Confession

1
CONFESSION:
OLD TESTAMENT INSIGHTS
1

by
Clifford Rapp, Jr.

The New Testament promises that if we confess our sins
[God] is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to
cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).
2
This essay ad-
dresses the nature of confession.

The paucity of New Testament material on confession
makes this question difficult. A few confessions exist: the prodi-
gal son (Luke 15), the tax collectors confession (Luke 18), and
Simons plea for mercy (Acts 8). Probably the longest and most
detailed confessions of sin are Pauls public testimonies in which
he acknowledged his sin.

The New Testament uses the homologe, confess,
word group (, , )
only forty times. Furthermore, 1 John 1:9 is the only time
where the direct object of homologe is sins, iniquities, trans-
gressions, debts, etc. Four times the related term exomologe,
is used of confessing sin, faults or evil practices (Matthew
3:6; Mark 1:5; Acts 19:18; and James 5:16).


1
[Editors noteSome long-term readers may remember that the CTS Journal
2 (Spring/ Summer 1996) contained an article by Clifford Rapp, Jr., defending
one view of Ephesians 5:18, while Thomas Ice presented an alternative. Read-
ers may examine both articles at the CTS Website: www.chafer.edu. Ephesians
5:18 and 1 John 1:9 are related, so CTS Journal invites inquiries and responses
to this (and any other) article. Considering such issues allows iron to sharpen
iron.]
2
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations are taken from the New Ameri-
can Standard Bible (NASB) copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972,
1973, 1975, 1977, 1994 by the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

2
This scarcity of New Testament material leads many to rely on
an etymological explanation to define confession of sins. Specifically,
homologe is a compound word (homo same and loge to say or
to speak). Thus, they conclude that to confess sins means to say the
same thing that God says about the sins, or to agree together with God
about ones sins. The etymological definition does not specify whether
saying the same thing about ones sins (that God does) must include
contrition, repentance, or restitution.

Defining a word according to the root meanings of its com-
ponent parts sometimes leads to an error called the root
fallacy.
3
Homologe could be an exception, in that it does carry
the meaning of to agree together or to say the same thing. How-
ever, it is not used this way in religious contexts, but only in
contracts and legal contexts. Might its secular usage have caused
the translators of the Septuagint
4
to avoid homologe in the con-
text of confessing sins? As Michel notes, In transl[ation] the
[homologia] group is given less prominence be-
cause its legal and commercial associations seemed too
profane.
5
The Septuagint preferred exagoreu.
6


Confession has always been a critical issue for believers,
because forgiveness is conditioned upon it. Moreover, the doc-
trine of confession has been a major source of disagreement
between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Catholics developed
the doctrine of auricular confession, that is, private confession to
a priest, and eventually made it obligatory for communicants.

3
Cf. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1961).
4
This is the common name for the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
5
Otto Michel, s.v. , in Theological Dictionary of The New
Testament, vol. 5, , Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Geoffrey
W. Bromiley, trans. and ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 5:204.
6
Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed.
(London: Oxford University Press, 1940), 580, define exagoreu as to tell
out, to make known, to declare, or to confess.
Confession

3
The Reformers soundly rejected the practice of auricular confes-
sion on both biblical and pragmatic grounds.

Because of the importance of the issue, it is well not to rely
exclusively on either etymology (root words) or tradition (such as
Catholic dogma) for defining the meaning of 1 John 1:9. The
abundance of Old Testament confessional material offers a more
promising third alternative for defining confession of sins.

Old Testament Confessional Passages

In contrast with the New Testament, the Old Testament con-
tains many short confessions. Short confessions include simple
statements like: I have sinned against the Lord, or I have in-
deed transgressed the command of the Lord.
7
These short
confessions may imply that all one needs to do to receive for-
giveness is to say, I have sinned. If so, all it takes to agree with
the Lord is a simple, general statement of sinfulness. Although
possible, it not a necessary one, perhaps not a likely one. Actu-
ally, 1 John 1:9s use of a plural direct object precludes a general
admission of sinfulness as Johns meaning: If we confess our
sins. It is not merely a matter of admitting that one has sinned in
some general way; the plural noun indicates confession of indi-
vidual sins.

