After all, the sense “_to_” is not needed in this passage, to direct the action of the verb of motion (προαγειν, _proagein_, “go before,”) to its proper object, since that is previously done by the former preposition and substantive, εις το περαν, (_eis to peran_.) That is, when we read “Jesus constrained his disciples to go before him,” and the question arises in regard to the object towards which the action is directed, “Whither did he constrain them to go before him?” the answer is in the words immediately succeeding, εις το περαν, “to the other side,” and in these words the action is complete; but the mere general direction, “to the other side,” was too vague of itself, and required some limitation to avoid error; for the place to which they commonly directed their course westward, over the lake, was Capernaum, the home of Jesus, and thither they might on this occasion be naturally expected to go, as we should have concluded they did, if nothing farther was said; therefore, to fix the point of their destination, we are told, in answer to the query, “To what part of the western shore were they directed to go?” “To that part which was _near_ or _opposite to_ Bethsaida.” The objection which may arise, that a place on the western side could not be very near to Bethsaida on the east, is answered by the fact that this city was separated from the western shore, not by the whole breadth of the lake, but simply by the little stream of Jordan, here not more than twenty yards wide, so that a place on the opposite side might still be very near the city. And this is what shows the topographical justness of the term, “_over against_,” given by Scott, and the French commentator, since a place not directly across or opposite, but down the western shore, in a south-westerly direction, as Capernaum was, would not be _very near_ Bethsaida, nor much less than five miles off. Thus is shown a beautiful mutual illustration of the literal and the liberal translations of the word.