The Bible is clear that we should confess our moral and spiritual failures, but the subject of confession can be confusing even for long-time Christians. Does the Bible teach that it is a public or a private thing? Should we confess all or just some of our faults to others? Do we need a priest or minister in order to confess? Understanding what the Bible teaches on this topic can help us answer these and other questions we may have on the subject.
There are actually a number of different words in the Bible that are translated “confess” or “confession” in English. In the Old Testament the most important word translated “confess” is the Hebrew word yada which can mean “to praise / give glory,” or “to confess an offence.” When Joshua tells the thief Achan “give glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and honor him. Tell me what you have done; do not hide it from me” (Joshua 7:19), he is using the word yada and we can see both senses of the word – to give praise or glory, and to confess – in this verse. When we confess our sins, we are acknowledging God is right and we are wrong, so we are praising or giving glory to God in addition to admitting our own faults.
In the New Testament there are also several words translated “confess,” but the most important is homologeō which is a compound word meaning “to say the same.” Just like yada in the Old Testament, this Greek word can be used in the sense of praising God (acknowledging that God is God and that he is right) or confessing that we are sinful (acknowledging that God is right in his judgment).
This dual meaning of the biblical words translated confess is the reason why Bible verses seem to use the word in two very different ways – positively, to confess our faith, and negatively, to confess our faults. Thus, when the apostle Paul wrote “And every tongue [will] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11) and when Matthew tells us regarding the people who went to John the Baptist “Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River” (Matthew 3:60), they are using the same Greek word – homologeō.
But how exactly should we go about the kind of confession that involves admitting our faults and sins? Some biblical verses seem to speak of private confession to God (for example, David’s psalm of repentance, Psalm 51), while others speak of public confession (for example, Acts 19:18-19 which tells us “Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly.”
A good way to understand the way in which confession should be accomplished is found in the statement that our confession should usually be as wide as our sin. This means that if we have sinned secretly, in most cases we should confess the sin to God and we need not confess it to others (more on this later). However, if we have sinned against another person, we should usually confess the sin to God and to the individual we have wronged. Finally, if we have sinned in a way that affects many people, we should confess it to God and sometimes also in public.
Notice that in explaining this principle of confession we have used the words “usually” and “sometimes.” This is because there is no hard and fast rule given in the Bible or even that we can make ourselves. We may need to act differently according to different circumstances. For example, in the case of a secret, personal sin we might wish to ask our pastor or a trusted Christian friend to pray for us in dealing with the sin we are fighting. This is the principle of accountability which can be very helpful in some cases, but it is a principle that should always be applied with wisdom and care – we should never simply “unload” our sins and faults on another person simply because they are a Christian.
When we realize that circumstances affect how confession to others is managed (in every circumstance we should confess our sins to God, of course), we can better understand the apostle James’ words with which we began this short article. In context, James tells us: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). Here, we see that James is talking about confession to elders of the church (vs. 14) regarding sins that may have brought sickness upon us or prevented our healing (vss. 14-15). So this is not speaking of confession in all circumstances. Second, notice that James speaks of confessing our sins to “one another,” which indicates that in some circumstances confession should be mutual. Certainly, the New Testament shows us that it is Jesus Christ who is our true mediator and the one through whom we are forgiven (“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”– 1 John 1:9), so our attitude is never one of looking to others for forgiveness, but simply for help in fulfilling the responsibility of repentance and growth that we all share.
In summary, the Bible teaching on the matter of confession is not one in which there is one rule for every circumstance. We should always confess our faults to God, but we should use wisdom, care, and discretion in deciding how widely the confession of certain sins should be made to others.
Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), and the New Testament stresses that his followers are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven (Philippians 3:20). But does this mean that as Christians we should not love and identify with our individual countries? Some feel that honoring a physical country is contrary to the understanding of Christian “citizenship” – what does the Bible teach on this?
It is certainly true that every Christian is called to a universal family in which there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile, male or female (Galatians 3:28 ) – or for that matter, Americans, English, French, Nigerians or citizens of any nation. But many scriptures show that as members of the family of God, we can still appreciate and celebrate our own individual cultural heritage or nationality.
A verse often used to help show that our identity with our own nation is acceptable is Jeremiah 29:7, where God’s people were encouraged to pray for their city (which was, at that time, Babylon!) and country. In a similar manner, we find Psalm 122:6 urging us to “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem” and many other psalms praying for, or encouraging others to pray for, the land and people of Israel.
So identity with and support of one’s nation is certainly found in the Old Testament, but what about the New Testament – did Christ’s teaching and the establishment of the Christian faith do away with love and concern for one’s country?