Furthermore, not even the short confessions point to a mere
general admission of sinfulness. Often the context in which the
short confession occurs clarifies what sin is being confessed, so
that what seems to be a general statement of failure actually has
specific meaning. For example, in 2 Samuel 12:13, when David
said, I have sinned against the Lord, it clearly refers to his sins
with Bathsheba against Uriah. The Bible often summarizes con-

7
Numbers 21:7; 22:34; Joshua 7:20; Judges 10:10, 15; 1 Samuel 7:6; 15:24;
2 Samuel 12:13; 24:10; Psalm 41:4; Jeremiah 3:1214; 8:14; Matthew 27:4;
and Luke 18:13.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

4
versations. Possibly, Davids confession at Nathans rebuke was
more extensive than the written record of it.
8

Whether or not all (or any) of the short confessions are
summary statements, a study of the long confessions will help to
complete our understanding of confession. This article focuses on
the seven penitential Psalms
9
and five other passages: Ezra 9, 10;
Nehemiah 1, 9; and Hosea 14.

The examination of the longer Old Testament confessions
focuses upon common elements, but does not distinguish be-
tween personal sin (Psalms 32 and 51) versus national sin (Ezra
9; Nehemiah 1 and 9). After all New Testament believers are not
under the Mosaic Covenant. Since church-age believers do not
confess national sins (as Israel did), this concept would not have
bearing on the meaning of 1 John 1:9. However, it is interesting
to observe that confessions of Israels national sin are associated
with the Mosaic Covenant, while only some of the individual
confessions appeal to a covenant.
10


Four common elements exist in the long confessions. They
are: (1) an appeal to an attribute of God, (2) acknowledgement of
wrongdoing (the sin or the conditions resulting from the sin), (3)
a request (for forgiveness, healing, relief from Gods chastise-
ment, etc.), and (4) an expression of intention for the future (to
praise God, to follow Gods ways, to teach sinners Gods ways,
or something to that effect). A fifth element occurs in about half
of the passages examined, the renunciation (of sins, of foreign

8
We know that David said much more about his sin with Bathsheba (cf. Psalm
51). He may also have said more when Nathan first confronted him.
9
Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, and 143.
10
Leviticus 26 describes the five cycles of discipline that Israel would face.
When these disciplines are in effect, Leviticus 26:4045 prescribes confession
of covenant violation. Individual confession of sin may also use covenant vo-
cabulary. For example, Psalm 51:1 appeals to Gods xesed, but not all
confessions of individual sin refer to a covenant.
Confession

5
marriages, of idols, etc.). The penitent often declared or acted out
attitudes of contrition or humility.

The Appeal to an Attribute of God

The most common appeal among these passages was to
Gods lovingkindness.
11
Confessions also appealed to Gods
mercy, grace, immutability, eternality, sovereignty, righteousness,
faithfulness, uniqueness, and goodness.
12


Appealing to an attribute of God in confession is natural and
logical. God takes sin personally. He says in the Ten Commandments:

I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniq-
uity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the
fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lov-
ingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep
My commandments (Exodus 20:56).

Sinning expresses hatred toward God. Obedience expresses love
to Him (cf. John 14:15). The vivid figures that God used to call
His people to repentance demonstrate that He takes sin person-
ally. God portrays Himself through Isaiah as a bewildered parent,

Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! For the LORD has spo-
ken: I reared children and brought them up, but they
have rebelled against me. The ox knows his master, the
donkey his owners manger, but Israel does not know, my
people do not understand (Isaiah 1:23).

Through Jeremiah He pictures Himself as a wounded husband,

11
Hebrew xesed: Cf. Psalms 6; 32; 51; 130; 143; Ezra 9; Nehemiah 1 and 9.
12
Gods mercy (compassion or pity) is raxem in the Hebrew of Hosea 14,
Psalms 51 and 102; Nehemiah 9. Grace (Hebrew xannun) is in Psalm 102;
Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9; immutability, eternality, and sovereignty in Psalm
102; righteousness (Hebrew tsadek and tsedakah) in Psalm 143; Ezra 9; and
Nehemiah 9; faithfulness (Hebrew emunah) in Psalm 143, uniqueness in Ne-
hemiah 9, and goodness (Hebrew tov) in Nehemiah 9; Hosea 14.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

6

Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem: I remem-
ber the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved
me and followed me through the desert, through a land not
sown. . . . Hear the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob,
all you clans of the house of Israel. This is what the LORD
says: What fault did your fathers find in me, that they
strayed so far from me? They followed worthless idols and
became worthless themselves (Jeremiah 2:25).

