Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:28
These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
28. Bethabara ] The true reading is Bethany, which was changed to Bethabara owing to the powerful influence of Origen, who could find no Bethany beyond Jordan known in his day. But in 200 years the very name of an obscure place might easily perish. Origen found ‘Bethany’ in almost all the MSS. The site of Bethabara or Bethany is lost now, but it must have been near Galilee: comp. Joh 1:29 with Joh 1:43, and see on the ‘four days,’ Joh 11:17. It is possible to reconcile the two readings. Bethabara has been identified with ’Abrah, one of the main Jordan fords about 14 miles south of the sea of Galilee: and ‘Bethania beyond Jordan’ has been identified with Bashan; Bethania or Batanea being the Aramaic form of the Hebrew Bashan, meaning ‘soft level ground.’ Thus Bethabara is the village or ford; Bethania, the district on the east side of the ford. See Conder, Handbook of the Bible, pp. 315, 320. But see Appendix D.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In Bethabara – Almost all the ancient manuscripts and versions, instead of Bethabara here, have Bethany, and this is doubtless the true reading. There was a Bethany about 2 miles east of Jerusalem, but there is said also to have been another in the tribe of Reuben, on the east side of the river Jordan, and in this place, probably, John was baptizing. It is about 12 miles above Jericho. The word Bethabara means house or place of a ford. The reading Bethabara, instead of Bethany, seems to have arisen from the conjecture of Origen, who found in his day no such place as Bethany, but saw a town called Bethabara, where John was said to have baptized, and therefore took the liberty of changing the former reading – Robinson, Lexicon.
Beyond Jordan – On the east side of the Jordan River.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 28. These things were done in Bethabara] It is very probable that the word Bethany should be inserted here, instead of Bethabara. This reading, in the judgment of the best critics, is the genuine one. The following are the authorities by which it is supported: ABCEGHLMSX, BV, of Matthai, upwards of a hundred others, Syriac, Armenian, Persic, Coptic, Slavonic, Vulgate, Saxon, and all the Itala, with some of the most eminent of the primitive fathers, before the time of Origen, who is supposed to have first changed the reading. Bethabara signifies literally the house of passage, and is thought to be the place where the Israelites passed the river Jordan under Joshua. There was a place called Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem, at the foot of the mount of Olives. But there was another of the same name, beyond Jordan, in the tribe of Reuben. It was probably of this that the evangelist speaks; and Origen, not knowing of this second Bethany, altered the reading to Bethabara. See Rosenmuller.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The evangelist had before told us what was done, these words tell us where. Some ancient writers will have the place to have been Bethany; but they seem not to have so well considered Joh 11:18, where Bethany is said to have been but fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, and consequently on this side Jordan; whereas the evangelist saith, that this place was ,
beyond Jordan, in the tribe of Reuben, in the country of Peraea, where John at this time was baptizing, and probably had been so for some time.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
28. BethabaraRather,”Bethany” (according to nearly all the best and mostancient manuscripts); not the Bethany of Lazarus, but another of thesame name, and distinguished from it as lying “beyond Jordan,”on the east.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
These things were done in Bethabara,…. That is, this testimony was bore by John; and this discourse passed between him and the Pharisees, at the place here mentioned; which was a passage over Jordan, where much people walked to go on the other side,
