Does “Walking in Truth” Mean Walking in Torah?

Why Ask This Question?

The question arises from John’s statement in 2 John 4.

John says he was delighted to discover that some of the chosen lady’s children were “walking in truth.”

For many Christians, the phrase sounds fairly straightforward.

They understand John to mean that these believers were living faithfully according to the truth of the gospel.

But readers familiar with the Old Testament may notice something interesting.

Psalm 119 repeatedly connects truth with God’s law, commandments, and Word.

That observation can lead to a more specific interpretation:

This question is particularly relevant in discussions surrounding Hebrew Roots, Torah-observant Christianity, and other forms of teaching that argue followers of Jesus remain obligated to observe the Mosaic Torah.

Sometimes Psalm 119 is used as part of a larger argument:

If God’s Torah is truth, and the New Testament commands Christians to walk in truth, then Christians must be called to walk according to Torah.

That argument deserves more than a quick dismissal.

Psalm 119 really does speak positively about God’s Torah.

John really does tell believers to walk in truth.

And John immediately connects walking in truth with obeying God’s commands.

So we should ask whether those ideas are connected.

That means we need to examine both passages carefully.

What does Psalm 119 actually call truth?

What does John mean by truth?

And does the fact that both writers use the concept of truth mean that they are referring to exactly the same thing?

↑ Back to top

Does Psalm 119 Call the Torah “Truth”?

Yes.

We should acknowledge this clearly rather than minimizing the connection.

Psalm 119 celebrates God’s revealed instruction using several overlapping terms, including law, commandments, statutes, rules, testimonies, precepts, and word.

The Hebrew word often translated “law” is torah.

At its root, the word carries the idea of instruction or teaching.

In the Old Testament it can refer broadly to instruction, while in many contexts it refers particularly to God’s Law given to Israel through Moses.

Psalm 119 unmistakably connects this divine instruction with truth.

There is no reason for Christians to weaken any of these statements.

The coming of Jesus does not mean that something God previously revealed suddenly became false.

The question is instead how God’s earlier revelation relates to the fulfillment that comes through Jesus Christ and the new covenant.

That distinction is crucial.

Something can be true without every covenantal requirement contained within it being directly binding upon every person in every covenant.

For example, God’s commands concerning Israel’s priesthood, sacrifices, circumcision, food laws, festivals, and tabernacle or temple worship were genuinely God’s Word.

They were true when given.

They remain true Scripture.

They reveal God’s character and purposes.

And Christians continue to learn from them.

But the New Testament itself teaches us to understand those commands in light of their fulfillment in Christ and God’s new-covenant work.

Those are two different questions.

And answering the first with yes does not automatically answer the second with yes.

↑ Back to top

Do “Truth” and “Torah” Mean the Same Thing?

This is where careful word study becomes important.

The Hebrew word commonly translated “truth” in the Old Testament is emet.

The Hebrew word torah means instruction or law.

They are not the same Hebrew word.

Psalm 119 can therefore say that the Torah is true without saying that the words “Torah” and “truth” are interchangeable.

A simple comparison helps.

The Bible says that God is love.

But that does not mean every occurrence of the word “love” in Scripture can simply be replaced with the word “God.”

Likewise, Scripture can describe God’s law as truth without requiring every later reference to “truth” to mean “the Law of Moses.”

The same principle applies when we move into the New Testament.

John writes 2 John in Greek and uses the word alētheia for “truth.”

That word can describe what is true, trustworthy, genuine, or in accordance with reality.

Its precise meaning in a particular passage must be determined from context.

This prevents an important interpretive mistake.

We should not find two biblical concepts that are associated in one passage and then assume they are interchangeable in every other passage.

Instead, we ask how each biblical author uses the word in the immediate context and within his writings as a whole.

That brings us directly back to 2 John.

If we want to know what John means when he says believers were “walking in truth,” the best place to begin is not by importing a definition from Psalm 119.

The best place to begin is by asking:

And fortunately, John gives us plenty of evidence.

↑ Back to top

What Does “Truth” Mean in 2 John?

The word “truth” is one of the dominant ideas in 2 John.

John uses it repeatedly in the opening verses, which gives us an unusually strong opportunity to determine what he means from the letter itself.

Then the remainder of the letter helps define the opposite of walking in truth.

This gives us the interpretive framework for the entire letter.

That truth includes moral obedience.