David also understood that God takes sin personally. In
spite of having seduced Bathsheba and murdering Uriah, he
wrote, Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned (Psalm 51:4).
David was not denying that he had wronged Uriah, Bathsheba,
and the whole nation, but he recognized that all sins are an af-
front to God. True confession is not merely an acknowledgement
of sin, but of sin against God.

The New Testament also acknowledges that God takes sin
personally, so sinning affects our relationship with Him. James
and Paul address this:

You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the
world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes
to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God
(James 4:4).

The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Romans 8:7).

Church-Age believers may appeal to Gods attributes. In
fact, appealing to Gods faithfulness and justice would be very
appropriate, since 1 John 1:9 says that they underlie Gods for-
giveness. But also many other attributes of God would be
acceptable including those mentioned in the Old Testament pas-
sages. Paul speaks of having received Gods mercy (Greek
elee, 1 Timothy 1:13, 16) in being forgiven. In 1 Corinthians
15, Paul speaks of having received Gods grace (Greek charis) in
Confession

7
being forgiven. Contemplation of any number of Gods attributes
may pave the way for confession.

The Acknowledgement of Wrongdoing

In many of these confessions, the acknowledgement of
wrongdoing refers to iniquity ((awn, Ezra 9; Psalm 130; and
Hosea 14 without specifying the actual act of iniquity), disobedi-
ence (marah in Nehemiah 9, lehapher mitzvoteka in Ezra 9), or
unfaithfulness (maal Ezra 910). More often confessions men-
tion the results of sin or iniquity like illness (Psalms 6 and 102),
Gods discipline (Psalms 6; 51; and 102), grief (Psalms 6; 32; 38;
and 102), guilt (Ezra 9; 10), persecution (Psalm 143), trouble
(Psalm 143), slavery (Nehemiah 9), or hardships (Nehemiah 9).

The lack of specificity allows the passages to speak to a
wider range of human sin and guilt. The more general nature of
confession in these passages makes them suitable for public wor-
ship, during which time the hearers would personalize them. But
for private confession to God, the guilty person should acknowl-
edge specific sins. As mentioned above, 1 John 1:9 uses a plural
noun, if we confess our sins, requiring more than just saying, I
have sinned. Believers must be honest and detailed in bringing
sins before the throne of grace. The acknowledgement of wrong-
doing, if the sin is named, seems to be in line with confession for
New Testament believers.

The Request

The passages studied made various requests of God for
grace (Psalm 6), healing (Psalm 6), rescue from persecutors
(Psalm 38), a clean heart (Psalm 51), restored fellowship with
God (Psalm 51, 102, 143), power, redemption, revival, pity, and
the turning away of Gods anger (Ezra 10). Some may debate
what requests are appropriate for New Testament believers.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

8
1 John 1:9 does not instruct us to ask for forgiveness or for relief
from Gods chastisement. Is it inappropriate or unnecessary for
church-age believers to ask for forgiveness? Chafer writes, Ask-
ing God to forgive is wholly beside-the-point. He has said that
He will forgive and cleanse the saved one who confesses his
sin.
13
One could argue that the New Covenant promises forgive-
ness [God is faithful ... to forgive us our sins], so that it is
unnecessary, and possibly wrong to ask for forgiveness. Similar
questions might arise with regard to asking for relief from Gods
chastisement. Let us consider these separately.

First, is it necessary specifically to ask for forgiveness,
when it is already promised? No, it is not. None of the twelve
Old Testament passages specifically asked for forgiveness,
although Psalm 32 mentions it as a result of confession. How-
ever, a few of them asked for restored fellowship, using
expressions like receive us (Hosea 14), show your face (Psalm
102), and turn your anger away (Ezra 10). These requests for
restored fellowship certainly involve forgiveness. It is sin that
separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2).

