Luke 14:27

Usage and Idiom?

Greek ἔρχεται ὀπίσω "coming backwards." Often lexical meaning is retroactively reconstructed to fit theological or narrative demands. Scholars read “following” into ὀπίσω (backwards), based on perceived context—not the native semantic range of the adverb. Is this honest? This is what you call "epistomological tension" or "presupposition," where a usage must be novel or theological when it does not align with standard Greek idiom.  

ὀπίσω is the opposite of πρόσω "forward." (cf. LSJ, Bailly, Slater, etc.)

Because scholars could not understand the enigma of "coming backwards" they feigned a new "Biblical Greek" meaning and even admit it:

By a usage not found in cl. [Classical Greek],...

of Place... after...

(Abbott-Smith NT) 

The usage! The phrase ἔρχεται ὀπίσω, when taken seriously in its literal linguistic structure, is unusual and marked in Greek—and not just unusual, but almost deliberately non-idiomatic by classical standards. It’s precisely the sort of phrase that calls for serious thought rather than relying on fixed usage. In otherwords, the word does not have such a meaning of "following," which is effectively changing the backwards movement to a movement of "following."

In the sense of movement, the idea is very straightforward:

back, back again, of movement,

back again, again, of action that reverses an action or occurrence,

(LSJ)

The saying is so strange, that a special sub-definition was listed in many lexicons for this assumed usage of "backwards" as "following."

Additionally, this is not the typical Greek for "behind" ὄπισθεν:

of Place, behind, at the back, opp. πρόσθε [before, in front]

(LSJ)

No Primary Evidence

These presuppositions of "novelty" often rest on circular reasoning, whereby:

1. The text departs from expected Greek idiom (e.g., ἔρχεσθαι ὀπίσω).

2. Scholars observe that this is "non-Greek" in usage.

3. They conclude it must be either:

   • a Semitic calque (which is often true), or

   • a new, theological sense of the word (which is conjectural).

4. The meaning of ὀπίσω is then adjusted in lexicons and commentaries to reflect this “new” usage.

5. Future scholars then cite those lexicons to claim this is “what ὀπίσω means in the NT.”

In this way, the meaning of the word is retroactively transformed, based not on primary evidence of usage, but on interpretive expectations.

Core Issue: Semantic Drift via Theological Overlay

The process is not purely descriptive; it is normative and inventive. Scholars often:

• Fail to distinguish between meaning and implication.

• Conflate syntax-driven contextual sense with lexical semantic change.

• Reify (make concrete) their own readings into the word itself, so that a contextual reading becomes a lexical entry.

For example:

• Classical ὀπίσω = “behind,” “backward,” “back again,” “hereafter"

• NT usage in Matthew 4:19: "δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου" interpreted as “come follow me”

• Lexicons adjust: ὀπίσω = “to follow (as disciple)” – which the word does not mean

This is semantic augmentation, not lexicographic description.

It is not the text that declares this usage “novel” or “theological.” It is scholars, facing a non-native idiom, who impose that category—often unwilling to let the Greek stand as deliberate, structured foreignness. They assimilate linguistic strangeness into conceptual categories they can manage. But in so doing, they are not describing the word; they are redefining it.

Thus, "coming back to me" is a legitimate, literal rendering of the phrase ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου—and a reading that is far more grounded in Greek semantics than the traditional theological interpretation of "follow me."