beyond Jordan; and where also John was baptizing; which brought a great concourse of people together: so that this witness was bore in a very public manner, and before a large number; and it is to this that Christ refers, in Joh 1:33 for this was so well known, that there was no hiding or denying it: the place where this conversation passed, is in the Vulgate Latin, and all the eastern versions; and in the Alexandrian copy, and many other copies, and so in Nonnus, called Bethany; but as De Dieu observes, Bethany was not beyond Jordan, nor in the wilderness of Judea, but near to Jerusalem, about two miles distant from it; nor was it situated by waters convenient for baptizing, unless they went to the brook Kidron, which indeed was not far from it; but it is clear from the history, that John was not so near Jerusalem; nor did that brook which might be forded over, continues the same learned author, seem fit and proper enough, `”mergendis baptizandorum corporibus”, for plunging the bodies of those that were to be baptized’; wherefore he rightly concludes, that either this reading is an error, or there was another Bethany near Jordan: Bethabara signifies “the house of passage”, and is thought to be the place where the Israelites passed over Jordan, to go into the land of Canaan, Jos 3:16. And which, as it must be a very convenient place for the administration of baptism by immersion, used by John, so it was very significant of the use of this ordinance; which is, as it were, the passage, or entrance, into the Gospel church state; for persons ought first to be baptized, and then be admitted into a Gospel church, according to the example of the primitive Christians, Ac 2:41 but whether there was a place of this name, where the Israelites went over Jordan, is not certain; and if there was, it does not seem so likely to be the place here designed, since that was right over against Jericho; whereas this seems to be rather further off, and over against Galilee: there were several passages of Jordan, Jud 12:5. There was a bridge over it, between the lake of Samochon and Gennesaret, now called Jacob’s bridge, where Jacob is supposed to have wrestled with the angel, and to have met with his brother Esau; and there was another over it at Chainmath, near Tiberias, and in other places: and it might be at one of these passages, by which they went over into Galilee, that John pitched upon to continue preaching and baptizing at; partly because of the number of people that went over, to whom he had the opportunity of preaching; and partly, for the sake of baptizing those who became proper subjects of that ordinance through his ministry. Some have thought, that this place is the same with Bethbarah, in Jud 7:24, which was either in the tribe of Ephraim or of Manasseh, and not far from the parts where this place must be, but was on this side Jordan; and so Beza says the words should be rendered; and those who came to John at Jordan, are not said to pass over that river: others are of opinion, that Bethabara is the same with Betharabah, Jos 15:6, since this is called Bethabara by the Septuagint, in Jos 18:22. However, be it what place soever, and wheresoever, it was no doubt very proper for John’s purpose; and therefore he chose it, and for a while continued at it: and here, says Jerom a
“to this day many of the brethren, that is, of the number of believers, desiring there to be born again, are baptized in the vital stream;”
such veneration had they for the place where John first baptized: Origen says b, that in his time it was said, that Bethabara was showed by the banks of Jordan, where they report John baptized.
a De Locis Hebraicis, fol. 89. L. b Comment in Joannemo, Tom. 8. p. 131.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
In Bethany beyond Jordan ( ). Undoubtedly the correct text, not “in Bethabara” as Origen suggested instead of “in Bethany” of all the known Greek manuscripts under the mistaken notion that the only Bethany was that near Jerusalem.
Was baptizing ( ). Periphrastic imperfect, common idiom in John.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “These things were done in Bethabara,” (tauta en Bethania egeneto) “These things occurred in Bethany,” or happened in the village of Bethany.
2) “Beyond Jordan,” (peran tou lordanou) “Beyond the Jordan,” the Jordan river and valley, perhaps on the Eastern side, to distinguish it from Bethany two miles east of Jerusalem, Luk 19:29; Mar 11:11; or fifteen furlongs, Joh 11:18.