But believers must still ask for many things that are prom-
ised in the Bible. Our Lord Jesus said, Peace I leave with you;
My peace I give to you (John 14:27), yet Paul instructs us to pray
to receive peace to guard our hearts in Philippians 4:67. Our
Lord also told His apostles, you shall receive power when the
Holy Spirit comes upon you (Acts 1:8); yet after Pentecost they
continued to pray for power from God (Acts 4:2431). James
admonishes us, you do not have because you do not ask (James
4:2). To state that it is wrong for a Christian to ask for forgive-
ness, because it is promised on the sole condition of confession,
argues from silence. The Bible does not state that it is wrong for
a believer in the Church Age to ask specifically for forgiveness.

13
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas, TX: Dallas
Seminary Press, 1948), 7:9091.
Confession

9
Zane Hodges writes, Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Himself
taught His followers to seek forgiveness of their sins in a prayer
that was obviously intended for daily use (cf. the expression
give us today our daily bread preceding forgive us our debts,
Matt. 6:1112). The teaching that a Christian should not ask God
for daily forgiveness is an aberration.
14


Is it proper for a church-age believer to ask for relief from
chastisement? Paul attributes his thorn in the flesh as Gods dis-
cipline to prevent pride. Yet, he asked God three times to remove
it before he received a definite no answer and stopped asking.
On the other hand, 1 John 5:16 may seem to impose a limitation:

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to
death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those
who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin lead-
ing to death; I do not say that he should make a request
for this.

Although there are many opinions regarding the sin leading
to death, the present concern may not require identifying the sin
leading to death. Two different Greek words are behind the
words translated ask. The first, aite, means to ask, to ask
for, or to request. The second, erota, means, to ask, to ask
a question, or to inquire. The following translation clarifies
their difference,

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to
death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those
who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading
to death; I do not say that he should inquire about this.

The believer is not required to determine whether or not the
sin he sees his brother committing is a sin unto death. He may

14
Zane Hodges, 1 John, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F.
Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 886.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

10
pray for his brother. From a different line of reasoning Hodges
argues that this clearly does not forbid prayer even in the
most serious cases.
15


The Expression of Intention for the Future

As a response to Gods forgiveness and/or healing the peni-
tents stated their intentions for the future.
16
Among those things
mentioned were praise (Psalm 6 and 102), separation from sinful
people (Psalm 6), teaching others (Psalm 32 and 51), waiting on
the Lord (Psalm 130), doing Gods will (Psalm 143, Ezra 10), to
separate from Gentiles (Nehemiah 9), to be holy to the Lord
(Ezra 9), and to put away foreign wives (Ezra 9). It is under-
standable for someone who confesses his sin to want to avoid
falling into the same sin again. Ryrie observes, The remedy for
believers sins may be stated in one word: confess
(1 John 1:9). This does not mean to merely mouth or recite the
sins. It means to see those sins as God sees them. That will surely
bring repentance and the earnest desire to change.
17


In Ezra and Nehemiah vows reinforce the intentions. Psalm
51 also seems to contain a definite commitment to act, although
there is no mention of an oath or of swearing as in the Ezra and
Nehemiah passages. The Psalmist asks God to do some things
and says that he will do some things in response. This has the
form of a vow.

Some difference of opinion exists regarding the matter of
vows for New Testament believers. Certainly, it is not wrong for

15
Ibid, 903.
16
Editors note: Please note the writers words. The sentence emphasizes
ones response to forgiveness, not the means to receive forgiveness.
17
Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1986), 233.
Confession

11
a church-age believer to make vows.
18
Biblical vows were gener-
ally limited to a specific length of time (e.g., Nazirite vows) or to
a specific act (I will praise you in the great congregation, Psalm
22:25). 1 Corinthians 7:5 seems to suggest a type of vow for a
married couple to deny themselves marital relations for a specific
length of time in order to be devoted to prayer. Whether or not it
is technically a vow, it functions very much like an Old Testa-
ment vow, in that a couple agrees to deny themselves some
legitimate pleasure for a limited time in order to be devoted in a
special way to God.

