Is Confession Biblical?

Before listing verses, it is necessary to defuse a misunderstanding that poisons the debate. Asking “where is the word confession?” is not the right question — and no one applies it to other truths of the faith.

The word is not the thing

No Christian finds the word Trinity in their Bible; they find the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and the Church coined the word to express the reality. The same applies to confession. What Scripture must contain is not the later theological vocabulary, but the reality: a power to forgive sins entrusted to men, and a confession of faults by which the sinner presents himself to that forgiveness. And these two elements are indeed in the sacred text, as we will see.

It is also necessary to distinguish two things that the question confuses: confessing one’s sins, that is, recognizing and admitting them — a constant practice throughout the Bible — and the sacrament of confession, where this admission receives from the Church’s minister an absolution that comes from Christ. The second presupposes the first but adds the unique gift of Easter.

Three objections in one

Under the question “Is confession biblical?” lie actually three distinct objections, which must be separated to answer each clearly.

The first is scriptural: the sacrament is not in the Bible. The second is theological: only God can forgive, not a man. The third is historical: auricular confession was invented in the 13th century. All three are serious; all three have answers. This article will address them in this order: first the scriptural foundation (the heart of the matter), then the biblical and patristic practice of confession, then the question of the minister, and finally the historical question, reserved for the last part.

The entire sacrament rests on a gospel fact: Christ communicated to men His own power to forgive. This is not a later deduction; it is an explicit gift, reported by Saint John, prepared by Saint Matthew, confirmed by Saint Paul.

“Whose sins you forgive” — John 20:21-23

On Easter evening, the Risen One appears to the Apostles locked in the Upper Room. His first action is not teaching but an institution:

“Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, so I send you […]. Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them; whose sins you retain are retained.”
— Gospel according to Saint John 20:21-23^[1]

Every word matters. Christ sends the Apostles as the Father sent Him—thus He transmits to them His mission of salvation. He breathes on them the Holy Spirit, a gesture of new creation recalling God breathing life into Adam (Gn 2:7). And He specifies the purpose of this outpouring: to forgive or retain sins. Such power would be meaningless if it were not meant to be exercised—and to be exercised with discernment (to forgive or retain), it presupposes that the minister knows the sins in question. This is already, in seed form, confession.

The Council of Trent reads this verse as the very act of institution of the sacrament: “The Lord principally instituted the sacrament of penance when, risen from the dead, He breathed on His disciples saying: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit…’”^[2]. Twenty centuries of Christian faith have heard in this word not a general blessing, but the granting of a precise judicial power.

“Bind and loose”: the keys entrusted to the Church

The Paschal gift of John 20 does not fall from the sky: it fulfills a promise made long before. At Caesarea Philippi, Christ says to Peter:

“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 according to Saint Matthew 16:19^[3]

Two chapters later, the same power to bind and loose is extended to all the Apostles (Mt 18:18), precisely in a context of fraternal correction and reconciliation of the sinner^[4]. Now, in the rabbinic language of the time, bind and loose means to declare permitted or forbidden, but also to exclude or readmit a member of the community. Applied to sin, this means: the power to retain (exclude from communion) or to forgive (reintegrate). This is exactly what John 20 will call forgiving and retaining sins. The coherence of the three texts is striking: promise to Peter, extension to the Twelve, fulfillment at Easter.

“A power given to men”

The objection arises immediately: but only God forgives sins! The scribes themselves said this before the paralytic: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mk 2:7). This is true—and it is precisely here that the Gospel is strongest. After healing the paralytic to prove He has this power, Christ communicates it. Saint Matthew notes the reaction of the crowds with decisive precision:

“When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.”
— Gospel according to Saint Matthew 9:8^[5]

The plural—to men—is a scandal deliberately intended by the evangelist: God, in Jesus, does not jealously keep the power to forgive; He entrusts it to men. Forgiveness does not cease to be divine because it passes through a minister; it remains the work of God alone, but God has chosen to make it present, tangible, audible, through the word of a man. This is the whole logic of the Incarnation, which continues in the sacraments: invisible salvation is given through visible signs.

The ministry of reconciliation

Saint Paul, who was not in the Upper Room on Easter evening, nevertheless received and transmitted the same awareness. He describes his apostleship as a ministry entrusted for the reconciliation of men with God:

“All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation […]. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: be reconciled to God.”
— Saint Paul, Second Epistle to the Corinthians 5:18-20^[6]

The expression is crucial. Paul does not only say that God reconciles; he says that God has entrusted a ministry of reconciliation, and that this ministry is exercised by ambassadors—through us, it is God who exhorts. An ambassador does not speak on his own behalf: he carries the authority of the one who sends him. Forgiveness therefore remains divine; the channel is apostolic. This is exactly the structure of the sacrament of penance.