3) “Where John was baptizing.” (hopou en ho loannes baptizon) “Where John the Baptist was, repeatedly baptizing,” which means immersing, as he was preparing a people to accept and follow Jesus. The delegation that came to question him appears to have traveled some 25 miles from Jerusalem to the southern area of Bashan.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
28. These things were done in Bethabara. The place is mentioned, not only to authenticate the narrative, but also to inform us that this answer was given amidst a numerous assembly of people; for there were many who flocked to John’s baptism, and this was his ordinary place for baptizing. It is likewise supposed by some to be a passage across Jordan, and, from this circumstance, they derive the name, for they interpret it the house of passage; unless, perhaps, some may prefer the opinion of those who refer to the memorable passage of the people, (Jos 3:13,) when God opened up a way for them in the midst of the waters, under the direction of Joshua. Others say that it ought rather to be read Betharaba. Instead of Bethabara, some have inserted here the name Bethany, but this is a mistake; for we shall afterwards see how near Bethany was to Jerusalem. The situation of Bethabara, as laid down by those who have described the country, agrees best with the words of the Evangelist; though I have no wish to dispute about the pronunciation of the word.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(28) Bethabara beyond Jordan should be, Bethany beyond Jordan. Origen found Bethany in almost all the copies, but not being able to find the place, he came to the conclusion that it must be Bethabara which he heard of, with a local tradition that John had baptised there; and in this he is followed by the Fathers generally. In support of this the etymology of Bethabara (= ford-house) is compared with a possible meaning of Bethany (= ship-house), and the two are regarded as popular names of some well-known ford, one of which gradually ceased to be known as the name of this place, because it became appropriated as a name of the Bethany made prominent in the closing scenes of our Lords life. On the other hand, it is believed that this argument from etymology is at least precarious; that ignorance of the place after three hundred yearsand these years of war and unsettlementis not unnatural; that the tradition in favour of Bethabara, which was then a favourite place for baptism, is one likely to have grown with this fact; and that we are not justified in adopting the critical decision of Origen, who rejected the almost unanimous evidence of MSS. in favour of this tradition at second hand. We are, moreover, ignorant of the site of Bethabara, and the identification with either Beth-barah (Jdg. 7:24), or Beth-nimrah (Num. 32:36; Jos. 13:27), which in some readings of the LXX. had taken the forms Bethabra and Betharaba, gives a position much too far to the south, for the writer is clearly speaking of a place within easy approach of Galilee (Joh. 1:43 and Joh. 2:1), and he is careful to note the succession of days and even hours. It is not inconsistent with this that the narrative in Mat. 3:5 and Mar. 1:5 seems to require a place of easy access from Jerusalem, for the positions are not necessarily the same, and the account there is of a general impression, while here we have the minute details of an eye-witness. Himself a disciple of John, he remembers the place where he was then dwelling and baptising, and he knows that this Bethany is beyond Jordan, just as he knows that the other is the town of Mary and her sister Martha (Joh. 11:1), and that it was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off (Joh. 11:18). Dr. Caspari believes that a Bethany answering the demands of the context is to be found in the village Tellanje or Tellanihje, which is in the Iolan to the north of the Sea of Galilee (comp. Joh. 10:40). It is near a ford of the Jordan, with several brooks intervening. The identity of name depends upon the frequent substitution by the Arabs of Tell (= hill) for Beth (=house), so that the present word represents Beth-anje, or Bethany. Dr. Casparis statement is now accessible to the English reader. Few, perhaps, will fully accept the authors opinion, With regard to the accuracy of our conclusion respecting the site, there can, therefore, be no doubt (Chron. and Geogr., Introd., p. 93), but it is based upon a reading of which there can be no doubt, and is, at least, a probable interpretation.
We have in these verses also a note of time. John now knows the Messiah, though others do not. This inquiry of the legates from Jerusalem was, therefore,, after the baptism of our Lord (Joh. 1:31; Joh. 1:33), and if so, after the Temptation also. (See Note on Mat. 4:1.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
28. In Bethabara Nearly all the ancient manuscripts read Bethany instead of Bethabara. The latter name was substituted for the former by Origen, because he knew a Bethabara but not a Bethany near the Jordan. Stanley, however, maintains that Bethabara is the right reading. If Bethany or Bethania is the true reading, it nevertheless may be in the Aramaic a different word, as well as a different place from the Bethany of Lazarus and his sisters on Mount Olivet. The former may be a word signifying the place of (ferry) boats; the latter the place of dates.
