Abarim Publications' online Biblical Greek Dictionary
λυκος
The noun λυκος (lukos) means wolf, and stems from the Proto-Indo-European word for wolf, "wlkos", which is widely attested and yields several Indo-European derivations and related terms that have to do with violence and negativity. In the classical world, the wolf did not have the romantically high standing as it does in our culture. The Latin word for wolf is lupus, which is thought to derive from the Greek λυπη (lupe), meaning sorrow (see below). The Hebrew word for wolf, namely זאב (ze'eb), derives from the verb זאב (za'ab), to despise, frighten and drive away. Hence, to the classics the wolf was rather an underdog, a sorrowful one, a howler and a whiner.
It has always been common knowledge that wolves are related to dogs, and dogs had a very low status (see our articles on כלב, kaleb and κυων, kuon, both meaning dog). But where dogs could be expected to do some labor or guard a premise, wolves were seen as self-pitying and cowardly sneak thieves who preyed upon the defenseless (Ezekiel 22:27), and besides take some for food (all creature have to eat, so that's no reason to criticize), they also terrified and scattered the rest (John 10:12, Acts 20:29).
Calling someone a ravenous wolf (Genesis 49:27) was a dire insult. In Greece, molesters of children were called wolves, and Jesus called false prophets wolves dressed in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15). See a brief discussion of this term below.
Note the (accidental) similarity between our noun λυκος (lukos), wolf, and the familiar adjective λευκος (leukos), white, the opposite of μελας (melas), black, which closely relates to μαλακος (malakos), weak or soft. This seems to imply that wolves, though widely despised, where still respected for their strength and perhaps the "wisdom" of their pack hunting skills, which was obviously not unlike that of humans: the very skill that made dogs such fitting assistants of the first herders.
Our noun λυκος (lukos) is always masculine (the word for she-wolf, namely λυκαινα, lukaina, derives from our word for wolf), whereas the word for fox, namely αλωπηξ (alompex) is always feminine (a male fox would be a αρσενικη αλεπου, arsenike alepou).
Our noun λυκος (lukos), wolf, is used 6 times in the New Testament; see full concordance.
On wolves in sheep's clothing
The familiar term "wolves in sheep's clothing" uses the word προβατον (probaton), which covers any small cattle: all sorts of sheep or goats. And it does not describe wolves who pretend to be sheep-slash-goats (as most commentators curiously hold) but rather wolves who pretend to be shepherds. Sheep don't wear sheep's clothing and goats don't wear goat-clothing, only human shepherds do: a woolen or fleece cloak (Jeremiah 43:12), a bag made from skin (1 Samuel 17:40), and oil-containers and musical instruments made from horns (Joshua 6:5, 1 Samuel 16:1).
Wolves that wear sheep's clothing are folks who put on fancy robes and appropriate fancy titles and symbols in order to pretend to be pastors while in fact they have no idea what shepherding is all about and are only in it to predate on the sheep.
In our modern make-belief world, churches are big business, and since very few people understand what the Bible is for or church all about, some well-projected acting has been known to do wonders and move serious cash. A modern Christian church is first and foremost a theatre, where audiences come to be entertained, while church-genres range from the comedic to deep drama, and from tragedy to sado-masochistic. And nowadays, a pastor doesn't even have to be seriously schooled; as long as they themselves "believe" that they should be pastors, they can pastor away. A handful of bumper sticker slogans and some juggling with familiar key phrases draws in crowds who eagerly pay handsomely to be dazzled and enthralled. And if that's what a person wants out of life, they should certainly continue to pay for that.
A "pastor" who is not a human shepherd but rather a wolf dressed like one can be easily recognized: if the one most obviously benefitting from the arrangement is the pastor rather than the flock, then he's a wolf. If he surrounds himself with the community's rich and powerful, rather than the weak and ailing, he's a wolf. If the sick stay sick, the lost stay lost, the lame stay lame, and the poor stay poor, despite the pastor's most ardent prayers and best wishes, he's a wolf (1 Kings 18:29, Matthew 11:4). If a pastor preaches a general message of peace and love and feelings of wonder, he might as well be Hare Krishna. If he emphasizes one's best intentions to become an ever improving version of oneself, then he might as well be a soccer coach. If his message is all about brotherhood and honor and fidelity to creed and dogma, then he is a dog who understands short commands but certainly not the nature of language or what it is like to partake in a conversation.
If your church emphasizes fidelity to the tribe (while proclaiming or implying that all the hundreds of other denominations are all misled and certainly inferior), endlessly repeats the same vapid phrases (in song and creed), and is motivated mostly by the promise of reward for virtues that are never quite understood, and the utter destruction of enemies whose status is derived solely from the obvious vice of "them" not being "us", then you are certainly in a wolf-shepherded church. You are lunch, not saved.
A church with an actual shepherd emphasizes fidelity only to the One God, who is king over the entire earth and all creatures on it, who created them all according to their own kind, and designed the whole thing to be organized into a perfect Paradisical garden that spans the entire globe and has a proper place for everybody whom God gives breath.
As we discuss at length in our article on Isaac: canines (wolves, dogs) and herdlings (sheep, cows) are both members of the great family of toe-walkers: creatures who are mostly driven by fear and roam the open range forever in search of safety and food (Esau). Human shepherds, on the other hand are members of the great family of flat-footers (rodents, monkeys and apes), whose lives revolve around communal homes (Jacob). Toe-walkers run away from what they don't like and toward what they do like, and in the process drive their old, young and weak to the back of the herd where they find themselves sacrificed to predators (hence the eye-opening story of Isaac's sacrifice on Moriah). Flat-footers, contrarily, keep their old, young and weak in their central home, where they are protected and provided for by the strong and able.
