Executive Summary
In 2 Peter 2:22, the apostle closes a sharp denunciation of apostate teachers with two vivid images:
“The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”
These paired proverbs draw upon Jewish wisdom tradition and broader ancient literary motifs in which animals’ instinctive behaviors are used as moral analogies. This paper explores the Hebrew Bible background of these images, their resonance with other ancient literature (Greek, Roman, Near Eastern), and the rhetorical power they carry in Peter’s warning.
I. The Text in Context
A. Immediate Literary Context in 2 Peter
Peter’s letter warns against false teachers who:
Once knew “the way of righteousness” (v. 21), But have turned back to corruption, proving themselves worse off than before.
The animal proverbs are the climactic illustration of this relapse, functioning as a closing image that seals his argument.
B. Old Testament Source
The “dog” image directly quotes Proverbs 26:11:
“Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.”
The “pig” image does not appear verbatim in the Hebrew Bible, but the association of pigs with uncleanness (Leviticus 11:7; Isaiah 65:4) makes the metaphor instantly intelligible in a Jewish-Christian context.
II. Symbolism in Hebrew Tradition
A. Dogs in Biblical Imagery
In the ancient Near East, dogs were not valued pets but scavengers, often associated with uncleanness and degradation (1 Samuel 17:43; 2 Kings 8:13; Psalm 59:6). Their return to vomit is an image of revolting irrationality, symbolizing moral folly and re-embraced corruption.
B. Pigs in Biblical Imagery
Pigs were ritually unclean under the Law (Leviticus 11:7), and their association with mud underscored impurity. Isaiah 66:3 compares abominable worshipers to those who offer swine’s blood, reinforcing the negative connotations.
III. Rhetorical Function in 2 Peter
Parallelism — Two animal behaviors, each returning to what defiles, mutually reinforce the point. Moral Nature vs. External Cleansing — The sow is washed externally but retains its inner nature; the dog rejects corruption temporarily only to reclaim it. Audience Impact — For a Jewish-Christian audience, both animals were ritually impure, making their behaviors a doubly potent warning.
IV. Parallels in Ancient Literature
A. Hebrew Wisdom Literature
Proverbs 26:11 — The original source for the dog proverb. Sirach 34:25 — Warns that washing after touching a corpse but touching it again is pointless; an early parallel to the sow image’s logic.
B. Greek Literature
Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics VII.7, likens moral weakness to the sick who relapse after partial recovery. Heraclitus (Fragment 11 DK) speaks of animals preferring filth and swine delighting in mud—natural instincts overriding reason. Plutarch (Moralia, “On Moral Virtue”) uses animal nature analogies to explain why vice reasserts itself without internal change.
C. Roman Literature
Juvenal (Satires XIV.33–35) describes people returning to bad habits despite punishment, comparing it to irrational animal behavior. Horace (Epistles I.10.24) refers to habitual tendencies that no environment can correct.
D. Near Eastern Parallels
Mesopotamian proverbs occasionally use dogs and pigs as metaphors for degradation and inevitability (Sumerian “dog in the street” proverbs). Egyptian wisdom literature (e.g., Instruction of Amenemope) warns against the fool who repeats folly, conceptually similar to Proverbs 26:11.
V. Theological Implications of the Images
A. Nature Transformation in Salvation
Peter’s paired images argue that unless the underlying nature is changed—what Paul calls becoming a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17)—moral reforms are temporary.
B. The Folly of Apostasy
The metaphors emphasize the irrationality and self-destructiveness of returning to sin once it has been repudiated.
C. Public Witness
Just as a washed sow wallowing again negates its cleansing, the apostate’s return to corruption nullifies the witness of their former repentance.
VI. Use of Common Cultural Material
Peter’s choice to combine a biblical proverb (dog) with a culturally resonant image (pig in mire) shows:
Scriptural anchoring — Rooted in Proverbs, binding the warning to divine wisdom. Cultural intelligibility — The pig proverb would resonate with a Gentile audience as well, given the Greco-Roman familiarity with animal-nature analogies.
VII. Conclusion
Peter’s use of “a dog returns to its own vomit” and “a sow returns to wallow in the mire” draws on ancient literary traditions—Hebrew wisdom, Greco-Roman moral analogies, and Near Eastern proverbial imagery—to deliver a warning of apostasy’s irrationality. Both images center on the futility of outward change without inner transformation. By linking his warning to shared cultural symbols, Peter ensured that his readers, whether Jewish or Gentile, would grasp the inescapable conclusion: without a transformed nature, one inevitably returns to corruption.
References
The Holy Bible, ESV. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Heraclitus. Fragments. Juvenal. Satires. Plutarch. Moralia. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) in the Apocrypha.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
It is not biblically accurate, of course, but some would take the pig proverb there as an argument that dietary laws have been “abolished.” I confess this crossed my mind in 1995 as I sought to objectively examine the issues of that year. Obviously, I concluded against that view (Deut 4:1-2; 12:32-ch13; 30:1-10).
