Does the Bible Teach Confession?

What the Reformers Objected To

From the 16th century onward, the Reformers challenged auricular confession—the verbal, private admission of all serious sins to a priest^[1]. For Luther, private confession could still have pastoral value, but the obligation to enumerate one’s faults to a priest as a condition for forgiveness seemed to him without scriptural foundation and burdensome to consciences. Classical Protestantism retained three ideas that summarize today’s popular objection.

Three Claims to Examine

The objection usually unfolds in three parts, each deserving serious consideration:

1. “Only God forgives sins” — therefore, a priest would have no power to remit faults (cf. Mk 2:7).
2. “One must confess sins directly to God” — Scripture invites an interior confession without a human intermediary (cf. 1 Jn 1:9).
3. “Confession to a priest was invented in the Middle Ages” — specifically at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

Each of these claims contains a kernel of truth: God is indeed the sole source of forgiveness; one must address God; and the Fourth Lateran Council did legislate on confession in 1215. But each draws a false conclusion from a true premise. The rest of this article explains why.

“Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?”

The heart of the objection is a Catholic truth. When Jesus says to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven,” the scribes inwardly protest:

“Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but God alone?” — Some scribes, Gospel of Mark 2:7^[2]

They are right in principle: only God forgives sin, because every sin is first an offense against God. The Church teaches this without reservation: “Only God forgives sins”^[3]. The question is not who is the source of forgiveness—it is God—but through what channel has God chosen to convey it to sinners after baptism.

Jesus Forgives “On Earth” and Gives This Power “To Men”

The immediate continuation of the episode is decisive. Jesus heals the paralytic precisely “so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mt 9:6). And Saint Matthew notes the crowd’s reaction:

“When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” — Gospel of Matthew 9:8^[4]

The text does not say “to one man” (Jesus alone) but “to men,” plural. This plural is serious exegetical evidence—not an isolated proof—that may legitimately be read as an anticipation: this divine power to forgive on earth is also meant to be exercised by commissioned men. The whole issue hinges on this articulation: God remains the only source, but He acts through instruments freely chosen by Him. To deny this is not to defend God’s sovereignty; it is to forbid Him to forgive as He said He would.

The Misunderstanding About the “One Mediator” (1 Tim 2:5)

It is immediately objected that “there is [...] one mediator between God and men: a man, Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5)^[5]. This is true and crucial. But the unique mediation of Christ does not exclude participated mediations: the same Saint Paul who writes this calls himself an “ambassador” through whom “God is making his appeal” (2 Cor 5:20). An ambassador does not compete with the king; he makes him present. Similarly, the priest who absolves does not replace Christ; he acts in persona Christi, by a power received and not owned personally. The logic is exactly the same as for the intercession of the saints: one source mediation, multiple derived mediations.

"Receive the Holy Spirit"

This is the foundational text. On the evening of His resurrection, Jesus joins the Apostles who are locked away, gives them His peace, and then sends them out as the Father sent Him:

“Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Having said this, “He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’” — Gospel of John 20:21-23^[6]

The gesture is not insignificant. The verb “breathed” (Greek emphysaô) appears only here in the entire New Testament: it is the very verb from Genesis when God breathes the breath of life into Adam’s nostrils (Gn 2:7)^[7]. Christ accomplishes a new creation: He imparts His Spirit for a specific mission, the forgiveness of sins.

To Forgive AND to Retain: a Power That Implies Judgment

The most overlooked detail of the verse is that it grants two powers, not just one: to forgive sins, but also to retain them. Yet one cannot decide to forgive or retain a fault that one does not know. A judicial power of discernment—pardoning in one case, withholding in another—necessarily requires that the minister hear what is involved. This is where the confession of sins ceases to be a pious option and becomes a logical consequence of Christ’s mandate: to exercise the power to bind or loose, the Apostle must know what to bind and what to loose.

This is exactly what Saint Jerome noted three centuries later when commenting on the power of the keys: the priest “when he has heard the diversity of sins, knows who must be bound and who must be loosed”^[8]—a statement unthinkable without prior confession.

The Connection with the Power of the Keys (Mt 16:19 and 18:18)

The power to forgive sins given on Easter evening continues an earlier promise. To Peter, Jesus said:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” — Gospel of Matthew 16:19^[9]

And to the college of Apostles shortly after: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Mt 18:18). Bind and loose are rabbinical terms that designate the power to forbid or permit, to condemn or to absolve. The judicial vocabulary is explicit, and it is entrusted to men, with heavenly ratification: what the minister decides on earth, God seals in heaven. Confession is the concrete place where this power of the keys is exercised over the particular soul of the sinner.

Saint Paul gives this mandate its technical name. God, he writes, “has reconciled us to himself through Christ and has given us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18). He immediately clarifies the nature of this service:

“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: be reconciled to God.” — Saint Paul, 2 Corinthians 5:20^[10]

The Greek word translated as “ministry” is diakonia: an established service, entrusted to specific persons — the Apostles and their successors — and not merely an internal disposition offered to all. God has “committed to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:19): the reconciliation of sinners with God now passes through a word entrusted to ministers. The same structure is found in John 20: the source is God, the channel is apostolic.

The epistle of James links the confession of faults, the prayer of ordained ministers, and forgiveness. The context is the care of the sick:

“Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another...” — Saint James 5:14-16^[11]

The Church’s “Elders,” Not Just Anyone

The decisive detail is that James does not send the sick person to just any neighbor, but to the “elders” (Greek presbyteroi, from which comes the word priest) “in office in the Church.” These are ordained ministers, acting officially. Their prayer, linked to the anointing “in the name of the Lord,” obtains both healing and the forgiveness of sins. The forgiveness of faults is therefore again connected to a specific ecclesial ministry, not to a purely private act.

“To One Another”: A Nuance That Does Not Eliminate the Minister

One might object that James writes “confess your sins to one another,” suggesting a mutual confession among the faithful, without a priest. But mutual and fraternal confession (excellent in itself) does not cancel the mention, two verses earlier, of the elders whose prayer obtains forgiveness. The text holds both: a Christian culture of confession and transparency, and an authorized ministry to which forgiveness is linked. The confession “to one another” does not erase the role of the presbyters any more than common prayer erases the role of the Apostles.

The confession of sins is not a Christian novelty that fell from the sky: it continues a logic already established in the Old Covenant, where the admission of fault and the mediation of the priest were linked to forgiveness.

Sacrificial Confession in the Law

The Mosaic Law explicitly provides for a confession of fault connected to the sacrifice of atonement:

“If a person becomes guilty in any of these matters, he shall confess the sin he has committed.” — Leviticus 5:5^[12]

Similarly, the book of Numbers states: “They shall confess the sin they have committed,” before restitution and reparation (Num 5:7)^[13]. Confession is therefore not an invention of later devotion; it belongs to the very structure of the biblical relationship to sin: to recognize, to speak, to repair.

The Leper Who Presents Himself to the Priest

The most telling analogy—and the one the Church Fathers will take up—is that of leprosy. In the Law, the leper does not declare himself clean: he must present himself to the priest, who examines and declares his condition (Lev 13–14). Jesus repeats this gesture: to the healed leper, he commands, “Go, show yourself to the priest” (Mt 8:4), and he sends the ten lepers: “Go and show yourselves to the priests” (Lk 17:14). Leprosy, a classic image of sin, must be submitted to the judgment of the priest. The Fathers saw in this the figure of confession: the sinner shows the wound of his soul to the one who has received the power to discern and reconcile.

John the Baptist and the Public Confession of Conversion

Finally, the Gospel opens with a practice of confession: crowds are baptized by John “confessing their sins” (Mt 3:6). And in the early Church at Ephesus, “many of those who had become believers came, confessing and disclosing their practices” (Acts 19:18). The confession of faults accompanies conversion from the very first pages of the New Testament.

If confession to priests had been an invention of 1215, the texts of the first five centuries would not mention it. Yet they speak of it abundantly. Here are the main witnesses from the 1st to the 5th century.

The Didache: “In the Assembly, You Shall Confess Your Faults”

The oldest manual of Christian life, the Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, late 1st century in the classical dating—criticism places its oldest layers at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries), already prescribes the confession of faults as a condition for pure prayer and worship:

“In the assembly, you shall confess your faults, and you shall not approach your prayer with a wicked conscience.” — Didache 4:14^[14]

And regarding the Sunday Eucharist: “On the Lord’s day, gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after first confessing your faults, so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 14:1)^[15]. We are here in the apostolic age, less than a century after the Resurrection.

Tertullian and Origen: Penance Is Not a Purely Private Act

At the beginning of the 3rd century, Tertullian describes ecclesial penance (exomologesis) as a public and ecclesial act, before the Church and its ministers, and reproaches some for avoiding it out of shame^[16]. A few decades later, Origen compares the paths of forgiveness and includes among them the “remission of sins through penance,” when the sinner “declares his sin” to the priest who judges it^[17]. Confession made to a minister is already a reality in the life of the Church.