Perhaps this long-debated question has been rightly settled by a late very scholarly traveller in Palestine, Revelation Mr. Tristam, (1864,) who identifies Bethabara with Beth-Nimrah, a little north of the Bethabara on our map. It is probably the ford passed by the Baptist’s great type, Elijah the Tishbite, on his way to his ascension. Quarantania, the Mount of Temptation, is in sight. It is a place amply supplied with convenient waters. Its very name in the Septuagint, Baethanabra, is about half way between Bethany and Bethabara, and might be transformed either way or both ways. Num 32:36; Jos 13:27.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan where John was baptising’.
We are now told that this took place in ‘Bethany, beyond Jordan’ (v. 28). The appellation is to distinguish the village from the better known Bethany, and indeed ‘Bethany beyond Jordan’ was so little known that it was soon changed in manuscripts to the better known Bethabara to indicate where it was. This is one indication of the familiarity of the author with Palestine. These things were rooted in history as the use of an insignificant place name confirms.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 1:28 . On account of the importance of His public appearance, a definite statement of its locality is again given.
A place so exactly described by John himself (Joh 11:18 ), according to its situation, as Bethany on the Mount of Olives , cannot be meant here; there must also have been another Bethany situated in Peraea, probably only a village, of which nothing further is known from history. Origen, investigating both the locality and the text, did not find indeed any Bethany, but a Bethabara instead [114] (comp. Jdg 7:24 ?), which the legends of his day described as the place of baptism; the legend, however, misled him. For Bethany in Peraea could not have been situated at all in the same latitude with Jericho, as the tradition represents, but must have lain much farther north; for Jesus occupied about three days in travelling thence to the Judaean Bethany for the raising of Lazarus (see on Joh 11:17 ). Yet Paulus (following Bolten) understood the place to be Bethany on the Mount of Olives, and puts a period after , in spite of the facts that (comp. Joh 1:35 ) must begin the new narration, and that . . must clearly refer to Joh 1:25 ff. Baur, however, makes the name, which according to Schenkel must be attributed to an error of a non-Jewish author, to have been invented , in order to represent Jesus (?) as beginning His public ministry at a Bethany , seeing that He came out of a Bethany at its close. Against the objection still taken to this name even by Weizscker (a name which a third person was certainly least of all likely to venture to insert, seeing that Bethany on the Mount of Olives was so well known), see Ewald, Jahrb . XII. p. 214 ff. As to the historic truth of the whole account in Joh 1:19-28 , which, especially by the reality of the situation, by the idiosyncrasy of the questions and answers, and their appropriateness in relation to the characters and circumstances of the time, as well as by their connection with the reckoning of the day in the following verses, reveals the recollections and interest of an eye-witness, see Schweizer, p. 100 ff.; Bleek, Beitr . p. 256.
. . ] where John was employed in baptizing.
[114] To suppose, with Possinus, Spicil. Evang . p. 32 (in the Catena in Marc. p. 382 f.), that both names have the same signification ( , domus transitus, ford-house; , domus navis, ferry-house), a view to which even Lange inclines, L. J. II. 461, is all the more untenable, seeing that this etymology is not at all appropriate to the position of Bethany on the Mount of Olives. Origen himself explains the name Bethabara with an evident intention to allegorize: ( ). The derivation of the name Bethany (Lightfoot: , house of dates; Simon: , locus depressionis; others: domus miseri) is doubtful.