It produces love.

It shapes the believer’s walk.

But John’s primary concern is not whether these believers have adopted the covenantal practices that distinguished Israel under Moses.

His concern is whether they remain faithful to the truth they received concerning Jesus Christ.

That becomes even clearer when we examine what John means by “walking” in that truth.

↑ Back to top

What Does “Walking in Truth” Mean?

Once we understand how John uses the word “truth,” the phrase “walking in truth” becomes much easier to understand.

In Scripture, “walking” is frequently used as a metaphor for someone’s way of life.

It describes how a person lives—the direction, pattern, and conduct of his or her life.

John uses this kind of language elsewhere.

That includes correct belief.

But it cannot be reduced to correct belief.

A person who walks in truth does not merely affirm the right doctrine about Jesus.

The truth increasingly shapes that person’s choices, relationships, priorities, obedience, and love.

This fits the movement of John’s letter perfectly.

In verses 1–3, believers know the truth and the truth abides in them.

In verse 4, they walk in that truth.

In verses 5–6, that walk expresses itself through love and obedience.

In verses 7–11, walking in truth requires refusing to participate in the spread of teaching that denies the truth about Christ.

Nothing in that context requires us to redefine “walking in truth” as a technical expression meaning “observing the Mosaic Torah.”

John’s emphasis is broader and, at the same time, more specifically centered on Christ.

These believers were living consistently with the apostolic truth they had received about Jesus Christ.

↑ Back to top

What Does “As We Were Commanded” Mean?

There is another phrase in 2 John 4 that deserves careful attention.

John does not merely say that these believers were walking in truth.

He adds that they were doing so “just as we were commanded by the Father.”

Could that reference to a commandment mean John has the Mosaic Law in mind?

It is possible to understand why someone would make the connection.

God gave commandments to Israel through Moses.

The Old Testament repeatedly calls God’s people to walk according to His commandments.

But once again, the immediate context of 2 John should determine what John means.

And John immediately explains the command he has in mind.

Notice the progression:

John therefore does not leave us guessing about the kind of obedience he has in view.

The commandment immediately emphasized is:

That command certainly has Old Testament roots.

Leviticus 19:18 commands Israel to love one’s neighbor.

But John also knows this command as something Jesus specifically gave to His disciples.

Jesus told them to love one another according to the pattern of His own love (John 13:34–35).

John later describes this as the message believers had heard “from the beginning” (1 John 3:11).

And he summarizes God’s command in explicitly Christ-centered language:

John’s summary brings together:

This is important because it shows that the word “commandment” does not automatically mean “the Mosaic covenant.”

John can speak about God’s commandments while focusing directly on the commands believers have received in connection with Jesus Christ.

↑ Back to top

Do 2 John 5–6 Point Back to Torah?

Second John 5–6 deserves an even closer look because this is where the argument for Torah observance might initially seem strongest.

John writes about:

commandments,

walking,

love,

and something God’s people have heard “from the beginning.”

All of those ideas have Old Testament backgrounds.

So should we understand John as directing Christians back to the Mosaic Torah?

There is an important distinction to make.

The command to love one another illustrates this perfectly.

Love for one’s neighbor was already commanded in Leviticus 19:18.

Jesus did not contradict that command.

He affirmed it.

But Jesus also brought that command into the life of His disciples and gave it a distinctly Christ-centered shape.

The command is both old and new.

Love was commanded long before Jesus’ earthly ministry.

Yet Jesus gives His followers Himself as the defining pattern:

John makes this same point in his first letter.

He can describe the command to love as something his readers have had “from the beginning” while also calling it a “new commandment” because of its fulfillment and expression in Christ (1 John 2:7–8).

That gives us an important biblical-theological principle.

The coming of Jesus does not mean everything before Jesus was wrong.

It means God’s previous revelation must now be understood in light of the One to whom the biblical story was moving.

The New Testament repeatedly makes this distinction.

Christians continue to learn God’s character and moral will from the Old Testament Scriptures.

Yet the apostles do not simply tell Jew and Gentile believers to enter Israel’s Mosaic covenant and observe all of its covenantal requirements.

Instead, Christian obedience is consistently centered upon Jesus Christ and life in the new covenant.

That is exactly the direction John’s language takes.

He does not say:

Nor does he identify Sabbath keeping, circumcision, dietary laws, sacrifices, purity regulations, or Israel’s festival calendar as evidence that these believers are walking in truth.

