II Peter 2:22 · Bible study
2 Peter 2:22 Commentary: Dog Returns to Vomit
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Analyzes II Peter 2:22's two proverbs about dogs and pigs. Does the verse teach true believers can fall away or only show external reformation?
Research Summary
- Meaning: People who appear to change but return to their old sins are acting according to their unchanged nature, like a dog returning to vomit or a washed sow to the mire.
- Key words: Exerama (vomit, hapax), kulismon (wallowing place, hapax), borboros (mire, hapax), all vivid terms unique in the NT.
- Main debate: Whether these false teachers were once truly saved (Clarke, Wesleyan) or never genuinely changed (Barnes, Calvin, Reformed).
- Theological theme: The nature of apostasy and the perseverance of the saints; the possibility of falling from grace vs. the security of the elect.
- Best use: A solemn warning for self-examination, not a proof-text for a single doctrine of perseverance.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”
WEB World English Bible 2000
But it has happened to them according to the true proverb, “The dog turns to his own vomit again,” and “the sow that has washed to wallowing in the mire.”
KJV King James Version 1769
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
It has happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog turning to his own vomit again, and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and happened to them hath that of the true similitude; `A dog did turn back upon his own vomit,' and, `A sow having bathed herself--to rolling in mire.'
Darby Darby Bible 1890
But that [word] of the true proverb has happened to them: [The] dog [has] turned back to his own vomit; and, [The] washed sow to [her] rolling in mud.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit; and: The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Pero les ha acontecido lo del verdadero proverbio: El perro se volvió á su vómito|strong="G2398, G1829", y la puerca lavada á revolcarse en el cieno.
Mas isto lhes sobreveio conforme um verdadeiro provérbio, que diz : O cão voltou ao seu próprio vômito; e a porca lavada voltou ao chiqueiro da lama.
Il leur est arrivé ce que dit un proverbe vrai: Le chien est retourné à ce qu’ il avait vomi, et la truie lavée s’ est vautrée dans le bourbier.
Es ist ihnen widerfahren das wahre Sprichwort: “Der Hund frißt wieder, was er gespieen hat;” und: “Die Sau wälzt sich nach der Schwemme wieder im Kot.”
Maar hun is overkomen, hetgeen met een waar spreekwoord gezegd wordt: De hond is wedergekeerd tot zijn eigen uitbraaksel; en de gewassen zeug tot de wenteling in het slijk.
E’ avvenuto di loro quel che dice con verità il proverbio: Il cane è tornato al suo vomito, e: La troia lavata è tornata a voltolarsi nel fango.
Aleć się im przydało według onej prawdziwej przypowieści: Pies wrócił się do zwracania swego, a świnia umyta do walania się w błocie.
Но с ними случается по верной пословице: пес возвращается на свою блевотину, и: вымытая свинья идет валяться в грязи.
俗語 說得真不錯：狗 所吐的，牠 轉過來 又吃； 豬 洗淨了 又回到 泥裡 去滾；這話在他們 身上正合式。
They are an example of that true saying, The dog has gone back to the food it had put out, and the pig which had been washed to its rolling in the dirty earth.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · II Peter 2:22
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree this verse uses two well-known proverbs to describe people who, after appearing to leave their old ways, return to them. The dog returns to its vomit; the washed sow goes back to wallowing in the mire. The Greek construction (τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας, “the thing of the true proverb,” per Vincent) signals that Peter is citing sayings whose truth is now visible in the false teachers’ actions. The aorist participles epistrepsas (“having returned”) and lousamenē (“having washed”) describe actions completed before the relapse. The perfect verb sumbebēken (“has happened”) stresses the present reality of the proverbs’ fulfillment.
But the key question divides the tradition. Clarke (Wesleyan) holds that these individuals had true repentance and cleansing through the blood of the Lamb, making the verse a clear proof that genuine Christians can fall from grace. Barnes and Calvin argue the opposite: the dog and the pig had only an external change, never a new nature. “They had never been anything else than sinners,” Barnes writes. “It hence follows that no part of the sin can be ascribed to the gospel,” Calvin adds. Both sides agree the verse warns that returning to sin reveals a person’s true character.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Falling from grace (Wesleyan): Clarke argues these had true repentance and cleansing through the blood of the Lamb, thus proving the possibility of falling from high grace.