Note . (1.) Seeing that, according to Joh 1:26-27 (comp. especially , which implies his own personal acquaintance), the Baptist already knows the Messiah, while according to Joh 1:31-33 he first learned to recognise Him at His baptism by means of a divine , it certainly follows that the occurrences related in Joh 1:19-28 took place after the baptism of Jesus; and consequently this baptism could not have occurred on the same or the following day (Hengstenberg), nor in the time between Joh 1:31-32 (Ewald). Wieseler, Ebrard, Luthardt, Godet, and most expositors, as already Lcke, Tholuck, De Wette, following the older expositors, rightly regard the events of Joh 1:19 ff. as subsequent to the baptism. It is futile to appeal, as against this (Brckner), to the “ indefiniteness ” of the words , for there is really no indefiniteness in them; while to refer them to a merely preliminary knowledge, in opposition to the definite acquaintance which began at the baptism, is (against Hengstenberg) a mere subterfuge. That even after the baptism, which had already taken place, John could say, “Ye know Him not,” is sufficiently conceivable, if we adhere to the purely historical account of the baptism, as given in Joh 1:31-34 . See on Matt. p. 111 ff. (2.) Although, according to Mat 3:14 , John already knows Jesus as the Messiah when He came to be baptized of him, there is in this only an apparent discrepancy between the two evangelists, see on Joh 1:31 . (3.) Mar 1:7-8 , and Luk 3:16 ff., are not at variance with John; for those passages only speak of the Messiah as being in Himself near at hand, and do not already presuppose any personal acquaintance with Jesus as the Messiah. (4.) The testimonies borne by the Baptist, as recorded in the Synoptics, are, both as to time ( before the baptism) and occasion, very different from that recorded in Joh 1:19 ff., which was given before a deputation from the high court; and therefore the historic truth of both accounts is to be retained side by side, [115] though in details John (against Weisse, who attributes the narrative in John to another hand; so Baur and others) must be taken as the standard. (5.) To deny any reference in Joh 1:19 ff. to the baptism of Jesus (Baur), is quite irreconcilable with Joh 1:31 ; Joh 1:33 ; for the evangelist could not but take it for granted that the baptism of Jesus (which indeed Weisse, upon the whole, questions) was a well-known fact. (6.) Definite as is the reference to the baptism of Jesus, there is not to be found any allusion whatever in John’s account to the history of the temptation with its forty days, which can be brought in only before Joh 1:19 , and even then involving a contradiction with the Synoptics. The total absence of any mention of this important as it would have been in connection with the baptism, and with John’s design generally in view of his idea of the Logos (against B. Crusius) does not certainly favour the reality of its historic truth as an actual and outward event. Comp. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 154. If the baptism of Jesus be placed between tbe two testimonies of Joh 1:19 ff. and Joh 1:29 ff. (so Hilgenfeld and Brckner, following Olshausen, B. Crusius, and others), which would oblige us still to place it on the day of the first testimony (see Brckner), though Baumlein (in the Stud. u. Krit . 1846, p. 389) would leave this uncertain; then the history of the temptation is as good as expressly excluded by John, because it must find its place (Mar 1:12 ; Mat 4:1 ; Luk 4:1 ) immediately after the baptism. In opposition to this view, Hengstenberg puts it in the period after Joh 3:22 , which is only an unavailing makeshift.
[115] Keim, Gesch. J . I. p. 522, sees in John’s account not so much an historical narrative , as rather (?) a “very significant literary introduction to the Baptist, who to a certain extent (?) is officially declaring himself. According to Scholten, the Baptist, during his ministry, did not at all recognise Jesus as Messiah, and Mat 3:14-15 is said to be an addition to the text of Mark;” while the fourth Gospel does not relate the baptism of Jesus, but only mentions the revelation from heaven then made, because to narrate the former would not be appropriate to the Gnosis of the Logos.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Ver. 28. In Bethabara ] That is, by interpretation, the place of passage, or traiectum, where Israel passed over Jordan. So the acts of Joshua and Jesus begin both at a place. Baptism also is first administered where it was of old foreshadowed. Christ is the true Bethabara, Eph 2:18 ; we sail to heaven on his bottom.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
28. ] The common reading, , is owing to a conjecture of Origen, the grounds of which he thus states: “ ” , . , , . , , , , (180). , (In Joan. Joh 6:24 , p. 140). He goes on to shew from the etymology of the names that it must have been Bethabara; an argument which modern criticism will not much esteem. It will be seen that his testimony is decisive for the universality and authority of , while for the other he only produces a tradition, and that only at second-hand; “ they say that such a place is shewn.” That no Bethany beyond Jordan was known in his time proves but little; for 300 eventful years had changed the face of Palestine since these events, and the names and sites of many obscure places may have been forgotten. I abstain from enumerating modern conjectures on the identity of the two, or the etymology of the names, as being indecisive and unprofitable. The objection of Paulus, that the Sanhedrim had no authority, appears not to be founded in fact: see Lcke’s Comm. i. 394 ff.