Instead, John emphasizes:

Those are the categories John himself gives us.

Therefore, while 2 John 5–6 certainly teaches obedience, it does not establish that Christians are obligated to observe the Mosaic covenant as their governing covenant.

↑ Back to top

Why Jesus Is Central to John’s Meaning

The strongest evidence for understanding “walking in truth” comes from the way John centers truth on Jesus Christ.

This pattern does not begin in 2 John.

It runs throughout John’s writings.

John’s Gospel opens by describing Jesus as the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us, “full of grace and truth.”

Then John contrasts the giving of the Law through Moses with what comes through Jesus Christ.

John is not saying that the Law given through Moses was false.

The contrast is not:

Rather, God’s revelation through Moses was genuine revelation from God, while in Jesus Christ God’s revelation reaches its climactic personal expression.

The One to whom God’s earlier revelation pointed has come.

John develops this theme throughout his Gospel.

Jesus speaks the truth.

Jesus bears witness to the truth.

His Word is truth.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth.

And ultimately Jesus says:

That statement is enormously important for understanding John’s theology of truth.

Truth is not less than propositional revelation.

There are things Christians must believe to be true.

Second John itself demonstrates that.

But for John, truth ultimately cannot be separated from Jesus Christ.

Then notice what happens in 2 John.

John begins by repeatedly talking about truth.

But when he identifies the false teachers threatening his readers, their error concerns Jesus.

The deceiver does not confess the true Jesus Christ.

And the person who moves beyond the “teaching of Christ” does not have God.

That means the doctrinal boundary of truth in 2 John is unmistakably Christological.

This observation is especially significant because John had the perfect opportunity to identify Torah observance as the issue if that were his concern.

Instead, when he finally identifies the deception threatening the church, he points directly to false teaching concerning Christ.

And when he tells believers where they must remain, he does not say:

“Remain in the Torah of Moses.”

He says they must remain in:

That does not dishonor Moses.

It recognizes the place Jesus occupies in the unfolding story of Scripture.

The Law was given through Moses.

The prophets spoke God’s Word.

The Scriptures testified beforehand to God’s purposes.

But God’s redemptive revelation reaches its climax in His Son.

For John, therefore, walking in truth cannot finally be separated from walking faithfully with Jesus Christ.

↑ Back to top

Does 2 John Teach Torah Observance?

If by “Torah observance” we simply mean that Christians should believe the Old Testament is God’s true Word, learn from it, and obey God’s moral will, then there is significant continuity between the Testaments.

Christians should never dismiss the Old Testament as irrelevant.

Jesus and the apostles certainly did not.

But that is usually not what is meant when someone argues that Christians must be Torah observant.

The larger question is whether followers of Jesus—often including Gentile believers—remain covenantally obligated to keep the Mosaic Law as the governing covenant for Christian life and sanctification.

Second John 4 does not establish that claim.

Doing so requires a chain of assumptions:

The problem occurs between the first and second steps.

The first statement is true.

But it does not establish the others.

Psalm 119 describes God’s Torah as true.

It does not establish that every later biblical use of the word “truth” means “Torah.”

And John’s own context supplies a different and much more immediate explanation.

That is John’s argument.

So if someone asks:

The most responsible answer is:

That conclusion allows both Psalm 119 and 2 John to speak in their own contexts.

We do not need to deny that Torah is true.

And we do not need to redefine John’s use of “truth” in order to preserve that affirmation.

↑ Back to top

Does This Make the Old Testament Law Irrelevant?

No.

Rejecting the claim that “walking in truth” means Mosaic Torah observance does not require Christians to treat the Old Testament as outdated, false, or useless.

The Old Testament remains God’s Word.

It reveals His character.

It explains sin.

It traces God’s covenant purposes.

It prepares us to understand the person and work of Jesus.

And it continues to instruct God’s people.

The New Testament does not tell Christians to ignore Moses.

It teaches us to read Moses in light of Jesus.

Jesus said that the Scriptures testify about Him (John 5:39).

After His resurrection, He explained how Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms pointed toward Him (Luke 24:27, 44–47).

The apostles continue the same pattern.

They quote the Old Testament constantly.

They draw moral instruction from it.

They use it to explain the gospel.

And they show how its promises, sacrifices, priesthood, covenant themes, and hopes find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

That distinction helps us avoid two opposite errors.