A toe-walking church is a church whose policies and directions derive from socially strong and relatively wealthy pastors, elders and policy makers, while the weak try their very best to keep up with the leadership but invariably fail, and get blamed for their own demise and ultimately kicked out for their persistent refusal to better themselves. A flat-foot church, to the contrary, is a church whose directions derive from the needs of the weak, broke and busted, and the strong go out into the world and bring food and security back to the weak. A toe-walking church abandons whatever can't keep up and uses the Bible as a source of entertainment and nourishment (and toe-walkers poop where they eat). A flat-foot church cherishes their weak and wounded for as long as they draw breath and regardless of their condition, and uses the Bible as a home (and go outside to poop: Deuteronomy 23:13).
As we explain at length in our article on Jesus, mental identity derives not from one's body but from the languages one speaks, and languages are always collective: people who speak German are different mental animals than people who speak English, or Greek or Swahili. The actual shepherd of our world is the Hebrew language, which is the most intelligent language in mankind's history (because it contains vast amounts of data in its etymological networks, independent of the intelligence of any Hebrew speaker; see our article on Mesopotamia). Hebrew produced the alphabet (see our article on YHWH), which subsequently spread out over the world and domesticated Greek first and then the entire Indo-European language basin. Hebrew was developed and has since been maintained by the House of Israel, whose patriarch Jacob famously dressed in goat skins to make his father Isaac think that he was Esau (Genesis 27:16, see Genesis 3:21). Another famous fleece is that of Gideon the Deliverer (Judges 6:36-40), which possibly comments on the famous Greek story of Jason and the Golden Fleece.
The vast majority of churches in the world today have no human shepherds but rather wolves who pretend to be shepherds. Most church-goers in the world today have never seen a human shepherd, and even have no idea that such beings exist or how to recognize one. Most church-goers have no idea that real shepherds are part of an entire shepherd world, where shepherds go to take a load off, to put their feet up, to sit by the fire and sing songs and tell stories with other shepherds, and that there are entire markets where shepherds trade wares, and even cities where no animal ever enters, with vast artificial buildings and canals that run through it.
But a truly shepherded church is easily recognized because there the Hebrew language is taught and the Bible is studied and Psalms are sung, and nobody is told what to believe and everybody speaks to God from their own heart and in the language of heaven. A church that has an actual shepherd is part of a world that vastly exceeds anything a wolf-shepherd can come up with, with food and water and rest for everybody.
λυπη
The noun λυπη (lupe) means sorrow. Since sorrow frequently comes with a lot of howling, and wolves do to, the Greco-Roman word for wolf appears to have been derived from this noun — confusingly, the familiar Latin noun lupus, wolf, appears to come from the Greek noun λυκος (lukos), wolf (see above), which in turn came from our noun λυπη, lupe, sorrow. But these associations go far beyond the cute and actually stem from profound societal insight:
Very early humans were actually very nerdy great apes who failed to compete with their burly brethren and were subsequently pushed out onto the periphery of the tribal territory. There they met the flunkies of the neighboring tribe, and while their respective alphas ruled their respective tribes and congratulated themselves for being so very alpha, the flunkies united, developed speech and built cities and lived happily ever after. Dogs, likewise, were the nerds of wolf-dom, who failed to compete with their burly brethren and were pushed out onto the peripheries of their territories, where they met the flunkies of neighboring tribes and very early humans. The two nerd-tribes both decided to treat the other guys better than their own alphas had treated them, shook hands and paws and became each other's best friends.
And here is the insight: while early humans and early dogs joined forces and ignited the agricultural revolution and built cities where they could live in peace and security, the original alphas (of both ape and canine persuasion) remained in the outer darkness, where they wept and gnashed their teeth in retrospective regret (Psalm 35:16, Matthew 25:30, Luke 13:28).
The journey from the caves to the New Jerusalem is not about halos and grandiose revelations, not about obedience and following rules, but about learning how to live with one's own weaknesses and how to get along with folks who fail in their own various ways. It's not stressed often enough but the New Jerusalem is certainly not a matter of survival of the fittest, but rather survival of the weakest. Many generations of great ones, and fit ones, and successful ones will one day shudder and howl with regret when they see their tormented victims unite in unprecedented splendor, and enjoy a peace and enlightenment that the alphas could never have begun to image.
The noun λυπη (lupe), sorrow, is used 16 times in the New Testament, see full concordance, and from it derive:
- Together with the common prefix of negation α (a): the adjective αλυπος (alupos), meaning without sorrow. In the Classics, this fairly common adjective described an often pondered blissful state (painlessness, sorrowlessness), which obviously coincided with ελευθερια (eleutheria), societal freedom, which in turn was the ideal of δημοκρατια (democratia), or public self-government (a people's government of itself). This adjective αλυπος (alupos), sorrowless, is not used in the New Testament, but its comparative, namely αλυποτερος (alupoteros), more sorrowless (or less sorrowful), occurs in Philippians 2:28 only.
- The verb λυπεω (lupeo), to grieve, to be sorrowful or (perhaps somewhat milder) to be sorry. Not every expression of sorrow (not every "I am sorry") automatically warrants a reversal in attitude in the addressed, since such sentiments on occasion don't stem from an intimate understanding of what one apologizes for, and subsequently don't guarantee a recurrence of the infraction. Or as Paul writes: "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death" (2 Corinthians 7:10). This verb is used 26 times, see full concordance, and from it in turn derives:
- Together with the preposition περι (peri), meaning around or about (and in this case probably expressing abundance): the adjective περιλυπος (perilupos), which is a word like the previous and appears to describe a multifarious grieving, a grieving caused by many pains or by pains from all around (perhaps comparable to the sentiment expressed in Psalm 22:12). This verb is used 5 times in the New Testament; see full concordance.