The question whether this testimony of the Baptist is identical with that given by the three other Evangelists, especially by Luke ( Luk 3:16 ), is, after all that has been said on it (Lcke, De Wette, Olshausen, &c.), not of great importance. The whole series of transactions here recorded, from Joh 1:15 onwards, certainly happened after the baptism of our Lord; for before that event John did not know Him as : and Joh 1:26 shews that he had so recognized Him (see below on .): whereas the testimony in Luk 3:16 and [28] , is as certainly given before the baptism. But since the great end of John’s mission was to proclaim Him who was coming after him, it is not only probable, but absolutely necessary to suppose, that he should have delivered this testimony often , and under varying circumstances: before the baptism, in the form given by Luke, . . . ., and after it in this form, ( Joh 1:15 ), where his former testimony is distinctly referred to. And among John’s disciples and the multitudes who frequented his baptism, many reports of such his sayings would naturally be current. So that there is neither a real nor even an apparent contradiction between John and the other Evangelists.
[28] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25 , the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified , thus, ‘ Mk.,’ or ‘ Mt. Mk.,’ &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others .
It is a far more important question, in what part of this narration the forty days’ Temptation is to be inserted . From Joh 1:19 to ch. Joh 2:1 there is an unbroken sequence of days distinctly marked. Since then Joh 1:19 must be understood as happening after the baptism, it must have happened after the Temptation also. And in this supposition there is not the slightest difficulty. But when we have made it, it still remains to say whether at that time our Lord had returned from the Temptation or not. The general opinion of Harmonists has been, that the approach of Jesus to John in Joh 1:29 was His return after the Temptation . But this I think questionable, on account of the , Joh 1:26 ; which I can only understand literally. I therefore believe that the return from the Temptation to Bethany beyond Jordan had taken place before the deputation arrived.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 1:28 . . The place is mentioned on account of the importance of the testimony thus borne to Jesus, and because the evangelist himself in all probability was present and it was natural to him to name it. But where was it? There is no doubt that the reading is to be preferred. The addition confirms this reading; as the existence of Bethany near Jerusalem rendered the distinguishing designation necessary. Bethany = meaning “boat-house,” and Bethabara having the same meaning [ a ferry boat] is it not possible that the same place may have been called by both names indifferently? Henderson ( Palestine , p. 154) suggests that possibly the explanation of the doubtful reading is that the place referred to is Bethabara which led over into Bethania, that is, Bashan. Similarly Conder ( Handbook , p. 320) says Bethania beyond Jordan is evidently the province of Batanea, and the ford Abrah now discovered leads into Batanea. At this place “John was, baptising,” rather than “John was baptizing”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Bethabara. All the texts read Bethania (with the Syriac) Identified by Conder and Wilson with Makht-Ababarah, near Jericho. Not uncommon then or now for two or more places to have the same name. See on Joh 11:3.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
28.] The common reading, , is owing to a conjecture of Origen, the grounds of which he thus states:- , . , , . , , , , (180). , (In Joan. Joh 6:24, p. 140). He goes on to shew from the etymology of the names that it must have been Bethabara; an argument which modern criticism will not much esteem. It will be seen that his testimony is decisive for the universality and authority of , while for the other he only produces a tradition, and that only at second-hand; they say that such a place is shewn. That no Bethany beyond Jordan was known in his time proves but little;-for 300 eventful years had changed the face of Palestine since these events, and the names and sites of many obscure places may have been forgotten. I abstain from enumerating modern conjectures on the identity of the two, or the etymology of the names, as being indecisive and unprofitable. The objection of Paulus, that the Sanhedrim had no authority, appears not to be founded in fact: see Lckes Comm. i. 394 ff.