- Unchanged nature (Reformed): Barnes and Calvin argue the dog and sow never changed in nature; external reformation is not regeneration. The verse shows no true Christian can finally fall away.
- External reformation only: Some see the washed sow as purely external—like those in v.20 who ‘escaped the defilement of the world’ through knowledge but without saving faith (cf. Poole).
What is clear: All traditions agree that returning to sin after professing change is a grave warning and reveals the true character of the person.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the false teachers’ reformation | These people experienced some form of deliverance from defilement (v.20) and had an external reformation. | Clarke (Wesleyan) sees genuine repentance and cleansing; Barnes and Calvin argue it was only external, never a change of heart. |
| Meaning of the proverbs | Both proverbs illustrate that the individuals returned to their former sinful behavior. | Does the dog and sow represent total depravity that cannot be changed (Reformed) or a tragic fall from a saved state (Arminian)? |
| Perseverance of the saints | The passage warns against apostasy and shows the danger of turning back. | Reformed tradition sees it as evidence that the elect cannot finally fall; Wesleyan tradition sees it as proof that true believers can lose salvation. |
| Baptismal language in 'washed' | The word λουσαμένη (having washed) is used elsewhere for baptism (Acts 22:16). | Does Peter intend a baptismal reference (Clarke: washed from all filthiness) or simply a common image of external cleaning (Barnes)? |
Historical & Cultural Context
Dogs and pigs carried heavy symbolic weight in the Jewish world. Both were unclean animals (Deuteronomy 23:18; Matthew 7:6 calls them terms of contempt for those who reject sacred things). A dog scavenging its own vomit was an image of something revolting and low. Swine were so despised that the prodigal son, at his lowest, longed for their food. These cultural associations made the two proverbs especially cutting.
The first proverb comes from Proverbs 26:11: “As a dog that returns to his vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly.” Peter quotes it almost exactly. The second proverb does not appear in the Old Testament. As the commentators note, it was common in rabbinic writings and Greek literature. Arrian quotes Epictetus saying, “Go and reason with the swine, lest he be rolled in the mire.” The Midrash on Ruth speaks of Orpah returning to her mire while Ruth persevered. These proverbs were part of the moral currency of the ancient Mediterranean world.
Peter applies them to the false teachers described in the chapter. Verse 20 says these people “escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” but became entangled again. Verse 21 says it would be better for them never to have known the way of righteousness. The dog-and-pig proverbs form the climax of this warning. The participles used in the Greek (aorist, indicating past action) point to a real sequence: the dog returned, the sow washed, then both went back. The question is whether that washing was a true inner cleansing or merely an external one. That question has divided readers ever since.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for this verse. The phrase “the true proverb” and the two animal images are stable across the manuscript tradition. A few manuscripts vary the word order of the second proverb (e.g., inserting “to her” before “wallowing”), but the meaning is unaffected.
Reception History
This verse became a focal point in post-Reformation debates about perseverance and apostasy. The Reformed tradition (following Calvin and the Geneva Bible notes) used it to argue that those who fall away were never truly regenerate, their reformation was external, like the sow’s washing. The Wesleyan tradition, reading through Clarke, saw it as a sobering example of believers who had been cleansed by Christ’s blood yet later rejected grace. In the early church, Augustine and others applied the verse to warn against lapsing into sin after baptism. The image of the washed sow has also appeared in hymns and sermons on the danger of hypocrisy and the need for genuine heart change.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The proverbs are “true.” Peter calls them the true proverb (τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας). These are not clever sayings but accurate descriptions of human nature, confirmed by Scripture and experience.
- Returning to sin exposes what a person really is. The dog and the pig act according to their nature. External change, no matter how real it seems, does not change the heart. A washed pig is still a pig.
- This verse warns both the backslider and the one who never changed. Whether these false teachers were once saved or only seemed saved, the outcome is the same: they are entangled again. The warning applies to everyone who claims to know Christ.
Five-point outline
- The dog’s vomit (Proverbs 26:11), what was cast out with revulsion is taken back. Sin that once seemed disgusting becomes appealing again.
- The sow’s washing, external cleansing without a new nature. No amount of scrubbing changes the pig’s desire for the mire.
- Which proverb fits your congregation? Some may be dogs who never truly hated their sin. Others may be washed pigs who never had their nature changed. A third group may be those who have genuinely been made new and need to guard against the pull of old habits.
