2 Peter 2:22

2 Peter 2:22. There has happened unto them that of the true proverb. Two proverbial sayings follow. As having the same import, however, they are dealt with as if they made but one. The term is the one which is applied to the Proverbs of Solomon by the Greek Version of the Old Testament. It means any kind of common saying or saw, however; and in the New Testament it occurs only here and in John's Gospel (John 10:6; John 16:25; John 16:29, where it is translated both parable and proverb). Instead of the simple expression ‘the true proverb,' we have the periphrasis ‘that of the true proverb,' or ‘the matter of the true proverb,' as it might be rendered; a form found also in the later Classics, as well as elsewhere in the New Testament (Matthew 21:21; cf. also Matthew 8:33; Matthew 16:23; Romans 8:5). The ‘but' which the A. V. introduces is not sufficiently supported.

A dog turning again to his own vomit. So the original gives the proverb in the abrupt form of a participle without a finite verb. The word ‘vomit' occurs only here. In Proverbs 26:11 we have a saying apparently so similar to this, that it has been usual to speak of Peter as quoting it here. The actual terms in the original, however, differ so much as to make it more probable that he was simply repeating a well-known popular maxim.

and, A sow having washed herself, to wallowing in the mire. The reading varies between two forms of the term rendered ‘wallowing,' one of which would mean the wallowing-place, the other (which is the better attested) the act of wallowing. The term occurs only here, and the same is the case with that for ‘mire.' This second proverb has no definite parallel in the Old Testament, and is taken, therefore, from the mouth of the people. Compare, however, the comparison of a ‘fair woman without discretion' to a ‘jewel of gold in a swine's snout' (Proverbs 11:22), and our Lord's word, ‘neither cast ye your pearls before swine' (Matthew 7:6). Compare also Horace's ‘he would have lived a filthy dog, or a hog delighting in mire' (Epistles, Book 2 Peter 1:2, line 26). The repute of the dog and the sow, not only in Judea but generally throughout the East, is well known. The former, as an unclean animal and the scavenger of Oriental towns, became a term of reproach, a name for one's enemies (Psalms 22:16; Psalms 22:20), a figure of the profane or impure (Revelation 22:15; cf. also Matthew 15:26; Mark 7:27). The latter was forbidden to be eaten not only among the Jews, but also among the Arabs, the Phoenicians, and other Eastern nations. To the priests of Egypt, too, swine's flesh was the most hateful of all meats. If these verses are pressed, as is often the case, into the controversy on the nature of grace as indefectible or otherwise, the two proverbs would certainly favour the Calvinistic view rather than the Arminian. For their point is, that the nature of the creatures was not changed, but that each, after a temporary separation, returned to the impurity which was according to its nature. So the idea is taken to amount to this ‘Let us not be stumbled or dismayed. “ The sure foundation of God “has not given way. These wretched men were never what they professed to be. They had, indeed, undergone a process of external reformation; but it was external merely, their heart all the while remaining unchanged, “like the washing of a swine, which you may make clean, but can never make cleanly (Lillie). But in point of fact these doctrinal questions are not fairly in view here.