However, it might raise something from a Lost Tribes perspective. Mark Kaplan in 1995, in discussing with me an Exodus 31-take Anglo-Israelist argument in favor of Sabbath keeping, said that Jeremiah 3 might be taken as nullifying this from a covenantal perspective. He mentioned that very much in passing, and I did not follow up because I understood the concept immediately. He was not endorsing the concept — intelligent people can examine and entertain ideas without necessarily accepting them (but unfortunately, when we do so, we experience accusations that we do accept them from those less… capable) — but rather simply ensuring that all facts, theories, and perspectives were included in the conversation. I’m glad he did.
For those who didn’t pick up on it, the idea is that the divorce there would essentially make the northern Israelite tribes equivalent to Gentiles in terms of Torah. In Deuteronomy 14:21, for instance, such an Israelite would be treated as a Gentile. Presumably, the idea is that the Lost Tribes one remain in that condition until the reunion at the coming of the Messiah, with the “Joseph” and “Judah” stick parts being put back together (passage isn’t coming to mind immediately, and I’m too tired to look it up; you know it’s in there). The idea will seem to appeal to two very divergent groups of Anglo-Israelist believers: Jews (Messianic and non-) who wish to maintain a distinction for the House of Judah, and anti-Jewish-types who don’t want the northern tribes looking Jewish in behavior. This is not to disparage genuine and sincere people who may hold the view without any such agenda (to be discussed below), or even people who just don’t want to be what they see is “burdened” by matters like Sabbath keeping (all believers have to grow in repentance).
I have referenced before on your blog the historical reality that worshipers of Jehovah — Jews and Gentile God-fearers — were split across demographic lines over how much of the Torah applied as legal requirements to non-proselyte Gentiles. Deuteronomy 14:21 again demonstrates that at least some aspects don’t apply/apply differently to Gentiles. Two of the most notable areas of dispute and concern were Leviticus 11- and Leviticus 23-type questions — “Days and Diet,” if you will.
Acts 15 and 21 demonstrate the early Church to be taking a very restrained approach to the issue. We have discussed the nuances to be read into the three or four prohibitions in those passages. Also, consider Romans 14 and Titus 3:9.
So, given Peter being focused on Israelites, rather than Gentiles, is it possible that including an unclean animal in that statement reflects some of his Israelite audience was taking that Jeremiah 3 view discussed, coupled with a more Noachide-only view of the Torah for Gentiles, and hence were disregarding Leviticus 11?
Two factors come to my mind leaning against this reading (remember, intelligent people can examine ideas without necessarily believing them). First, one can deal with unclean livestock without actually eating them. I remember from the old WCG days that one had as a teen in WCG been in 4-H or something and worked in a hog confinement operation. I met one family that are raised hogs before getting involved in Armstrongism, who said they have been told they could continue in that business as long as they did not eat of it. They got out of it, they said, because they would’ve been too tempted. Thus, in the issue at hand, it is possible these northern Israelites would be readily familiar with ovine husbandry, even perhaps dealing with it in their work.
As a sidenote, there are (or at least used to be) Jewish-run pig farms in the State of Israel. Their primary market: The United States Navy, their “lost” brethren.
The second factor leaning against it is represented in Galatians 2:7. Peter’s mission was focused on “the Circumcised.” Since we know from other passages that his mission was to the Israelites in general, this passage MAY point strongly to an early apostolic rejection of the Jeremiah 3 take mentioned to me by Kaplan. The conclusion would be an official position (or at least an unofficial official one — or would it be official unofficial?🤔) that all who believe themselves to be Israelites are to adhere to the “Whole Law” (cf James 2:10 in the light of 1:1), Jeremiah 3 takes notwithstanding. By this theory, only those who are in fact northern Israelites but do not accept the Anglo-Israelism theory would be obligated to judge the issue from a Gentile perspective (Romans 14?).
And so, the basic answer is no, the pig reference does not necessarily point to widespread following of the Jeremiah 3 take discussed. Obviously, an argument could be made on that latter point, viewing my reference to Galatians 2:7 as overreaching. Even as men of intelligence can examine a position without holding it, men of reason may often disagree on the conclusion.
I am well aware of the traditional Armstrongist position on all of this. What is your own take on this matter?
LikeLike
These analogies point specifically to the religiosity of the Pharisees and their precise adherence to the law—to the letter—as “whited sepulchers”; they appeared perfect outwardly but were corrupt and rotten internally. Their hate eventually spilled out in committing the ultimate crime against Christ, laying the foundation and moving the events to caused His torture and murder. Their careful washings and phylacteries were undermined by the moral uncleanliness of their actions, thoughts and words as they violated their own carefully constructed laws. The difference between them and true believers who turn away is that the Pharisees and scribes hadn’t returned to wallowing and vomit; they were never converted from it. Human nature wants to be thought of as good but profoundly resists doing good. It will impose high standards on others but make exceptions for the self. It thinks it knows best how to reason, interpret information and logically conclude the truth from the facts provided. However, because of its core antipathy toward God (Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 8:7), it rejects spirituality revealed knowledge, the true and only key to fitting it all together. Every other connection, conclusion, explanation and result is faulty. The lesson in Eden teaches us that.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike