CONFESSION: OLD TESTAMENT INSIGHTS1 by Clifford Rapp, Jr

Confession 1

CONFESSION: OLD TESTAMENT INSIGHTS1 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 collector’s confession (Luke 18), and Simon’s plea for mercy (Acts 8). Probably the longest and most detailed confessions of sin are Paul’s public testimonies in which he acknowledged his sin.

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

1 [Editor’s note—Some 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. 2 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

This scarcity of New Testament material leads many to rely on an etymological explanation to define confession of sins. Specifically, homologeó is a compound word (homo “same” and logeó “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 one’s sins. The etymological definition does not specify whether saying the same thing about one’s 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 Homologeó 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 Septuagint4 to avoid homologeó in the context of confessing sins? As Michel notes, “In transl[ation] the οϑµολογιϖα [homologia] group is given less prominence because its legal and commercial associations seemed too profane.”5 The Septuagint preferred exagoreuó.6

Confession has always been a critical issue for believers, because forgiveness is conditioned upon it. Moreover, the doctrine 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. “οϑµολογιϖα,” in Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, vol. 5, Ξ–Πα, 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 exagoreuó as “to tell out, to make known, to declare,” or “to confess.” Confession 3

The Reformers soundly rejected the practice of auricular confession 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 contains many short confessions. Short confessions include simple statements like: “I have sinned against the Lord,” or “I have indeed transgressed the command of the Lord.”7 These short confessions may imply that all one needs to do to receive forgiveness 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 1:9’s use of a plural direct object precludes a general admission of sinfulness as John’s 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 individual 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 3:12–14; 8:14; Matthew 27:4; and Luke 18:13. 4 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999) versations. Possibly, David’s confession at Nathan’s 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 Psalms9 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 between 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 Israel’s 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 God’s chastisement, etc.), and (4) an expression of intention for the future (to praise God, to follow God’s ways, to teach sinners God’s 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 26:40–45 prescribes confession of covenant violation. Individual confession of sin may also use covenant vo- cabulary. For example, Psalm 51:1 appeals to God’s 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 God’s lovingkindness.11 Confessions also appealed to God’s 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 iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments (Exodus 20:5–6).

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 personally. 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 owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand” (Isaiah 1:2–3).

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 God’s 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. 6 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem: “I remember 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 2:2–5).

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 God’s attributes. In fact, appealing to God’s faithfulness and justice would be very appropriate, since 1 John 1:9 says that they underlie God’s forgiveness. But also many other attributes of God would be acceptable including those mentioned in the Old Testament passages. Paul speaks of having received God’s mercy (Greek eleeó, 1 Timothy 1:13, 16) in being forgiven. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul speaks of having received God’s grace (Greek charis) in Confession 7 being forgiven. Contemplation of any number of God’s attributes may pave the way for confession.

The Acknowledgement of Wrongdoing

In many of these confessions, the acknowledgement of wrongdoing refers to iniquity ((awôn, 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 (ma’al Ezra 9–10). More often confessions mention the results of sin or iniquity like illness (Psalms 6 and 102), God’s 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 acknowledge 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 wrongdoing, 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 God’s anger (Ezra 10). Some may debate what requests are appropriate for New Testament believers. 8 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

1 John 1:9 does not instruct us to ask for forgiveness or for relief from God’s 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 forgiveness [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 God’s 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 promised 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 4:6–7. 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 4:24–31). 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 forgiveness, 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), 7:90–91. 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. 6:11–12). 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 God’s discipline 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 leading 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, aiteó, means “to ask, to ask for,” or “to request.” The second, erotaó, 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. 10 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999) 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 Editor’s note: Please note the writer’s words. The sentence emphasizes one’s 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 1:1119). But these three men did not take vows; it was God’s directive for Samson and John, and a mother’s 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 5:33–37 urges believers not to volunteer for oaths, it does not preclude accepting an oath (as in court). 19 Qumran text, 4Q Sama, 1 Sam. 1:22 ends with the words, “a Nazirite forever all the days of his life.” 20 Cf. Jeremiah 35. 12 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

While vows may be permitted for a New Testament believer, 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 5:33–37; 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 restitution. 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 22:1–4), for slander- ing a fiancée (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), 2:658–59. 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 God’s experiential forgiveness, but confession without repentance does not allow the believer’s fellowship with the

Lord to continue. Proverbs 26:11 gives a vivid picture of the failure 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 confessing 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 11:23–33 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 5:23–24. 14 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999)

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 God’s 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 $fmém 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 24:8–22; 26:17– 21). Jesus instructs his followers, If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him (Luke 17:3, cf. James 5:19–20).

Israel’s 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 8:33–34) or inward turmoil (Psalm 32:3–4) might lead an Israelite to confess his sin. The New Testament believer does well to explore whether outward troubles (1 Corinthians 11:29–30) 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 22:10–11) and Daniel made confession after studying Jeremiah’s 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 16 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999) this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless 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 follows 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 confession. 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 exomologeó. The other New Testament usages of the verb homologeó have to do

28 Paul knows that they are believers (2 Corinthians 1:1–2, 13–14, 21; 3:2–3; 6:14–16; 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: Redención Viva, 1992), 107–13. 29 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Library of Christian Clas- sics, vols. 20–21, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), III. iv (the section is on pages 1:622–69). 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 one’s ministry, etc.) before 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 Lord’s 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 confession’s 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 contrition, 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—

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

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 [email protected]. 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 proclaimed throughout the church to the present day. Yet, as early as Beza, Calvin’s successors began to append “but faith that saves is never alone” to “faith alone saves.”

Christianity Today rightly calls Kendall’s 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 Calvin’s theological legacy versus that of Perkins. After re- viewing Calvin’s 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 Puritanism’s central figures drew their theology, not from Calvin, but from Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva. Even J.I. Packer defends the Synod of Dort (1618–19) by putting words into Calvin’s 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 20 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #4 (Dec. 1999) 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 Kendall’s com- parison of Calvin with the Puritans:

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

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

Paul Helms highlights the importance of Kendall’s 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 followers 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. Kendall’s 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 theology, “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 Beza’s understanding of Calvin (nor from any other outside system), but from the Bible itself. The lesson we learn from Kendall’s 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.

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

—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 Every teaching session is open Dean, Jr., Charles Clough, not only to pastors, but to busi- Thomas Ice, Chet McCalley, nessmen, women, young with CTS professor John Nie- people—all who value the Word melä, and others. and free grace.