One error says:

That is too dismissive.

The other error says:

That goes beyond what the New Testament teaches.

A better approach recognizes both continuity and fulfillment.

That is why Christians can learn deeply from Torah without placing themselves back under Sinai as the governing covenant of the Christian life.

We read it as Scripture.

We learn from it.

We see Christ in its trajectory.

And we obey God as new-covenant people united to Jesus Christ.

↑ Back to top

The Gospel Connection

The clearest reason John’s use of “truth” cannot be reduced to Mosaic Torah observance is that his entire letter is centered on Jesus Christ.

The gospel announces that the Son of God truly entered human history.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

He lived in perfect faithfulness to the Father.

He died for sinners.

He rose from the dead.

And through Him, God brings forgiveness, reconciliation, and eternal life to all who believe.

This does not separate Jesus from the Old Testament.

It does the opposite.

Jesus is the One toward whom the biblical story has been moving.

The promises, patterns, sacrifices, priesthood, kingdom hopes, and covenant expectations of the Old Testament prepare us to understand Him.

That means Christian faithfulness is not a choice between:

The better question is:

John’s answer in this letter is consistently Christ-centered.

Truth is connected to the Father and the Son.

Error is exposed by what someone teaches about the Son.

Faithfulness means remaining in the teaching of Christ.

And Christian obedience expresses itself through love according to His commands.

This is why the gospel must remain central.

The Christian life is not built on our ability to keep enough commandments to establish righteousness before God.

It is built on the righteousness, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That walk includes obedience.

It includes love.

It includes holiness.

It includes submission to God’s Word.

But all of it is now understood from within our union with Christ and our life under the new covenant.

↑ Back to top

What This Means for Us

The question of whether “walking in truth” means walking in Torah may sound technical, but it gives us several important lessons for reading Scripture and following Jesus.

1. Let context define biblical words.

It is easy to find a word in one passage and assume it means exactly the same thing everywhere else.

But good interpretation asks how each writer uses that word in its immediate setting.

Psalm 119 can describe Torah as truth.

That does not mean every later use of “truth” is another word for Torah.

John’s own context must control the meaning of 2 John 4.

2. Do not build doctrine on a word association alone.

The argument “Torah is truth, therefore walking in truth means walking in Torah” sounds simple and persuasive.

But it depends on treating related concepts as identical concepts.

That is not enough to establish doctrine.

We should compare Scripture with Scripture, but we should also respect the context and purpose of each text.

3. Honor the Old Testament without flattening the covenants.

Christians should love the Old Testament.

We should read it carefully.

We should learn God’s character from it.

We should see how it prepares the way for Jesus.

But honoring the Old Testament does not require pretending that the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant function in exactly the same way.

4. Keep Jesus at the center of Christian obedience.

John’s concern is ultimately not whether Christians can identify themselves by Mosaic covenant markers.

His concern is whether they remain faithful to Jesus Christ.

That should shape our discipleship as well.

The Christian life is not merely asking:

It is first asking:

That question will certainly lead to obedience.

But it keeps obedience connected to the Savior who commands us.

5. Test every theological system by the whole New Testament witness.

A theological system can become persuasive when it gathers several verses that appear to support the same idea.

But every system must eventually account for the whole biblical witness.

When evaluating claims about Torah observance, ask broader questions:

• How do Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council treat Gentile believers?
• How does Paul describe the believer’s relationship to the Law in Romans and Galatians?
• How does Hebrews describe the relationship between the old and new covenants?
• How does Jesus fulfill the Law and the Prophets?
• How do the apostles describe Christian obedience after the resurrection?

Second John 4 should be interpreted within 2 John first, then within John’s writings, and then within the broader teaching of the New Testament.

6. Walk in truth by becoming more like Christ.

John’s emphasis is finally practical.

He rejoices because the truth believers confess is shaping the way they live.

That means we should ask whether the truth about Jesus is actually changing us.

Are we more loving?

More obedient?

More discerning?

More faithful?

More humble?

More willing to submit our assumptions to God’s Word?

↑ Back to top

↑ Back to top

Dig Deeper: Follow the Argument Across Scripture

The question of whether “walking in truth” means walking in Torah becomes clearer when we trace how Scripture develops the themes of truth, law, Christ, and obedience.