Saint Cyprian of Carthage: Confessing One’s Sins to the Priests of God (251)

In his treatise On the Lapsed (De lapsis, 251), regarding Christians who had faltered during persecution, Saint Cyprian exhorts forgiveness obtained through the ministry of priests:

“I beg you, beloved brothers, that each one confess his fault while he is still in this world, while his confession can still be received, while the satisfaction and forgiveness granted by the priests are pleasing to the Lord.” — Saint Cyprian of Carthage, On the Lapsed, 29^[18]

Cyprian goes further: he praises those who, even without having committed an outward sin, “confess this to the priests of God” and thus lay down the burden of their conscience^[19]. This is in 251 — nearly a thousand years before the Fourth Lateran Council.

Saint Basil the Great: To Whom Should One Confess Sins? (c. 374)

In the East, Saint Basil sets forth a very clear rule about the recipient of confession:

“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of the mysteries of God has been entrusted.” — Saint Basil the Great, Short Rules, question 288^[20]

“Those to whom the dispensation of the mysteries of God has been entrusted” precisely designates the ordained ministers, not the indistinct body of the faithful.

Saint Ambrose of Milan: “This right was granted only to priests” (c. 390)

Against the Novatians, who denied the Church the power to remit certain grave sins, Saint Ambrose replies by directly appealing to John 20:

“This right was granted only to priests. [...] He who has received the Holy Spirit has also received the power to remit sins and to retain them.” — Saint Ambrose of Milan, On Penance, Book I, ch. 2^[21]

The argument is exactly that of the Catholic Church: the gift of the Spirit on Easter evening is inseparable from the power to remit sins — a power entrusted to ministers, not to all.

Saint John Chrysostom: A Power Denied to Angels

In his treatise On the Priesthood (circa 387), Saint John Chrysostom marvels at the power entrusted to the priests of the Church, superior to that of the highest heavenly creatures:

“The priests who dwell on earth have received an authority that God has given neither to angels nor archangels. [...] What the priests accomplish here below, God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of His servants.” — Saint John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, Book III^[22]

The connection with Matthew 18:18 (“whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”) is clear: Chrysostom describes the power of the keys exercised concretely in the life of the Church, by priests, over the sins of the faithful.

Saint Jerome: The Priest Who Judges Like the Leper Priest (398)

Saint Jerome, commenting on Matthew 16:19, precisely articulates the power of the keys and confession. The priest, he says, does not arbitrarily declare someone guilty or innocent: like the priest of the Old Law who examined leprosy, he discerns after hearing:

“Just as, in Leviticus, the priest declares the leper unclean — not that he makes him a leper, but because he discerns who is clean and who is not — so here the bishop or priest binds or looses, not the innocent or the guilty [at random], but, according to his office, when he has heard the diversity of sins, he knows who must be bound and who must be loosed.” — Saint Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, Book III^[23]

This text is doubly precious: it shows that the minister hears the sins (thus they are confessed to him) and it prevents abuse (the priest does not invent guilt, he discerns it). This is already the whole theology of the sacrament.

Summary Table of Early Witnesses

The table below gathers the main patristic witnesses to the confession of sins to the minister, from the 1st to the 5th century. It shows that the practice is more than a thousand years older than the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), often presented as its point of origin.

This is the most widespread historical objection. Let us examine exactly what this council did.

What the canon “Omnis utriusque sexus” really says

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), in its canon 21, prescribes:

“All the faithful of both sexes, who have reached the age of discretion, must faithfully confess all their sins at least once a year to their own priest [...] and receive with reverence, at least at Easter, the sacrament of the Eucharist.” — Fourth Lateran Council (1215), canon 21^[24]

The key verb is “at least once a year”. The council does not institute confession: it imposes a minimum frequency on a practice it already assumes to be known, common, and obligatory in itself. This is a text of discipline, not a text of institution.

Lateran IV did not invent, it regulated

The Catholic Encyclopedia soberly notes: far from instituting confession, this canon presupposes the already established obligation of confession and merely fixes its minimum frequency^[25]. In other words, the objection reverses reality: before 1215, confession existed but its frequency was left to conscience; after 1215, it became a dated obligation. One does not legislate on the frequency of something that does not exist.

The timeline above makes this visible at a glance: between the Didache and Lateran IV stretch eleven centuries of explicit testimonies. To claim that 1215 “invented” confession is like saying that the traffic code invented the automobile.

