John said he had rejoiced when he found “of your children walking in the truth” (2John 1:4). Clearly, a word in the English is needed to clarify what is probably obvious in the Greek. A word needs to be supplied, like “certain” or “some” as was done in John 16:17. One may understand John in one of two different ways. First, all he could be saying is that he was really glad when he found some of the lady’s children walking in truth, or behaving as one would expect a child of God to behave, who had journeyed far from home and away from the eyes of those who knew them. On the other hand, John might, instead, be implying he knew that not all of the lady’s children behaved as they ought, when away from their hometown, but he was glad to see some did! Which one of these ideas is probably true?
If the former were true, i.e. implying that all of the lady’s children behaved as one might expect a believer in Christ to conduct oneself, why should John feel the need to remind her of the Lord’s commandment that we love one another (2John 1:5-6)? It would be quite odd for John to remind her to do what he knows she was already doing, the fruit of which was very apparent to John in the behavior of her children. What is probably the case is: John was using some good news in an effort to soften the painful blow of the embarrassing reminder (2John 1:5-6) she needed to have.
As I mentioned in my previous study,[1] walking in truth is the same as walking in Christ. Christ is the Truth (John 14:6), so walking in truth is the same as saying and doing what Christ said and did (cp. John 13:34; 15:9, 12). We cannot legitimately call him Lord, if we don’t do as he says (Luke 6:46), for he gave us an example to follow (John 13:15; 1Peter 2:21). John equated walking in truth with the commandment the Father had given the Church (2John 1:4; cp. Deuteronomy 18:15-19), and the commandment was to love one another as Christ loved his disciples (John 12:49; 13:34). The fact that John thought it necessary to remind the lady to obey this commandment suggests that there was a problem in what she was doing and how that affected her children.
In 2John 1:5 John exhorted the lady to “love one another,” which was not only something she should have known to do, but it was what she was told from the very beginning as that pertained to being a disciple of Christ. Now, John wasn’t implying she wasn’t a disciple, because he already admitted to the fact that both she and her children were the recipients of grace, mercy and peace from God, which can be received only by those who are in truth (i.e. in Christ) and abiding in his love (2John 1:3; cp. John 15:10). Nevertheless, there was a problem in that she appears to have been arbitrary in the expression of her love (2John 1:7), which I hope to discuss in more depth in my next study.
In the context of his short letter, John told the lady that both she and her children needed to love one another, as they were commanded from the beginning (2John 1:6; cp. verse-4). In other words, they were to love one another in the same manner that Jesus loved his disciples and gave himself for them (John 13:34; 15:9, 12; Titus 2:14). Love in truth wasn’t in word alone, but also in deed (1John 3:18). What I believe the elect lady had been doing was loving in word and in deed, but with partiality. Notice how James puts it:
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” (James 2:1-3)
I believe John is implying what James wrote openly. Yet, I don’t think a cursory read of James paints the picture of what was actually taking place in the house-church of the elect lady. John mentions the antichrists in the next verse, and I believe they were probably given special treatment by both the elect lady and her children. What the guest speakers (the antichrists) had to say was preferred over what was preached by those the Lord had given the local body of believers for their edification (cp. Romans 12:3, 6; 1Corinthians 14:1, 12). The result was that the antichrists, who deny Jesus is the Christ in the truest sense, had borne fruit in the elect lady’s congregation, so that some were not walking in truth, which is what is implied by writing that he knew of only some (literally of your children) who were walking in truth (2John 1:4). The elect lady did practice love, but not according to the commandment: as Jesus loved us. Instead, she practiced partiality, and, in doing so, she prevented the love of God to come through those brethren whom he had intended to use to edify the local body of believers. Thus, walking in truth is done without partiality!
_________________________________________________
[1] See my study: The Truth and Walking in Truth.
Smoodock's Blog 