When we remember that Jesus wept over the fate of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39, Luke 19:41-44) and the apostle Paul wrote that one of his chief desires was for his fellow Jews to be saved (Romans 10:1), we see the expression of a specific attitude. That attitude does not view the Israelites as being more important than other peoples (John 10:16; 1 Timothy 2:4), but it shows the importance of the welfare of one’s country and fellow citizens for both Jesus and Paul.
At the most basic level, the question “Is love of country biblical?” revolves around the concept of nations within the Bible. Are the nations themselves purely human constructs that somehow are in opposition to God’s will? The Scriptures give overwhelming evidence that this is not so. Abraham was told by God that all the nations of the world – not just the peoples – would be blessed through him (Genesis 22:18). Deuteronomy 32:8 tells us that God himself gave the nations their inheritance and set their boundaries, and we see the continuation of the individual nations in God’s plan for humanity throughout the books of the Bible.
Consider the many verses that show this in the Bible’s final book. The Book of Revelation tells us that those who overcome will rule over the nations (Revelation 2:26), and that all nations will eventually worship before God (Revelation 15:4). At its conclusion, in its description of the New Earth, Revelation stresses that the nations will walk according to God’s light (Revelation 21:24), that the glory and honor of the nations will be brought into the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:26), and that the tree of life will be there for the healing of the nations (Revelation 22:2).
So the Bible does not show that human nations are simply part of human government that will be superseded by the government of God – nations are clearly in existence in the Kingdom of God itself. We should never place our physical nation, like anything else, before our allegiance to God (Acts 5:29), but we are free to appreciate and support our individual nations and, like Jesus and Paul, to love them.
As Christians we know and understand that the Church is the “Body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27) – that it is a body of individual people who have become spiritually fused in him. Yet we must sometimes remind ourselves of what the Church is not.
Church is not a building you go to
William “Billy” Sunday’s famous line that “Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you an automobile” is still as true now as it was back in the early part of the Twentieth Century, and it is a principle with deep scriptural support. The Church is not the physical building, but the spiritual one.
The apostle Peter affirmed this in writing: “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house…” (1 Peter 2:5), and the author of the book of Hebrews likewise tells us: “But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory” (Hebrews 3:6).
Confusing the physical building with the spiritual building and its mission can lead to problems when resources and time are focused on the physical place we worship rather than the job the worship calls us to do. A church building may be a nice structure, with beautiful stained glass windows, but the Spirit of God does not work through buildings. A way to test our own relationship with that truth is to ask ourselves, rather than saying “Today is the day we go to church,” how natural is it to say “Today is the day the Church goes to our building.”
Church is not a denomination you join
The famous pastor and writer A. W. Tozer was fond of saying that “One hundred religious persons knit into a unity by careful organization do not constitute a church any more than eleven dead men make a football team.” We can apply this truth to the understanding that the Church of God is not a denomination – no matter how large (or exclusively small). We must frequently remind ourselves that not all Christians are in any one denomination, and not everyone in any denomination is a Christian.
We have only to read the book of Acts to see that even the earliest Church had “denominations” – we read of factions which required circumcision and those who did not, groups that taught all aspects of the law of Moses and those who did not – yet they are all said to have been part of the Church.
For most of us this may not be an issue. But many Christians do shy away from fellowship with those who do not agree with them on all points of doctrine. And sometimes the division is even within denominations. It is not entirely uncommon for congregations to sometimes focus on their own needs and programs rather than on the bigger picture of what is being done nationally and worldwide. In either case, it can be helpful for us all to think of the Church more broadly.
Church is not a social activity you participate in
In the famous words of American basketball player and coach John Wooden, we should “Never mistake activity for achievement,” and unless we see the Church as something very distinct from church activities, we can faithfully participate in socials, campouts, sing-alongs, movie nights and all kinds of other activities without ever having fulfilled the purpose of the Church in our lives. As Christian writer Thom Rainer puts it in an article discussing activity-driven churches: “Many churches are busy, probably too busy. Church calendars fill quickly with a myriad of programs and activities. While no individual activity may be problematic, the presence of so many options can be” (Seven Problems with an Activity Driven Church).
We all understand that fellowship is an integral part of what the Church is all about, but an endless stream of activities replaces real fellowship with activities having their own focus, and that can be self-defeating for any congregation. Among his seven points Rainer reminds us that activity is not biblical purpose, that busyness can take us away from connecting with other believers and non-believers. A congregation that is too busy can hurt families, and an activity-driven church often has no real presence in the community.
These are all things we should think about at times. It is vital that every Christian understand that activities are not really church any more than buildings or individual denominations are. We are called to a community that far exceeds any and all of these things.