Certain vows seem to have lasted for a lifetime. Samson
and John the Baptist were not to drink wine (similar to a Na-
zirite vow). In fact, Judges 13:7 calls Samson a Nazirite. Of
Samuel it is promised that a razor shall never come on his
head (1 Samuel 1:11
19
). But these three men did not take
vows; it was Gods directive for Samson and John, and a
mothers promise for Samuel, rather than a vow on the part of
any of these men. The Rechabites had a perpetual command-
ment similar to a Nazirite vow in that they did not drink
wine.
20
But their commitment also differed from the Nazirite
vow. The Rechabites were not to own property. Likewise,
nothing is mentioned about them cutting their hair or avoiding
corpses. Their practices are viewed as loyalty to the command
of their forefather rather than as a vow made individually.


18
The Apostle Paul made a vow at least once. Four brothers in Acts 21 made
vows and Paul agrees to participate in their purification. But great care must
be taken in the matter of making vows.
Regarding whether it is ever appropriate for believers to take oaths,
Caiaphas put Jesus under oath (Matthew 26:63). By breaking His silence and
answering, Jesus accepted an oath. Although Matthew 5:3337 urges believers
not to volunteer for oaths, it does not preclude accepting an oath (as in court).
19
Qumran text, 4Q Sam
a
, 1 Sam. 1:22 ends with the words, a Nazirite forever
all the days of his life.
20
Cf. Jeremiah 35.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

12
While vows may be permitted for a New Testament be-
liever, a vow with no termination point becomes a law. Numbers
30:2 reads, If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or takes an oath
to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his
word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.
A person who binds himself with a vow voluntarily gives up
some of his freedom in Christ. Keeping the vow can become the
focus rather than walking in love and keeping in step with the
Holy Spirit. The New Testament does not encourage making
vows (Matthew 5:3337; James 5:12).
21


Confession and Restitution

Other lessons about confession from the Old Testament touch
on several areas. First, Numbers 5:7 associates confession with res-
titution. Restitution was required under the Mosaic covenant for
causing a premature birth (Exodus 21:22), for causing the loss of
an animal (Exodus 21:30), for theft (Exodus 22:14), for slander-
ing a fiance (Deuteronomy 22:18, 19), and for seducing a virgin
(Deuteronomy 22:29). There is no reason that the New Testament
believer should not make restitution whenever he can. Perhaps,
Owe nothing to anyone (Romans 13:8) would apply.

Confession and Reformation

Second, Proverbs 28:13 links confession with forsaking sin.
The verb to forsake, (Heb. (fzab) means to depart, to aban-
don, and to loose. Often Proverbs uses it to express moral
choices. One may forsake what is good, the way of righteousness
(2:13; 15:10), wisdom (4:2, 6), reproof (10:17), or loyalty and
faithfulness (3:3). But one may also forsake sin (28:13).
22
This is a

21
See note 18 (earlier).
22
Adapted from Carl Schultz, s.v. (fzab, in Theological Wordbook of the
Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, edi-
tors (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 2:65859.
Confession

13
key aspect of forgiveness applicable to New Testament believers as
well. Arnold Fruchtenbaum writes, Merely confessing our sins
without true repentance does not avail.
23
That is, confession
alone brings Gods experiential forgiveness, but confession without
repentance does not allow the believers fellowship with the

Lord to continue. Proverbs 26:11 gives a vivid picture of the fail-
ure to forsake sin, Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who
repeats his folly. Having previously referred to his observation that
proper confession, will surely bring repentance and the earnest
desire to change, Dr. Ryrie goes on to remind us, ... if the same
sins recur, the remedy [confession] remains the same.
24


Proverbs 28:13 reads: He who conceals his transgressions
will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find
compassion. This implies that an individual ought to confess his
transgressions as soon as he is aware of them. Delay in confess-
ing and forsaking sin constitutes concealment, which results in
loss of spiritual prosperity.

