2 Peter - Verse-by-Verse Biblical Exegesis

As a scavenger, a dog would return to its own vomit and thus fulfill the proverb. Peter uses
this proverb to compare the natural habit of a dog with the practice of false teachers who
return to living in sin … A pig seeks relief from pesky insects and the heat of the sun by
wallowing in the mud. Although the sow is washed, by nature the pig returns to the mud
from which it has come. It rolls around in slime and grunts contentedly. As the pig enjoys
wallowing in the mire, so the heretics take pleasure in revelry and immorality ... Here is a
conclusive observation: By vomiting, the dog relieves itself of internal impurities; the sow,
when it is washed, is cleansed from clinging external mud. Nevertheless, both animals return
to the selfsame filth. (S. Kistemaker) The gospel is a medicine which purges us by
wholesome vomiting, but that there are many dogs who swallow again what they have
vomited to their own ruin; and that the gospel is also a laver which cleanses all our
uncleanness, but that there are many swine who, immediately after washing, roll themselves
again in the mud. At the same time the godly are reminded to take heed to themselves,
except they wish to be deemed dogs or swine. (J. Calvin)
A dog and sow illustrate what happens to the miserable reversionist … Likewise the
reversionist is nauseating and repugnant to God. This is precisely why the Bible uses this
vivid animal imagery to demonstrate the pattern of reversionism in the believer. The
reversionist has tasted epignosis and been freed from human viewpoint and evil, returns to
that evil by ingesting false doctrine dished out by false teachers. Like a dog, he attempts to
find happiness and satisfaction from food that was inedible the first time. He returns to his
vomit – the same human viewpoint he left but now accepts again. Like a sow, he rushes back
to the quagmire and rolls in the same evil that bogged down his life before he learned any
doctrine. The condition of the soul makes all the difference between an unclean, nauseating
believer and a cleansed, advancing believer. When the soul is stabilized, false doctrine is
refused; when the soul is in a state of emotional revolt and chaos, the reversionist
indiscriminately accepts what he previously could not stomach. Negative volition expels
metabolized doctrine from his soul, to be replaced by a more virulent form of false doctrine
than was present before epignosis. Without epignosis all believers are defenseless against
false teachers. (R.B. Thieme, Jr.)
The question of the dietary habits of dogs and the bathing activities of hogs are not foremost
here. Instead Peter was illustrating before and after conditions. “After escaping the
stains…they are again entangled,” and “the latter things have become worse for them than
the former” (v. 20 ). What satisfaction can a dog find in vomit if before that he could not
even digest that food when it was fresh? The very thought is disgusting and is a picture of
irrational reflex action. If a sow which washed herself then returned to the mud, would not
the mud now be even more odious than before? How can a mud wallow be expected to
please and satisfy her after her bath? In each case there is the “before” condition: the dog had
eaten undigestible food; the sow had been dirty. In each case a return is mentioned: eating
vomit by the dog, and wallowing by the sow. They are similar to a Christian who has
received Christ, repenting of his life of sin, but is then won back into his former habits by
temptations from the false teachers. This illustrates going back to something with which one
was dissatisfied previously. When such a great change has taken place in a believer’s soul,
how can he rationally expect to find satisfaction now, never having it even before? When a