The power to forgive sins calls for its counterpart: the confession of the sinner. Here again, far from being an ecclesiastical invention, the admission of faults runs throughout Scripture, from the Law of Moses to the Acts of the Apostles.

In the Old Testament

Israel already knew the connection between sin, confession, and priestly mediation. The Law prescribes that the one who has sinned “shall confess the sin he has committed” before offering the sacrifice of atonement (Lv 5:5)^[7]. On the great Day of Atonement, the high priest Aaron confesses over the head of the scapegoat “all the iniquities of the Israelites” before sending it into the wilderness: sin is named, confessed, and symbolically carried away (Lv 16:21)^[8]. The Book of Numbers similarly links confession and restitution: “They shall confess the sin they have committed, and the man shall restore…” (Nb 5:6-7)^[9].

The penitential Psalms make this confession a deeply spiritual experience. David, reproved by the prophet Nathan, discovers that hidden sin eats away at the soul, and that confession frees:

“I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.”
— Psalm 32 (31), 5^[10]

This movement — I confessed, you forgave — is already the entire grammar of Christian confession.

John the Baptist and the Door of the Gospel

The Gospel opens with a scene of confession. Those who come to the Jordan to receive John’s baptism “were baptized by him… confessing their sins” (Mt 3:6; Mk 1:5)^[11]. Even before the Passion, the admission of faults accompanies the act of conversion. Christ, in instituting his own sacrament, does not break with this practice: he elevates it and gives it its definitive efficacy.

“Confess your sins to one another” — James 5

The epistle of Saint James offers the oldest comprehensive picture of what will become the sacraments of the sick and of penance. The context is liturgical and priestly: the “elders [presbyters] of the Church” are called, who pray and anoint the sick person:

*“Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick person… and *if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore confess your sins to one another.”
— Epistle of Saint James 5:14-16^[12]

The text does not simply say confess; it places the confession within a precise framework — the intervention of the presbyters, prayer, anointing, and the promise that sins will be forgiven. This is indeed the forgiveness of sins linked to an ordained ministry, not a mere confidence between friends. We will return later to the Protestant objection that reads here a purely mutual confession: the context forbids it.

“They came confessing their deeds” — Acts 19 and 1 John

The early Church already practiced public confession of sins. In Ephesus, under Paul’s preaching, “many of those who had believed came confessing and declaring their deeds” (Ac 19:18)^[13]. And Saint John makes confession the normal condition for forgiveness:

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
— First Epistle of Saint John 1:9^[14]

The common objection — “this verse says we confess to God, not to a priest” — will be examined at the end. For now, let us note that all Scripture, without exception, holds confession of sins as necessary for forgiveness. Confession is therefore never presented as an invention: it is the normal behavior of the sinner before mercy.

This is the theological objection, the deepest one. It deserves an answer, even if the full dossier is treated elsewhere: see Why confess to a priest?.

“To retain” implies knowing

The internal logic of John 20:23 is irrefutable. Christ gives the power to forgive or retain sins. But one cannot forgive or retain knowingly what one does not know. If forgiveness were purely automatic, without discernment, the word retain would have no meaning. The sacrament therefore presupposes that the sinner makes known his faults to the minister, so that he may exercise, in the name of Christ, the judgment of mercy. This is why the Council of Trent teaches that the confession of sins is required by divine law, because the priest could not exercise the power received without it:

“The priests could not exercise this judgment without knowing the cause, nor maintain equity in imposing penalties, if the faithful declared their sins only in a general way, and not rather specifically and in detail.”
— Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter 5 (1551)^[15]

God forgives — through men he sends

The true answer to “only God forgives” is not to deny the premise, but to turn it around. Yes, God alone forgives sins — the Catechism says so plainly: “Only God forgives sins” (CCC §1441)^[16]. But this same God willed that his forgiveness become accessible, audible, certain, through the ministry of the Apostles and their successors: “by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name” (CCC §1441)^[17]. The priest is never the source of forgiveness; he is the channel willed by God. To refuse this channel in the name of “God alone” is to refuse the very way God has chosen to save: through the Incarnation extended, through sensible signs, through the Church.

If confession were a medieval invention, the early Christian centuries would have been unaware of it. It is quite the opposite: from the earliest texts, the admission of sins and reconciliation through the Church are attested.

The Didache: "In the assembly, confess your faults"

The oldest manual of Christian life, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (written between the late 1st and early 2nd century), commands the confession of sins twice:

"In the assembly, you shall confess your faults, and you shall not approach prayer with a wicked conscience."
— Didache, IV, 14^[18]

The same writing prescribes, before the Sunday Eucharist: "After you have confessed your sins, break the bread […] so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache XIV, 1)^[19]. From the very first Christian generation, then, the confession of faults is linked to the liturgical life of the community.

