John 12:42

Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the glory that is of men more than the glory that is of God.

These two verses are among the most important in Scripture in regard to their bearing upon the question of whether or not one is justified by FAITH ONLY, making it impossible logically to believe that faith alone can justify.

Believed on him ... is alleged to have been faith of a DIFFERENT KIND from that required for salvation. Hovey called it "a rational conviction ... but not a saving trust in Christ."[23] Gaebelein wrote, "But they had no true faith in God."[24] Barnes has, "They were convinced in their understanding that he was the Messiah."[25] Johnson says, "These rulers, not believing with the heart, did not make open confession."[26] Morgan concluded that "The most illuminating sentence concerning this verse came from the pen of Bishop Westcott, who said, `This complete intellectual faith is really the climax of unbelief.'"[27] Yet we have Westcott's own testimony thus:

It is remarkable that St. John uses of this belief the phrase which marks the completeness of belief. The belief only lacked confession, but this defect was fatal. Compare John 2:23, where belief complete in itself is practically imperfect.[28]

It is astoundingly clear that many of the rulers had a COMPLETENESS OF FAITH, Westcott leaving no doubt whatever that the Greek New Testament teaches this. Therefore, the deduction must stand stark and mandatory that something beyond faith (even if one has a COMPLETE faith) is required for salvation. The device of supposing that one kind of faith comes from the heart and another kind from the mind, or intellect, is ridiculous, because the Scriptural HEART is the MIND. Furthermore, the Bible has absolutely nothing about KINDS of faith, distinctions of so-called varieties of faith deriving from human speculation and not from God's word. It must be rejected out of hand, therefore, that the faith of the rulers (in this verse) was anywise different from the faith of any man coming to Jesus Christ for eternal salvation. There was only ONE THING wrong with their faith. It was FAITH ALONE! Of course, this stands squarely opposed to the Lutheran heresy of justification by faith only; and this undeniable fact would appear to be the only reason why so many writers have labored to make the faith in this verse to have been some diverse kind or variety of faith. The thing lacking was not faith (they had it all) but obedience (they would not confess). Millions of men today are in the same category with these rulers. They believe but will not confess and be baptized. John's entire Gospel is in full harmony with what is taught here. See John 1:12; 2:23; 8:31; etc.

Lest they should be put out of the synagogue ... The social pressures in the community were sufficient to restrain some from acting in harmony with their faith in Christ. The same is true today.

They loved the glory, etc ... Regardless of the faith that may exist in the heart, it is the love of God which must sustain and activate it if it is to issue in any benefit to the believer. Love is greater than faith, even a complete faith; and the reason for this was announced by our Lord himself who said, "If ye love me ye will keep my commandments," a statement nowhere made concerning faith (John 14:15). How strange it is that men claim exactly the same thing for faith that Christ claimed for love, making faith the fulfilling of all the commandments.[29] Any theory of justification by faith which omits love and obedience is a false theory.

[23] Alvah Hovey, op. cit., p. 262.

[24] Arno Gaebelein, op. cit., p. 240.

[25] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 214.

[26] B. W. Johnson, The New Testament Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Christian Publishing Company, 1886), p. 198.

[27] G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel according to John (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company), p. 224.

[28] B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. 186.

[29] Leslie Duncan, Protestantism (New York: George Braziller, 1962), p. 43.