There are many lessons to be learned from the book of Job, and among them are important lessons we can learn from his friends. Despite their lack of understanding regarding Job’s situation and the errors they made in what they said in that regard, Job’s friends got some things right and their story can teach us worthwhile lessons in helping those who are suffering:
1. They were attentive.
Although Job and his friends were separated by considerable distances, they obviously stayed in touch to the extent that they knew that Job was suffering and could use their encouragement. We cannot help others if we fail to stay connected and are not attentive to their needs – whether they are friends, co-workers, aged family members, or others. Job’s friends were not so wrapped up in their own lives that they were disconnected from his; they were not too busy to stay in touch and see when he needed them.
2. They got involved.
When they became aware of Job’s situation, his friends acted on the knowledge. They did not simply pray for Job – right and proper as that would be – they got involved to do what they could do directly. The friends doubtless sacrificed considerable time and energy in traveling to Job from other lands, and they apparently came at once rather than waiting for a convenient time, after the harvest, after the summer heat, or whatever.
3. They coordinated.
Job 2:11 tells us that Job’s friends: “met together to go and sympathize with Job and comfort him,” or, as the ESV translates this verse: “They made an appointment together to come to show him sympathy and comfort him.” The three friends clearly coordinated with each other to help Job. We can learn from this by seeing the value of reaching out to let others know of a person’s need and by helping to coordinate visits or help for the individual from different people at different times.
4. They reacted appropriately.
The Bible tells us to “Mourn with those who mourn” (Romans 12:15), and we are told that when Job’s friends saw him “they began to weep aloud, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads” (Job 2:12). Tearing one’s clothes and throwing dust or ashes on oneself was a sign of mourning in the ancient world, and this is what Job himself had done (Job 2:8). Jobs’ friends grieved deeply for him and they expressed their emotions in clear but appropriate ways that helped Job see they identified with him and his suffering.
5. They did best when they said less.
The friends said nothing for seven days (2:13), and while they commiserated in silence the friends did no wrong. It was only once they began to comment on the situation that their mistaken assumptions of Job’s guilt made him even more miserable and eventually earned a rebuke from God himself. The friends’ statements about children who do wrong or who suffer for their parents’ wrongdoing (Job 5:4; 8:4; 21:19; etc.) were doubtless especially painful to Job who had just lost his own children (Job 1:5). Often, when people are suffering, we may try to say something to make the situation better or to offer encouragement – but what we say at such times can inadvertently appear to be arguing with the sufferer or hurt in other ways (Job 16:4; 19:2). Job’s friends showed there are times when it is better to say less and allow our physical presence to do most of the talking.
6. They stayed with Job.
Despite their failings with words, Job’s friends stayed with him for at least seven days – it was no quick visit just to offer condolences. We may not always be able to give up extended periods of time to help others, but the principle of staying with the sufferer means doing things such as continuing to contact them, to see if they need help and to give them an opportunity to talk about their situation. We should notice that even when the friends stopped trying to speak to Job (Job 32:1), they did not leave for home – they stayed and continued sitting with him for some time.
These six lessons are simple enough, but applying them in our interaction with those who are suffering can make a great deal of difference.
Luke’s Gospel indicates that the evangelist may have particularly appreciated good food – at least it shows clearly that he noticed and commented on food more than any other Gospel writer! But Luke does not simply mention food and meals – he draws lessons from them, as we will see.
First, as a frame of reference, we should notice that Luke’s account of the life of Jesus really does have a noticeable focus on food. For example, while Matthew uses the word “eat” 18 times, and John only 15 times, Luke uses the word 33 times. Mark also uses this word quite frequently (25 times), but overall Luke uses a number of eating and food-related words twice as many times as Mark and the other Gospels, so his emphasis on this is clear. Within his Gospel, Luke also – uniquely – describes ten meals in which Jesus participated, and we will look at them all briefly.
1) Dining with the Despised. Luke 5:27-32 tells the story of how Jesus accepted an invitation to “a great banquet” at the home of Levi (Matthew) – one of the hated tax collectors employed by the Romans. We are told that “a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them” and that the Pharisees and religious teachers who saw this complained “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” The first meal Luke describes immediately teaches us that eating with others is an important form of showing true acceptance. It’s a lesson we can all learn from. Is there someone we could eat with as a way to show our acceptance and love for them?
2) The Horrible Host. Luke 7:36-50 records how Jesus went to eat at the home of a certain Simon, one of the Pharisees who invited him but did not provide him with any of the normal forms of welcome and comfort. Dinners such as this were often eaten partially outdoors in the cool of the day, which meant that the woman who came to anoint Jesus with costly perfume would have been able to see and go to him. But the woman crossed an invisible social barrier in doing this and in her subsequent actions, and when the self-righteous Pharisee became indignant Jesus gently corrected him while showing support for the woman. Sadly, in many families, more arguments occur during meals than at any other time, and Jesus’ actions teach a valuable lesson in the effective de-escalation of interpersonal tensions in such circumstances. We can learn a lesson from this regarding keeping our meals and interactions positive.