Arnold Fruchtenbaum notes,

Ideally, we should confess our sins when we first become
aware of them. But there are two time limits that the Bible
provides. First, Ephesians 4:26 states: let not the sun go down
on your wrath. This teaches that sin should be confessed by
nightfall. Secondly, 1 Corinthians 11:2333 admonishes us to
examine ourselves before we partake of Communion.
25


23
Arnold Fruchtenbaum, The Conditions of Prayer, manuscript 148 (Tustin,
CA: Ariel Ministries, 1998), 4.
24
Ryrie, 233.
25
Fruchtenbaum, Conditions, 6. Cf. also Matthew 5:2324.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

14

The Proper Attitude in Confession

The proper attitude toward sin seems to involve love toward
God and hostility toward sin. Psalm 97:10 tells us, Hate evil, you
who love the LORD. The hatred of evil is not attained by a focus
on evil, but on the Lord. Verse nine contains a confession of
Gods greatness: For Thou art the LORD Most High over all the
earth; Thou art exalted far above all gods. Occupation with the
Lord will lead us to love Him and hate sin, with His holy hatred.

Confessions often mention dismay (Heb. bfhal, Psalm 6:3),
mourning (Hebrew qfdar, Psalm 38:6), anxiety (Heb. df)ag,
Psalm 38:18) and horror (Hebrew $fmm Ezra 9:3, 4), along with
the outward acts of fasting (Nehemiah 1 and 9) and the wearing
of sackcloth (Nehemiah 9). Confession would seem to be moti-
vated, at least in part, by negative feelings. Mitchell states,
Honest confession includes a sorrow for what we have done and
a desire to do what is right.
26
However, we must not confuse
feelings with confession. When confession is made, the feelings
may take some time to change. The restoration to joy may neither
be immediate or dramatic. Chafer wisely cautions, faith
should reckon that when sincere confession has been made the
promise [of God in 1 John 1:9] is kept, regardless of emotions
respecting the sin which may continue.
27


Factors Leading To Confession

Several factors may lead a person to confess sin. The most
common is rebuke. God required the Israelites to rebuke an of-
fending neighbor. Leviticus 19:17 reads:


26
John G. Mitchell, Fellowship: A Devotional Study of the Epistles of John
(Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1974), 42. Cf. 2 Corinthians 7.
27
Chafer, Systematic Theology, 7:91
Confession

15
You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart;
you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur
sin because of him (cf. Proverbs 24:25 and 27:5).

Most often God rebuked His people through the prophets.
Other times one man rebukes another (1 Samuel 24:822; 26:17
21). Jesus instructs his followers, If your brother sins, rebuke him;
and if he repents, forgive him (Luke 17:3, cf. James 5:1920).

Israels holy days provided a time for confession. The Day
of Atonement called for national repentance (Leviticus 16:21).
Paul makes an appeal for purity based on the feast of Passover.
Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you
are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been
sacrificed (1 Corinthians 5:7).
Outward disasters (1 Kings 8:3334) or inward turmoil
(Psalm 32:34) might lead an Israelite to confess his sin. The
New Testament believer does well to explore whether outward
troubles (1 Corinthians 11:2930) or the inward pangs of con-
science (1 Timothy 1:5) are indicators of his need to repent
and make confession.

The study of Scripture also led people to confession in the
Old Testament. Josiah repented at the reading of Scripture (2
Kings 22:1011) and Daniel made confession after studying
Jeremiahs writings (Daniel 9). In the New Testament Paul re-
minds us that Scripture is given for reproof (2 Timothy 3:16),
which should lead those reproved to confession. Self-
examination under direction of the Holy Spirit can reveal the
need for confession. David asked, Search me, O God, and know
my heart; try me and know my anxious thoughts (Psalm 139:23).
While Paul challenged the Corinthians, Test yourselves to see if
you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

16
this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in youunless indeed
you fail the test (2 Corinthians 13:5).
28


Private versus Public Confession

One of the large issues with confession is the matter of public
versus private confession. Calvin vigorously attacked the practice
of private confession to a priest, spending some forty-eight pages
on the issue.
29
He does not deny a place for the practice of private
confession to God, but he definitely favors public confession. He
writes, We pronounce anathema upon everyone who has not
confessed himself a sinner before God, before his angels, before
the church, and in short, before all men.
30
Further on he clarifies
the matter thusly, Therefore, a willing confession among men fol-
lows that secret confession which is made to God, as often as
either divine glory or our humiliation demands it.
31
Modern
commentators have also seen 1 John as requiring public confes-
sion. Westcott writes, confess our sins, not only acknowledge
them, but acknowledge them openly in the face of men.
32
This
accords with New Testament usage because all the statements that
believers confessed their sins (or practices or faults) are public in
the sense of being before a person or persons. These four occa-
sions, where believers confessed sins (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5;
Acts 19:18; and James 5:16) all use the verb exomologe. The
other New Testament usages of the verb homologe have to do