The question whether this testimony of the Baptist is identical with that given by the three other Evangelists, especially by Luke (Luk 3:16), is, after all that has been said on it (Lcke, De Wette, Olshausen, &c.), not of great importance. The whole series of transactions here recorded, from Joh 1:15 onwards, certainly happened after the baptism of our Lord;-for before that event John did not know Him as : and Joh 1:26 shews that he had so recognized Him (see below on .): whereas the testimony in Luk 3:16 and [28], is as certainly given before the baptism. But since the great end of Johns mission was to proclaim Him who was coming after him, it is not only probable, but absolutely necessary to suppose, that he should have delivered this testimony often, and under varying circumstances: before the baptism, in the form given by Luke, . …, and after it in this form, (Joh 1:15), where his former testimony is distinctly referred to. And among Johns disciples and the multitudes who frequented his baptism, many reports of such his sayings would naturally be current. So that there is neither a real nor even an apparent contradiction between John and the other Evangelists.
[28] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25, the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified, thus, Mk., or Mt. Mk., &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others.
It is a far more important question, in what part of this narration the forty days Temptation is to be inserted. From Joh 1:19 to ch. Joh 2:1 there is an unbroken sequence of days distinctly marked. Since then Joh 1:19 must be understood as happening after the baptism, it must have happened after the Temptation also. And in this supposition there is not the slightest difficulty. But when we have made it, it still remains to say whether at that time our Lord had returned from the Temptation or not. The general opinion of Harmonists has been, that the approach of Jesus to John in Joh 1:29 was His return after the Temptation. But this I think questionable, on account of the , Joh 1:26; which I can only understand literally. I therefore believe that the return from the Temptation to Bethany beyond Jordan had taken place before the deputation arrived.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 1:28. , in Bethabara) Therefore they had come a long way, Joh 1:19.-) beyond, in relation to Jerusalem.-, where) Where he was wont to baptize. [ is the reading of the mass of authorities, [31][32][33]*[34][35][36]. was a conjecture of Orige[37]. The Bethany here was one beyond Jordan, which had ceased to exist before Orige[38]s time.]
[31] the Alexandrine MS.: in Brit. Museum: fifth century: publ. by Woide, 1786-1819: O. and N. Test. defective.
[32] the Vatican MS., 1209: in Vat. Iibr., Rome: fourth cent.: O. and N. Test. def.
[33] Ephrmi Rescriptus: Royal libr., Paris: fifth or sixth cent.: publ. by Tisch. 1843: O. and N. T. def.
[34] Cod. Reg., Paris, of the Gospels: the text akin to that of B: edited by Tisch.
[35] Cod. Monacensis, fragments of the Gospels.
[36] San Gallensis: in the libr. of St. Gall: the Greek and Latin of the four Gospels. It and G. Boernerianus of Pauls Epp. are severed parts of the same book.
[37] rigen (born about 186 A.D., died 253 A.D., a Greek father: two-thirds of the N. Test. are quoted in his writings). Ed. Vinc. Delarue, Paris. 1733, 1740, 1759.