- The knowledge of Christ can be temporary. Verse 20 says they escaped through knowledge. But knowledge is not the same as transformation. It is possible to know the way of righteousness and still walk away.
- The horror of the picture. Peter does not soften the image. He wants readers to feel the disgust of sin. This is what it looks like when grace is thrown away.
Illustration hooks
- A dog that returns to its own vomit. Every parent has seen a child spit out something bitter, then cry for it back. The proverbs capture that same irrational return to what was rejected.
- A washed-up but not changed life. A person who stops drinking, starts attending church, cleans up their language, but never deals with the root of their anger or pride. Under pressure, the old behavior surfaces.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Can a true Christian lose their salvation? This verse is often used to argue yes. Others say these people were never truly saved. How do I know which I am?
- What if I keep returning to the same sin? Does that prove I am not a Christian? Where is the line between struggle and willful return?
- How can I tell if my repentance is real? The dog and the pig warn that external change can be convincing but temporary.
Leading a Discussion
This verse uses two ugly pictures to make a point about those who appear to change but then go back to their old life. The first picture (dog and vomit) comes from Proverbs 26:11. The second (washed sow and mire) was common in both Jewish and Greek proverbs. As you discuss, let the disgust of the image work on you, Peter chose it deliberately. The goal is not to frighten but to help you examine what real change looks like.
Discussion questions
- Read Proverbs 26:11. How does seeing the proverb in its original context help you understand Peter’s use of it?
- The Greek word for “washing” (λουσαμένη, lousamenē) is used elsewhere for baptism (Acts 22:16, “wash away your sins”). Why might Peter choose a word with baptismal overtones when describing the sow?
- Barnes says the dog and sow “had never been anything else.” Clarke says they “had true repentance” and “were washed from all their filthiness through the blood of the Lamb.” Which reading fits the context of verses 20, 21 better, and why?
- What difference does it make to the way we view someone who falls away if we believe they were truly saved or only appeared to be?
- Verse 22 uses a perfect tense verb for “has happened” (συμβέβηκεν), indicating the proverbs are still coming true. How does that tense shape the urgency of this warning?
- Why do you think Peter uses two animal images instead of just one? What does the addition of the sow add that the dog alone does not cover?
- How can this passage be a help rather than a fear to someone who struggles with a recurring sin?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Proverbs 26:11 | As a dog that returns to his vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke sees the proverb of the dog and the sow as proof that a person can fall from grace after true repentance and cleansing through Christ's blood. The image shows how someone who has rejected sin can take it up again, making their condition worse than before, which Clarke says reason and justice require.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes argues that the proverbs about the dog and the sow show these people never experienced a true inner change. Their return to sin proves their nature remained unchanged, not that genuine believers can fall from grace. He insists the passage describes only those whose reformation was external.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator observes that Peter draws on Proverbs 26:11 but gives the proverb in a colloquial form, adding a second part not found in Scripture. Both images stress a genuine change was made before the return to old ways: the dog had vomited the foul matter, the sow had washed. This illustrates for Peter that those who return to sin after baptism are no better than unclean animals.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note affirms that the proverb fits these false teachers exactly: like a dog returning to its own vomit or a washed sow going back to the mud, they have reverted to their natural sinful state despite any outward cleansing.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill stresses the Hebrew wordplay behind "sow" -- the word itself comes from a root meaning "to return," capturing how apostates naturally go back to their old filth. For him the proverb exposes both sin's abominable nature and the hopeless state of those who, without a changed nature, inevitably return to it.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB stresses that these people were dogs and swine by nature before their temporary escape, and dogs and swine they remain. Barely free from their filth, they dive back in and then lure away others who had also briefly escaped. Their return is not a fall but a revelation of what they always were.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry highlights the stark contrast between false teachers and even the angels, who show restraint. These teachers, by contrast, act like brute beasts, driven by corrupt desires and speaking arrogantly against what they do not understand. Their certain destruction is made worse by their having known the way of righteousness and then turning from it.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent draws attention to the Greek phrasing behind "the true proverb" and notes that three key words—vomit, wallowing, mire—appear only here in the New Testament. He also observes that the pairing of dogs and swine intentionally echoes the same imagery found in Matthew 7:6.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley applies the dog and sow imagery to every human being. In God's sight, he says, people are like these animals before they receive grace and again after they abandon faith. The comparison highlights humanity's natural condition and the tragic relapse of those who fall away.