28
Paul knows that they are believers (2 Corinthians 1:12, 1314, 21; 3:23;
6:1416; and 8:7). However, as far as their walk is concerned, they are not
in the faith. They need to confess their sins and walk with the Lord. Cf. Zane
C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: Faith and Works in Tension, 2d ed.
(Dallas, TX: Redencin Viva, 1992), 10713.
29
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Library of Christian Clas-
sics, vols. 2021, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1960), III. iv (the section is on pages 1:62269).
30
Calvin, Institutes, III. iv. 6 (the citation is on page 1:630).
31
Calvin, Institutes, III. iv. 10 (the citation is on page 1:634).
32
B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 23.
Confession

17
with confession of Christ (of the faith, of ones ministry, etc.) be-
fore people.

Certainly private confession to God is imperative. David
writes, I acknowledged my sin to Thee, and my iniquity I did not
hide; I said, I will confess my transgressions to the LORD; and
Thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin (Psalm 32:5). Moses (Exo-
dus 33), Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33), Daniel (Daniel 9) and
Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1) all made private confession to God. The
Lords Prayer also promotes private confession to God, for it is to
be practiced in private prayer. Jesus taught,

But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and
when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who
is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will re-
pay you. . . . Pray, then, in this way: . . . And forgive
us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. . .
. (Matthew 6:6, 9, 12).

Nevertheless, private confession to God does not preclude the
possibility of confession before men. Perhaps, Harry Ironside
somewhere suggested the best rule of thumb: Public confession
of sin should never be any wider than to those sinned against.

Conclusions

The Old Testament teaches that confessions essentials are:
The confession must be made to God, appealing to one or more
of His attributes and sins must be acknowledged. Things that are
natural, though not absolute requisites, to confession are contri-
tion, an intention to avoid sinning, a request for forgiveness
and/or relief, and a willingness to tell others (about God, about
His forgiveness or His ways). Finally, some biblical contexts as-
sociate restitution and limited public acknowledgement of sin
with confession.

End

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

18
Clifford Rapp, Jr., earned his B.A. degree from Biola University; and a
Th.M. degree in Old Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas
Theological Seminary. He is an adjunct professor at Chafer Theological
Seminary and pastors Clovis Free Methodist Church, Clovis, California.
His e-mail address is cliffr@ix.netcom.com.
Book Review

19
BOOK REVIEW

Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, by R.T. Kendall (Lon-
don, England: Paternoster, 1997). 263 pages. Originally
published by Oxford, 1981. Reviewed by Dr. Stephen Lewis,
Professor of Church History at Chafer Theological Seminary, and
Senior Pastor, Family Heritage Church, La Quinta, CA.

Salvation (Justification/Reconciliation) is by grace alone
through faith alone in Christ alone. I have rarely met any Protes-
tant who does not, in some way, affirm that phrase. Yet, what one
means by this varies widely. These words were proclaimed as
part of the Reformation and affirmed in the creeds and are pro-
claimed throughout the church to the present day. Yet, as early as
Beza, Calvins successors began to append but faith that saves is
never alone to faith alone saves.

Christianity Today rightly calls Kendalls republished Ox-
ford doctoral dissertation an epoch-making book. He examines
the doctrine of faith from Calvin to Perkins to the Westminster
Assembly to determine the degree to which Westminster theology
is Calvins theological legacy versus that of Perkins. After re-
viewing Calvins doctrine of faith, Kendall traces the interactions
of Theodore Beza, William Perkins, Paul Baynes, Richard Sib-
bes, John Cotton, John Preston, Thomas Hooker, Jacobus
Arminius, and William Ames with Calvin.