The Council of Trent directly answers the objection (1551)

Facing the Reformers, the Council of Trent addressed the question head-on during its 14th session (November 25, 1551). In its chapter on confession, it calls the idea of a medieval invention a “calumny”:

“The calumny of those who are not afraid to teach that [confession] is foreign to the divine command, that it is a human invention, and that it originated from the Fathers gathered at the Lateran Council, is manifestly refuted.” — Council of Trent, session XIV, ch. 5^[26]

Trent then solemnly defines the doctrine. Canon 6 targets precisely the Protestant thesis:

“If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or that it is necessary for salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to the priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is foreign to the institution and command of Christ, and that it is a human invention: let him be anathema.” — Council of Trent, session XIV, canon 6^[27]

Canon 7 specifies that, by divine law, one must confess “all mortal sins” remembered after careful examination, “including the most secret ones,” along with the circumstances that change the nature of the sin^[28]. And canon 8 links the annual obligation to the “constitution of the great Lateran council”^[29] — that is, it situates Lateran IV for what it is: a rule of frequency, not the origin of the sacrament.

Let us address the most frequent objections one by one, stating them honestly.

Objection 1 — “1 John 1:9 says to confess to God, not to a priest”

This objection relies on a beautiful verse: “If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins” (1 Jn 1:9). Response: this verse is true and the Church embraces it — every confession is ultimately addressed to God, the source of forgiveness. But the text nowhere says that the internal confession to God excludes the means instituted by Christ. To claim otherwise would be to oppose 1 John 1:9 to John 20:23, two verses from the same Johannine corpus. Consistency requires holding them together: one acknowledges one’s sins before God, and God has entrusted His Church with the power to forgive them in Christ’s name.

Objection 2 — “James says ‘confess your sins to one another,’ so not to a priest”

Response: as we have seen, the fraternal confession “to one another” (Jas 5:16) does not eliminate the role, mentioned two verses earlier, of the elders whose prayer obtains forgiveness (Jas 5:14-15). The passage does not oppose the two: it describes a Church where mutual transparency coexists with an authorized ministry. Reading “to one another” as excluding the priest forces the text to say the opposite of its immediate context.

Objection 3 — “There is only one mediator: 1 Timothy 2:5”

Response: the unique mediation of Christ (1 Tim 2:5) does not exclude participatory mediations — otherwise Paul himself could not call himself an “ambassador” through whom God calls (2 Cor 5:20), nor ask that people pray “for one another.” The priest adds nothing to Christ’s unique mediation: he is its visible instrument. This is precisely what the article on the intercession of the saints defends.

Objection 4 — “No verse speaks of a private ‘auricular’ confession”

Response: the word “auricular” (from the ear, meaning whispered) is late, but the reality is in the texts. The power to retain as well as to forgive (Jn 20:23) presupposes a confession that is heard; Saint Jerome explicitly says the priest acts “when he has heard the variety of sins.” The secret, individual form developed over the centuries — Trent notes that it has been observed “from the beginning” — but the principle (confessing sins to an authorized minister to receive forgiveness) is New Testament. Demanding the exact word in the text would be like denying the Trinity because the word does not appear there.

Objection 5 — “It’s unnecessary: God reads hearts”

Response: that God already knows our sins is precisely the reason why confession teaches Him nothing — it is made for us, not to inform Him. The Incarnation is entirely within this logic: God, who needs nothing, chooses sensible signs (the water of baptism, the Eucharistic bread, the word of absolution) to reach beings of flesh. Verbal confession humbles pride, engages the body and will, and gives the penitent a certainty that internal examination never provides: hearing from the mouth of a minister of Christ that one’s sins are truly forgiven.

The topic of confession illustrates a remarkable coherence among the three great authorities of the Catholic faith — Scripture, the living Tradition of the Fathers, and the Magisterium of the councils — as developed in the article on Tradition in the Bible.

The conclusion is self-evident. To the question “Does the Bible teach confession?”, the honest answer is: yes — not as a ritual detached from God, but as the channel willed by Christ to bring sinners the forgiveness of which God alone is the source. The priest is not a screen between the soul and God; he is, according to Paul’s own words, the ambassador through whom “God himself makes his appeal: be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:20).

• Is Confession Biblical? — the same question treated from a complementary angle, with the voices of the saints and the modern historical-critical debate.
• How to Make a Good Confession? — a practical guide to the sacrament, step by step.
• Can One Receive Communion in a State of Mortal Sin? — why confession precedes communion.
• Does the Bible Teach Tradition? — Scripture and Tradition, two channels of one Revelation.
• Does the Bible Teach the Intercession of the Saints? — the unique mediation of Christ and participated mediations.
• Does the Bible Teach the Real Presence? — another contested sacrament, same logic of institution.
• Does the Bible Teach Purgatory? — forgiveness, punishment, and purification.
• Does Tradition Contradict the Bible? — the false opposition between the two.