentiles are the law to themselves.
a. The subject of the clause
The pronoun used here has a causal force, “because such ones.” Cf. 1:25 for a parallel usage.[10] Thus, the clause should be translated, “because such Gentiles show …” This clause states the reason or support for Paul’s statement that the Gentiles are the law for themselves. They are the law to themselves seeing or because they manifest the work of the law written in their hearts. Note how verse 15a is tied to verse 14a through verse 14b.
b. The predicate of the clause
“show”
This verb designates the external manifestation of an internal reality. The internal reality is the work of the law written in their hearts. They show this internal principle by the reality stated in verse 14a (“they do the things of the law”) and re‑stated in verse 15b (their conscience bearing witness …”).
c. The direct object
“the work of the law written in their hearts”
(1) Note that Paul does not say that the law is written in their hearts. It is the work of the law which is written. In the Greek the word, written, agrees in case with the word, work, not the word, law. Thus, Paul very carefully words his statement so as to avoid saying that Gentiles have the law written on their hearts. This would have meant that they had a part in the blessings of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:33) and implied that Gentiles without special revelation are saved. This Paul could not say and would not even imply. While Gentiles are confronted with God and His Law, they do not know the gospel and cannot be saved. The law is not written savingly in their heart.
(2) What, then, does Paul mean by the “work of the law?” There are two choices.
There is the majority view. The best example of one who favors this view is John Murray. According to this view the “work of the law” is simply the work which the law requires of us. Murray says, “Things required and stipulated by the law are written upon the heart.”[11]
There is the minority view. Examples of those who take this view are Beza and Haldane. This view was suggested to me by Greg Nichols. He asserts, “the law’s work is the work that the law does.”
Having for several years held and taught the majority view, I now reject it in favor of the minority view. This view appears clearly better to me for the following reasons:
First, the precise expression used here by Paul is found nowhere else in the Bible. Phrases like “the works of the law” (Rom. 3:20) and “the righteousness of the law” (Rom. 8:4), since they are not strict parallels, cannot be certain evidence in favor of the meaning the work required by the law.
Second, the general context of Romans 2:1‑16 favors the minority view. Paul is thinking of the moralistic and hypocritical tendency of fallen mankind to pass judgment on others, yet practice the very things for which they condemn others. This is the thought of both the preceding and succeeding context. Cf. 2:1‑3 and 2:17‑23. In such a context it is natural to view Paul in verses 14 and 15 as using the same thing as proof of the Gentiles’ moral guilt before God. They show the work of the law, the work which the law itself performs, by their passing judgment on and accusing others.
Third, the phrase, “the things of the law,” is clearly parallel to “the work of the law.” The “things of the law,” however, must be a reference not to the things required by the law, but to the things done by the law. This is the case because in doing the things of the law, they are the law to themselves. This cannot mean that in doing the things the law requires, they are the law. If this were the case, it would follow that by obeying the law, we become the law. This is nonsense and makes nonsense of Paul’s assertion. If, however, the phrase means that in doing the things performed by the law (defining right and wrong, commanding, condemning) they are the law this makes much better sense. The phrase, “the things of the law,” then, means “the things the law does.” Thus, by implication the phrase, “the work of the law,” must mean “the work the law does.”
Fourth, the phrase, “the work of the law written in their hearts,” would logically demand the idea that the promise of the New Covenant has been fulfilled in the case of these Gentiles‑-if it means that what the law requires is written in their hearts. For the promise of the New Covenant is that God would write His Law‑-what it requires, its precepts‑‑on our hearts. Similarly, the phrase, “for when Gentiles do instinctively the things of the law,” would directly imply or even assert that these Gentiles are “the doers of the law” and so, according to verse 13, “will be justified.”
It is true, of course, that Murray and others seek to avoid this evil and false conclusion by making a distinction between “the law written on the heart” and “the work required by the law written on the heart.” Murray also distinguishes between “doing the things of the law” (externally) and “doing the law” (really). As Pastor Nichols says, however, this “boils down to a distinction without a difference.”
Having explained these phrases, it remains to be asked, What is Paul thinking of when he speaks of “the things” and “the work” which the law does? The immediate context clearly suggests the functions of the law which Paul has in mind.
First of all, Paul is thinking of the condemning function of the law. He is thinking of how the Gentiles “pass judgment upon” and “accuse” one another (2:1‑3, 15). Secondly, he is thinking of how the law enables men to know God’s will and approve the essential things and instructs them as to right and wrong (2:17‑19). The law provides men with a divine standard of right and wrong.
It is helpful in forming a clearer idea of this to examine the larger context of this issue in Romans. What does the book of Romans at large teach about the function of the law? When we ask this question, we are reminded that one of the themes of Romans is “the work of the law” (3:20, 4:15, 5:20, 7:5‑13).