Kendall claims that Puritanisms central figures drew their
theology, not from Calvin, but from Theodore Beza, Calvins
successor in Geneva. Even J.I. Packer defends the Synod of Dort
(161819) by putting words into Calvins mouth that he did not
say [Calvin the Theologian, in John Calvin (Abingdon, 1966),
151]. Specifically, Packer asserts that the Dortian formula of
Limited Atonement says what Calvin would have said if he had
faced the Arminian thesis. Therefore, Kendall perceives a fun-
damental shift between Calvin and Beza. Consequently, the
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

20
whole Puritan tradition, from Perkins to the Westminster Confes-
sion of Faith, followed the wrong (non-Calvinistic or anti-
Calvinistic) track concerning the atonement and the nature of
saving faith.

Paul Helms [Calvin and the Calvinists (Banner of Truth
Trust, 1982), 9] visually displays his construct of Kendalls com-
parison of Calvin with the Puritans:

CALVIN PURITANISM
General
Atonement
Faith as a passive
persuasion
Limited
atonement
Faith as an act
of the will



Faith includes assurance
Faith does not necessarily include
assurance

The Gospel before the Law Preparation for grace

Faith before repentance Repentance before faith

Salvation by grace through faith Salvation through good endeavors

Kendalls 1997 edition includes a new preface as well as an
additional appendix extracted from Kurt Daniels Ph.D. thesis
from New College, Edinburgh, 1983. Daniel sought to answer
Kendalls critics concerning a single passage that Cunningham
attributed to Calvin defending limited atonement. Daniel demon-
strates that it was not Calvins statement after all.

Paul Helms highlights the importance of Kendalls work
when he said: No one can doubt the seriousness of the charge
that Kendall levels against Puritanism. He [Kendall] makes the
bold and controversial claim that the Puritans, the professed fol-
lowers of Calvin and the Reformation doctrine, were in fact
undoing the work of the Reformation. If this then could be
Book Review

21
shown, then whole epochs of church history would have to be re-
interpreted (Calvin and the Calvinists, 9).
I agree with J.I. Packer in his endorsement of this book:
Dr. Kendalls exciting study . . . is a major step forward in the
reappraisal of Puritanism . . . no student in the Puritan field can
excuse himself from reckoning with this important contribution.
I recommend this book, especially this edition, for any and all
interested in the theology attributed to Calvin.

The more my reading delves into the struggle to determine
what Calvin or Luther actually said or taught, the more the notion
strikes me that the church has attempted to validate its beliefs,
not as biblical, but as conforming to one of the great ones. By
contrast, we have an almost historically unprecedented opportu-
nity to develop a biblical theology that understands Scripture
from its historical-theological contexts, not from the context of
Dort, Westminster, or any post-biblical context. Thus, biblical
theology contrasts with a typical definition of systematic theol-
ogy, A science which follows a humanly devised scheme or
order of development and which purports to incorporate into its
system all truth about God and his universe from any and every
source (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1:5). In-
stead, we should inductively discover universal scriptural
principles, rather than imposing our categories of usage onto
scriptural terms.

In biblical theology the text determines its own theological
categories; whereas the analogy of faith often imports com-
monly accepted dogma into the text of Scripture. Theology ought
not to not derive from Bezas understanding of Calvin (nor from
any other outside system), but from the Bible itself. The lesson
we learn from Kendalls work is that he clearly distinguishes
Calvin from Beza and his successors. We must go even further
to distinguish both of these theologians from the Bible itself.
Many imagine that all three are identical.

CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

22
End
23

ANNOUNCEMENT
National Teaching Pastors Conference

CTS will co-sponsor a Pastors Conference
At Beth Haven Bible Church, Kansas City, MO
Pastor: Chester McCalley
May 15-18, 2000, Monday PM-Thursday PM

Annual Meeting of CTS and its Board of Advisors
on Thursday


For additional information and to register, call Beth Haven Church
(800-326-4414)

Speakers will include Robert
Dean, Jr., Charles Clough,
Thomas Ice, Chet McCalley,
with CTS professor John Nie-
mel, and others.
Every teaching session is open
not only to pastors, but to busi-
nessmen, women, young
peopleall who value the Word
and free grace.