[38] rigen (born about 186 A.D., died 253 A.D., a Greek father: two-thirds of the N. Test. are quoted in his writings). Ed. Vinc. Delarue, Paris. 1733, 1740, 1759.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 1:28
Joh 1:28
These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.-Much of Johns teaching was done on the west side of the Jordan, but this was done on the east side, opposite the line between Samaria and Galilee.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Bethabara: Joh 10:40, Jdg 7:24, Bethbarah, Joh 12:5
where: Joh 3:23
Reciprocal: Jos 22:11 – at the passage Mar 1:5 – baptized Luk 3:3 – the country Act 1:22 – Beginning
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8
These things means the conversations just reported. There is some uncertainty with the works of reference, as to the exact identity of Bethabara, but all agree that it was a town on the east shore of the Jordan, near a spot where John was baptizing at that particular period in his work.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 1:28. These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan. There can be no doubt that Bethabara is not the true reading in this verse. Origen, writing in the third century, states that he found Bethany in almost all copies of the Gospel. This statement is decisive. It cannot be set aside, nor indeed is it even lessened in weight, by the fact that Origen himself, owing to his inability to identify Bethany, believed Bethabara to be the place intended. The existence of another Bethany, near Jerusalem, presents no difficulty, as it was not uncommon for two places to bear the same name. The instances of Bethsaida (Luk 9:10; Mar 6:45), Carmel, Csares, etc., are well known. It is even possible that the two names, though alike written Bethania in Greek, may in their original Hebrew form have been different words; just as, for instance, the Abel of Gen 1:2 is altogether different in actual form from the Abel of 2Sa 20:14. This Bethany may have been small and unimportant; Bethabara, on the other hand, seems to have been so well known, that the addition of the words beyond Jordan would have been less natural. Of the situation of Bethany we know no more than we are told in this verse (comp. chap. Joh 2:1). It has been variously placed,near Jericho, near Scythopolis (a few miles south of the Sea of Galilee), and by one recent writer, Caspari, a little to the north of that sea. The last opinion seems the least probable of the three. The second testimony of the Baptist is now presented to us.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 28. These things were done at Bethany, beyond the Jordon, where John was baptizing.
The notice of Joh 1:28 is certainly not suggested to John by a geographical interest; it is inspired by the solemnity of this whole scene, and by the extraordinary gravity of this official testimony given in presence of the representatives of the Sanhedrim as well as of the entire nation. It was, indeed, to this declaration that the expression of the Prologue applied: in order that all might believe through him. If the people had been ready for faith, this testimony coming from such lips, would have been enough to make the divine fire break forth in Israel.
As for the two readingsBethany and Bethabara, Origen relates that nearly all the ancient MSS. read Bethany, but that, having sought for a place of this name on the banks of the Jordan, he had not found it, while a place was pointed out called Bethabara (comp. Jdg 7:24), where tradition alleged that John had baptized. It is, therefore, certain that the readingBethabara was substituted for the primitive reading Bethany in a certain number of documents, and that it was under the influence of Origen; as the Roman war had caused a large number of ancient places to disappear even as to their names, we may easily understand the disappearance of Bethany at the time of Origen. We must, therefore, conclude from the text which is established by evidence, that there existed in the time of Jesus, in the vicinity of the Jordan, a place by the name of Bethany, which was consequently different from the city of this name near Jerusalem. As there were two Bethlehems, two Antiochs, two Ramas, two Canas, why should there not have been, also, two Bethanies? Perhaps this name had, in the two cases, different etymologies. Bethany may signify, indeed, either place of dates, or place of poverty, etc., a meaning which suits Bethany near Jerusalem; or place of the ferry-boat (Beth-Onijah), a meaning which would well suit the Bethany which is here in question.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
The site of Jesus’ ministry was primarily west of the Jordan River. "Beyond the Jordan" then evidently refers to the east side of that river. The Bethany in view then would be a town different from the site of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus’ home (Joh 11:1), which was on the west side just east of Jerusalem. Perhaps John mentioned Bethany by name because its site was known when he wrote. It is unknown now. It may be significant that John recorded Jesus’ public ministry beginning at one Bethany and almost ending at the other (Joh 12:1-11). "Bethany" means "house of depression or misery." [Note: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. "bethania," p. 100.]
John the Baptist fulfilled his mission of bearing witness to the Word first by publicly declaring his submission to Jesus’ authority. The veiled identity of Jesus as the Word continues from the prologue into this pericope.