3) Catering to a Crowd. Luke 9:10-17 tells how a large crowd of people followed Jesus to hear his teaching, and the disciples then urged him to send them away so that they could find food and lodging. Jesus felt empathy for the tired and hungry crowds, however, and performed the miracle of feeding the crowd of five thousand with only two fish and five loaves of bread. The story contains a symbolic lesson in that the twelve baskets of “crumbs” the disciples gathered up after the meal (vs. 17) doubtless represented the twelve tribes of Israel for which Jesus was providing spiritual food. But at the practical level, the story teaches us the need for an observant and thoughtful attitude that looks for and sees the needs of others, and that we should never hesitate to help those in real need because we do not have much ourselves.
4) The Hassled Hostess. Luke 10:38-42 describes a dinner Jesus attended at the home of his friends Mary and Martha. When Mary sat and listened to Jesus, Martha complained that she could not complete all the preparations by herself. Jesus, of course, gently rebuked Martha by telling her that sometimes listening is more important than eating, and pointed out that she was “worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed” (vss. 41-42). Meals can be an important part of our relationships with others, but they shouldn’t become an end in themselves. A less elaborate meal may be better if it means more time together.
5) Consider Cleanliness. Luke 11:37-53 is a somewhat different meal story. When a Pharisee invited Jesus to eat with him, we are told “the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal” (vs. 38). We do not know exactly what the Pharisee said, but Jesus’ response was withering: “you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness” (vs. 39). Jesus then continued by detailing some of the Pharisees’ problems and showing them their hypocrisy. The dinner seems to have ended at this point, but Jesus doubtless knew this meal was doomed from the start (vs. 53). Of course, the lesson from this meal can be applied in our own lives if we are more concerned with details of physical cleanliness than with cleanliness of thought, speech, and attitude.
6) Principles with our Provisions. Luke 14:1-24 tells how “One Sabbath …Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee.” Jesus used this dinner as a teaching opportunity and told three parables, each with its own lesson – the lawfulness of healing on the Sabbath day, the principle of humility in not taking the place of honor at banquets, and the principle of inviting “the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind” to our feasts (vs. 13). The second two principles are certainly ones that we can apply in our own lives when we are invited to a meal or offer one to others.
7) A Salvation Stopover. Luke 19:1-10 gives the story of Zacchaeus, a tax collector at Jericho who wanted to see Jesus and hear his words. While Jesus had doubtless been offered dinner at a number of “respectable” homes, he had evidently declined as he was only planning to pass through Jericho (vs. 1). But seeing Zacchaeus’s receptiveness, Jesus invited himself to the man’s home (vs. 5), ate there, and brought the word of salvation to him (vs. 9). Sometimes we need to be willing to stop doing even the most important work or be willing to change our plans in order to fit in a meal or other activity that can make a difference in someone’s life – as Jesus certainly did with Zacchaeus (vs. 8).
8) Making the Meal Matter. Luke 22:14-38 is the account of the most memorable meal in the Gospels – that of the Last Supper Jesus shared with his disciples. Although the meal symbolized and was spiritually all about Jesus and his coming sacrifice, Jesus explained this, but focused nonetheless on guiding and serving his friends (compare John13:3; etc.). Today, most of our big celebrations – birthday, anniversary, graduation, and other dinners – are about us and, it is natural to tend to focus on ourselves at such times. The Last Supper teaches the opposite of this and has many lessons we can learn in this regard.
9) A Supper Surprise. Luke 24:28-35 describes a post-resurrection event when the risen Jesus – unknown to them – joined two of his followers as they walked to the village of Emmaus outside of Jerusalem. Jesus talked with the followers and explained the Scriptures to them, but they still did not realize who he was until they stopped to eat supper together. As soon as Jesus gave thanks for the food and broke the bread, as he had done at the Last Supper, the two disciples’ eyes were opened, and they recognized him (vs. 31). The lesson here is simple but important – the story prompts us to ask ourselves if people would recognize us as Christians if we were to eat with them, and if so, how?
10) Proof in the Presence. Luke 24:36-43 is the final meal Luke records in his Gospel, occurring when Jesus appeared to the main group of his disciples after his resurrection. It was at this meeting that he allowed them to see and touch his wounds to prove that it was indeed him. But, in a fascinating turn of the story, as though it was unplanned, we read “And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence” (vss. 41-42). In taking a physical meal with his disciples, Jesus showed it was he – the one who had eaten so many meals with them in friendship and mutual acceptance. When we do meals right, we follow his example.
Recent Comments