Tertullian, Cyprian: the exomologesis

At the turn of the 3rd century, Tertullian describes at length the exomologesis, this public penitential act by which the sinner acknowledges their fault before the Church to obtain forgiveness (De Paenitentia, 9-12)^[20]. Saint Cyprian of Carthage, during the crisis of the lapsi (those who had denied the faith during the persecution of Decius, 250-251), attests to a confession made to the priests of God:

"Let them confess their fault to the priests of God with sorrow and simplicity […], let them lay bare the burden of their soul and seek the saving remedy even for slight wounds."
— Saint Cyprian of Carthage, De Lapsis, 28 (circa 251)^[21]

Here, a millennium before Lateran IV, is a confession of sins made to an ordained minister for the purpose of reconciliation. The practice existed; only its form would evolve.

Origen, Saint Basil, Saint John Chrysostom

The great doctors of the East bear witness to the same conviction. Origen compares the priest to the physician of souls to whom one reveals one’s ailment (Homilies on Leviticus, II, 4)^[22]. Saint Basil teaches, in his Brief Rules, that sins must be disclosed "to those entrusted with the dispensation of the mysteries of God"^[23]. But it is Saint John Chrysostom who expresses most forcefully the boldness of the power received by priests:

"The priests have received a power that God has given neither to angels nor archangels. For it was not said to them: ‘Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.’ […] ‘The sins you forgive shall be forgiven.’ What power could be greater than that?"
— Saint John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, Book III (circa 387)^[24]

Such teaching, in the 4th century, in the still united Christian East, would be unthinkable if the forgiveness of sins by the priest had been a novelty. It was the common faith.

Here lies the real historical objection — and it calls for an honest response. The form of penance did indeed change over the centuries. But a change of form does not mean invention of the reality.

The canonical penance of the early centuries

In Christian antiquity, the reconciliation of major public sinners (apostasy, murder, adultery) took the form of canonical penance: solemn, often public, sometimes lasting several years, and — in many Churches — non-repeatable, so demanding was it. The confession was made to the bishop or priest; reconciliation was given by the laying on of hands. This strict discipline — often non-repeatable depending on place and time — sheds light on the then-frequent practice of deferring baptism: the most famous case is that of Emperor Constantine, baptized shortly before his death, in May 337^[25]. He himself declared that he had wished to receive this baptism in the Jordan, following the example of Christ, and wished to delay it no longer: the exact motives for such delays (fear of post-baptismal discipline, the custom of late baptism, political considerations) remain debated among historians, with no single motive established. Not because forgiveness was lacking, but because the form of reconciliation was daunting.

The "tariffed" penance from Ireland

From the 6th–7th centuries, Celtic and Irish monks spread on the continent a new practice in its form: a private, repeatable confession, followed by a penance proportionate to the fault (hence the name "tariffed" penance, regulated by penitentials). This is not another sacrament: it is the same pardon of Christ, offered in a more accessible and frequent form. This practice became widespread because it met a real need: to allow the ordinary Christian to rise again as often as he falls.

Lateran IV (1215): regulating, not inventing

It is in this context that the Fourth Lateran Council promulgated, in 1215, the famous canon Omnis utriusque sexus: every faithful who has reached the age of reason must confess "all their sins" to their own priest at least once a year^[26]. It is often repeated that this canon "invented confession." This is false, and history clearly shows it. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes unambiguously: this canon "did nothing more than confirm earlier legislation and custom, and it has often been mistakenly cited as prescribing for the first time the use of sacramental confession"^[27]. Lateran IV did not create confession: it set a minimum frequency, because fervor had cooled and many no longer confessed. One does not make obligatory what does not exist.

The Church's doctrine on confession is therefore not a late construction but the explanation of a gift received from Christ. Two major texts summarize it.

The Council of Trent (Session XIV, 1551)

In response to Protestant challenges, the Council of Trent precisely defines the Catholic faith on penance (Doctrina de sacramento paenitentiae, Session XIV, November 25, 1551). It teaches that the sacrament was instituted by Christ, that the confession of serious sins is of divine law, and it condemns the idea that it is a human invention:

“If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted or is necessary for salvation by divine law; 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 a human invention: let him be anathema.” — Council of Trent, Session XIV, Canon 6^[28]

Canon 7 specifies that the confession must include all mortal sins, even hidden ones, according to their number and kind^[29]. Trent here solemnly states what the Church’s practice has always attested.

The Catechism: The Sacrament of Reconciliation

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) devotes a lengthy exposition to the sacrament (§§ 1422-1470). It recalls its Paschal foundation: “Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation” (CCC § 1461)^[30]. It distinguishes its various names — conversion, penance, confession, forgiveness, reconciliation (CCC §§ 1423-1424) — each illuminating a facet of the same gift. And it summarizes the acts of the penitent: contrition, the confession of sins to the priest, and satisfaction or reparation (CCC §§ 1450-1460)^[31]. For practical guidance, see How to Make a Good Confession?.