↑ Back to top

An Important Distinction: True Scripture and Covenant Obligation

One of the most important distinctions in this discussion is the difference between saying:

Those are not always the same statement.

Christians believe the commands concerning the Levitical priesthood are true Scripture.

We believe the sacrificial instructions are true Scripture.

We believe God’s commands concerning Israel’s tabernacle, purity laws, festivals, and national life are true Scripture.

But Christians do not therefore conclude that we must rebuild a tabernacle, offer animal sacrifices, or establish a Levitical priesthood.

Why?

Because Scripture itself shows us how those realities relate to Christ and the new covenant.

This is essential for reading the Bible as one unfolding story.

We do not dishonor earlier revelation by recognizing later fulfillment.

We honor it by allowing Scripture itself to show us where that revelation was leading.

↑ Back to top

Reflect: Am I Letting Scripture Define the Question?

This discussion is not only about Torah observance.

It is also about how we interpret the Bible.

Consider these questions:

• Do I sometimes begin with a theological conclusion and then search Scripture for words that seem to support it?
• Am I willing to let the immediate context of a passage correct the way I initially understood a word or phrase?
• Do I distinguish between a biblical concept being connected to another concept and the two concepts being identical?
• Do I honor the Old Testament as Christian Scripture while also allowing the New Testament to explain its fulfillment in Christ?
• Is Jesus truly at the center of the way I understand obedience?
• When I hear a claim about Torah observance, do I test it by the whole New Testament rather than by one word association?
• Am I more interested in defending a theological system or in following the argument of Scripture wherever it leads?

↑ Back to top

Questions for Personal or Group Study

↑ Back to top

Remember

So we do not need to choose between honoring the Old Testament and centering our faith on Christ.

The biblical story itself leads us from one to the other.

We honor Torah by reading it as God’s true Word.

We honor Christ by recognizing Him as the fulfillment toward whom that revelation points.

And we honor John by letting his own context tell us what he means when he says believers were “walking in truth.”

That walk is not defined by importing a covenantal identity from another passage.

It is defined by living faithfully according to the truth God has revealed in Jesus Christ.

↑ Back to top

Common Questions About Walking in Truth and Torah

Because the relationship between Christians and the Law of Moses is often debated, several questions naturally follow from 2 John 4.

↑ Back to top

Testing the Claim

Let’s bring the entire argument together.

Suppose someone makes this claim:

How well does that claim hold up?

Claim 1: Psalm 119 describes Torah as truth.

Psalm 119 clearly describes God’s law as truth and His commandments and Word as true.

Claim 2: Therefore, “truth” is another biblical word for Torah.

Torah can be described as truth without “truth” becoming a technical synonym for Torah.

The Hebrew words themselves are different, and the meaning of “truth” must be determined in each context.

Claim 3: John’s use of “truth” in 2 John refers specifically to Torah.

John connects truth with what believers know, what abides in them, their relationship with the Father and Son, Christian love, and especially the true teaching concerning Jesus Christ.

Claim 4: “Walking in truth” means Mosaic Torah observance.

John uses “walking” to describe a way of life shaped by God’s truth.

Nothing in the immediate context identifies this phrase with observing the Mosaic covenant.

Claim 5: 2 John 4 proves Christians remain under the Torah for sanctification.

Second John certainly teaches that Christians must obey God.

It does not establish that the Mosaic covenant is the governing covenant for Christian sanctification.

That larger question must be answered from the broader teaching of the New Testament.

↑ Back to top

So, Does “Walking in Truth” Mean Walking in Torah?

Not in the sense sometimes claimed.

Psalm 119 absolutely describes God’s Torah as true.

That should not be minimized.

But “truth” is not simply another word for “Torah.”

And when we read 2 John in context, John gives us strong clues about the truth he has in mind.

That is John’s own framework.

Therefore, we should be cautious about replacing John’s phrase:

with:

John does not make that substitution.

Neither should we.

For Christians, then, walking in truth certainly means obedience.

But it is Christ-centered, gospel-shaped, new-covenant obedience.

We do not obey in order to earn salvation.

We do not obey in order to establish our own righteousness.

And we do not need to place ourselves under the Mosaic covenant in order to take obedience seriously.

We follow Jesus.

We remain in His teaching.

We love one another.

We reject teaching that distorts who He is.

And increasingly, by God’s grace, we allow the truth we believe to become the truth in which we walk.

↑ Back to top