3 John 1 13

3 John 1:13 kjv

I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee:

3 John 1:13 nkjv

I had many things to write, but I do not wish to write to you with pen and ink;

3 John 1:13 niv

I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink.

3 John 1:13 esv

I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink.

3 John 1:13 nlt

I have much more to say to you, but I don't want to write it with pen and ink.

3 John 1 verses

3 John 1 13 Meaning

Apostle John communicated his intent to deliver much vital information personally rather than committing it to writing. He believed face-to-face discussion with Gaius and the church would be more effective and suitable for the serious, nuanced matters at hand, especially regarding the issues raised in the letter.

3 John 1 13 Context

Third John is the shortest book in the Bible, a deeply personal letter from "the elder" (John) to his beloved friend, Gaius. The primary issues concern hospitality within the early church, particularly towards itinerant missionaries, and a conflict with Diotrephes. Diotrephes was a dictatorial leader who rejected John's authority, refused to host missionaries, and even excommunicated those who did. Conversely, Demetrius is commended. John writes to encourage Gaius in his exemplary practice of hospitality and truth, while warning him about Diotrephes and assuring him of Demetrius’s good report. In verse 13, John signals his intent to deal with the weighty and perhaps delicate matter of Diotrephes’s insubordination, and to provide fuller commendation for Demetrius, directly and in person. In the ancient world, many serious or nuanced discussions, especially those involving correction or complex church administration, were better handled face-to-face to avoid misinterpretation, allow for immediate questions, and convey appropriate tone and authority.

3 John 1 13 Word analysis

• I had many things to write:
  • I had: The Greek `εἶχον` (eichon) is an imperfect tense, indicating an ongoing state or intention in the past. It signifies that John possessed or continued to have these unwritten matters on his mind and in his intention for writing, even as he chose not to commit them to a letter. This implies the existence of a substantial body of information or concerns.
  • many things: The Greek `πολλὰ` (polla) indicates a considerable quantity, emphasizing that the unwritten material was not trivial but significant in scope or importance. These likely included specific details about Diotrephes's actions, perhaps pastoral instructions, or fuller commendations for Demetrius and Gaius that were too sensitive or lengthy for a concise letter.
  • to write: The first `γράψαι` (grapsai) is an aorist infinitive, denoting the action of writing as a single, complete act. John possessed an intention to "get down" many things in written form.
• but I do not wish to write them to you with ink and pen:
  • but I do not wish: The strong adversative `ἀλλ᾽` (all') combined with `οὐ θέλω` (ou thelō), "I do not wish/desire/intend," reveals John's clear and resolute decision against written communication for these particular matters. This isn't just inability but a deliberate choice driven by wisdom. The present tense of `θέλω` signifies his ongoing, present desire or refusal.
  • to write them to you: This refers to the specific "many things" mentioned previously, directing them particularly to Gaius, as the recipient of the letter.
  • with ink and pen: The phrase `διὰ μέλανος καὶ καλάμου` (dia melanos kai kalamou) specifically identifies the writing materials.
    • ink: `μέλανος` (melanos) from `μέλας` (melas), meaning "black." It refers to the common black ink made from carbon, gum, and water.
    • pen: `καλάμου` (kalamou) from `κάλαμος` (kalamos), meaning "reed." This was a typical reed pen, split at the tip, used for writing.
    • The phrase highlights the method of communication being avoided. Writing with ink and pen implied permanence and widespread readability. This choice suggests the subject matter required more flexibility, nuance, or discretion than written words could offer. The second `γράφειν` (graphein) is a present infinitive, emphasizing the process or means of writing rather than just the act.

3 John 1 13 Bonus section

The Elder's consistent preference for oral communication is seen across his short letters. In both 2 John 12 and 3 John 13-14, he expresses a desire for a personal meeting to ensure fullness of joy or clarity. This indicates a high value placed on direct fellowship, where not only information but also love, joy, and spiritual vitality could be fully shared. For the early church, and for all believers, this reminds us that while the written Word is foundational and sufficient for doctrine (2 Tim 3:16-17), the relational aspect of the faith, involving face-to-face instruction, exhortation, and communion, remains vital for practical application, conflict resolution, and mutual encouragement. This apostolic example highlights that certain spiritual dynamics are best stewarded through direct human interaction guided by the Holy Spirit.

3 John 1 13 Commentary

In this verse, John concisely states his strategic choice of communication. While he had numerous significant points to convey – likely encompassing detailed accounts of Diotrephes's insubordination, specific pastoral directives, or fuller instructions regarding traveling ministers and church order – he deliberately opted not to commit these to a letter. This decision wasn't out of idleness or forgetfulness but a thoughtful judgment. Ancient correspondence, especially for sensitive or complex issues involving authority, discipline, or interpersonal dynamics, inherently possessed limitations. A letter could be intercepted, misinterpreted without the nuance of tone and facial expression, or lack the direct impact required for effective resolution. John, with pastoral wisdom, understood that confronting disruptive figures like Diotrephes, affirming faithful ones like Demetrius, and reinforcing vital practices like hospitality were best handled in a personal encounter. Such face-to-face interaction allowed for immediate clarification, a fuller impartation of the apostolic heart, and the necessary authority to "set things in order." It underscores the importance of relational depth and direct engagement in matters of truth and church leadership.