The importance of this is that what the law did for the Jews, the Gentiles do for themselves. Their own hearts, natures, and persons enable them to know parts of their ethical duty, and in that light to expose sin in others and pass judgment upon it.[12]
When we remember that Paul is answering the objection that Gentiles cannot sin without law, then we must add that the function of giving men a divine standard of right and wrong is primarily in view here.
iii. Its External Manifestation (v. 14a, v. 15b)
The work of the law is written in the heart of men and as such is in itself invisible to anyone but God. This work, however, is manifested visibly and continually by fallen men. In our passage this manifestation is first stated in verse 14a and then re‑stated in verse 15b. This manifestation is not to be equated with that work of the law written in the heart. The “doing of the things of the law,” “the conscience bearing witness,” “the thoughts accusing or even defending them” all manifest and presuppose the work of the law written in the heart. Because they are manifestations of it, for that very reason they are not to be understood as the same as it. The work of the law is God’s creation. The doing of the things of the law is their sometimes perverted and depraved manifestation of the work of the law. Even in the acts of their conscience, they are truth‑suppressors and, thus, their conscience may be defiled (Titus 1:15).
a. Stated (v. 14a)
This first statement of the manifestation of the work of the law written in the hearts of the Gentiles is that they instinctively and repeatedly do what the law of God does. Since the meaning of this phrase has already been mostly explained, only two remarks are necessary here.
(1) These actions are instinctive.
They are done by nature, that is, via the light available to men apart from special revelation. The emphasis on the person, natures, and hearts of the Gentiles has been noticed already. It speaks of the indestructible knowledge of the law which men possess without special revelation.
(2) These actions are repetitive.
When otan is here employed with the present subjunctive of the verb, do, the Greek lexicon, BDAG, says of this usage that it means “whenever, as often as, every time.” Paul is, thus, not thinking of an isolated instance of doing the things of the law. He is thinking of repeated occasions in which Gentiles do what the law does. Cf. the present tenses in 2:1‑3 where Paul says that those are without excuse who are constantly passing judgment upon others for doing the very things they themselves practice.
b. Re‑stated (v. 15b)
The general connection of verse 15b to the previous statements is clear.[13] The conscience of the Gentiles “shows” or visibly manifests “the work of the law written in their hearts.” Lenski remarks that the grammatical construction in the phrase, “accusing or else (or even) defending them, implies that accusation is more common.”[14] This is what we would expect in light of the reference in this phrase to Romans 2:1‑3. John Murray properly concludes from this clause, “Accusation and excusation, whether of ourselves or others, are activities which evidence moral consciousness and therefore point to our indestructible moral nature, the only rationale of which is the work of the law of God in the heart.”[15]
V. Conclusions
- This passage confirms the teaching of Romans 1 as to the reality of the knowledge of the living God in those without special revelation. “The work of the law is written in their hearts” and, thus, they confront themselves with both the precepts and penalties of the law of God. Thus, they know the one, true, and living God because they know Him specifically in His position as lawgiver. Further, they know this God by nature and by means of their own hearts. Thus, this knowledge must be absolutely universal among those who possess human nature.
- This passage brings to completion the teaching of Romans 1 concerning the source of their knowledge of God. In Romans 1:19, 20 the source of this knowledge is external creation. In Romans 2:15 the thought is added that man’s own nature and heart reveal the knowledge of God. Thus, Kuyper is right when he says that man has a two‑fold office in revelation. He is both a source of and the recipient of revelation. Kuyper says, “If the cosmos is the theatre of revelation, in this theatre man is both actor and spectator.”[16]
- This passage expands the teaching of Romans 1 as to the extent of their knowledge of God by nature and creation. Not only do men know God, but they have an extensive knowledge of the moral requirements of His law. This might be deduced from the fact that men according to Romans 1:18‑20 know the character of the living God. Since the moral law of God is simply the transcript or account of His character as it comes to bear upon or controls the regulation of human conduct, to know God truly is to know something of His law. All this is confirmed by Romans 2:12a, 14, and 15.
It is also confirmed by Romans 1:32, the statement of Paul which leads into Romans 2:1‑16. This verse assumes a thorough knowledge of lengthy portions of the actual content of the commands of God’s moral law. Referring to the extensive list of sins in verses 29‑31, verse 32 asserts of men by nature that they know that “those who practice such things are worthy of death.” This knowledge must, therefore, include revelation as to:
‑‑violations of the Tenth Commandment: “greed” “envy”
‑‑violations of the Ninth Commandment: “deceit” “gossips” “slanderers”
‑‑violations of the Eighth Commandment: “greed” “envy”
‑‑violations of the Sixth Commandment: “malice, murder, strife” “unmerciful”
-‑violations of the Fifth Commandment: “disobedient to parents”
-‑general violations of the first four Commandments “haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful”
Scripture, then, testifies to the idea that along with a knowledge of God and rooted in it, there is a many-sided revelation of the moral requirements of God’s law planted in man by creation.
[1]John Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:69.
[2]This is the only occurrence of the adverb form of this root, but the adjective and noun are used frequently.
[3]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:70.
[4]Lenski, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 157.
[5]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:70.
[6]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:69.
[7]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:79.
[8]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:74.
[9]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:73-74.
[10]For this usage note The New Thayer’s Greek‑English Lexicon, p. 457.
[11]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:75.
[12]Cf. by way of illustration Pastor Nichols’ unpublished lecture notes on the passage, 9-10.
[13]Verse 15b is connected to the foregoing by a genitive absolute participle. The effect of this grammatical construction is that v. 15b modifies v. 15a in a way which is not specified.
[14]Lenski, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans en loc.
[15]Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 1:75-76.
[16]Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 264.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