Confession is not primarily a thesis to defend: it is a source of life that the saints have praised. None of them saw it as a burden invented by the Church, but as the tenderest place of mercy.

The Curé of Ars, Saint John Mary Vianney, spent up to sixteen hours a day in the confessional; the Catechism takes up this saying from him:

“It is the priest who continues the work of redemption on earth.” — Saint John Mary Vianney, quoted by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 1589^[32]

Saint Padre Pio’s confessional attracted immense crowds^[33]. Saint Faustina Kowalska reports this word of Christ, which condenses all that theology demonstrates:

“Tell souls where they are to look for solace; that is, in the Tribunal of Mercy [the Sacrament of Reconciliation]. There the greatest miracles take place [and] are incessantly repeated… it suffices to come with faith to the feet of My representative and to reveal to him one's misery…” — Jesus to Saint Faustina, Diary, § 1448^[34]

Saint Francis de Sales, Doctor of Gentleness, and Saint Alphonsus Liguori, patron of confessors, wrote entire pages to free souls from fear of the confessional and to let them taste its peace^[35]. What these saints experienced is not a disciplinary constraint but the joy of going forth free — the very joy of the prodigal son returning into the Father’s arms (Lk 15:20-24).

Some contemporary exegesis and Protestant tradition challenge the biblical foundation of confession. These objections must be presented fairly — then shown why they do not overturn the positive case.

“Auricular Confession Was Invented in 1215”

This is the most widespread historical objection. We have already encountered it: it confuses the thing with its form. It is true that private, individual, and frequent confession, as we practice it, became widespread around the turn of the first millennium, and that the Fourth Lateran Council fixed its minimum frequency in 1215. But the power to forgive sins (Jn 20:23), the confession of faults to a minister (Cyprian, 3rd century), and reconciliation by the Church (Didache, canonical penance) are attested much earlier. Lateran IV invented nothing: it regulated a practice that had cooled down, as even critical historians acknowledge^[36]. Dating the origin of the sacrament to 1215 is confusing the birth certificate with the census record.

“James Speaks of Mutual Confession Among Laypeople”

The objection concerns James 5:16: “Confess your sins to one another” would mean a simple fraternal sharing, not a sacrament. But the verse cannot be read outside its immediate context (Jas 5:14-15), which features the elders of the Church, prayer, anointing, and remission of sins. The reciprocal confession recommended in verse 16 fits within this ministerial framework; it does not negate it. Reducing James 5 to group therapy ignores the surrounding verses — precisely those that speak of ordained elders and sins forgiven.

“Only God Can Forgive Sins”

The fundamental theological objection has already been answered: it is true in its premise and false in its conclusion. Yes, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mk 2:7). But the Gospel itself answers by showing God who “gave such power to men” (Mt 9:8) and the risen Christ who explicitly entrusts it to the Apostles (Jn 20:23). Opposing “God alone” to the priestly ministry is opposing Christ to His own word. The priest does not replace God: he lends his voice and hands to a forgiveness that remains, from beginning to end, the work of God (CCC § 1441).

The same applies to 1 John 1:9, quoted above: “If we confess our sins…” — the verse says to whom confession opens forgiveness (God, faithful and just), not before whom it must be spoken; it therefore does not exclude the minister established by Christ (Jn 20:23), any more than James 5:16 excludes the presbyters named two verses earlier.

Luther, Calvin, and the Fate of Confession in the Reformation

The Protestant refusal itself is neither unanimous nor original. Luther, at first, retained private confession and absolution: the Augsburg Confession (1530), foundational text of Lutheranism, declares in Article XI: “Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession an enumeration of all sins is not necessary.”^[37] It is especially Calvin who rejects confession as a sacrament, in the name of sola Scriptura and a reading of “God alone forgives” that excludes any mediation. But this reading, as we have seen, clashes with John 20:23 and Matthew 9:8. The Reformed objection is therefore not an obvious biblical fact: it is a late and contested interpretation, even within Protestantism, of a set of texts that the Church reads more coherently.

There remains an unshakable conviction: if the risen Christ took the trouble, on the very evening of Easter, to breathe His Spirit upon the Apostles to give them the power to forgive sins, it is because this gift was meant to last. Confession is not the burden of a suspicious Church; it is the extension, up to our time, of the first gesture of the Risen One toward sinners. For the related question of the canon and the wording of the text, see Does the Bible teach confession?; for the deeper meaning of returning to God, What is reconciliation with God? and What is repentance?.

• Does the Bible teach confession? — the direct objection of vocabulary and the question of the canon.
• Why confess to a priest? — the complete dossier on the human minister of forgiveness.
• How to make a good confession? — the practice: examination, contrition, confession, absolution, satisfaction.
• What is a sacrament? — the sensible sign that gives grace.
• What is repentance? and What is reconciliation with God?.