Why We Return to Hated Sin

What Does 2 Peter 2:20-22 Mean? 2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the defilement of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have come to know the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the holy command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverb is true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” The opening paragraph of the book described our salvation as escaping the corruption in the world by knowing God. Peter uses the same language here to describe what the false teachers were like before they became false teachers. Their relationship with God was just like ours (implying that we could become like them if we’re not vigilant). They fell away (became enslaved by the defilement of the world) by becoming entangled in it. Now they’re worse off than before they became Christians because their previous enslavement was remedied by the gospel. But now they are enslaved again even though they have the gospel, so it’s a worse enslavement. The way of righteousness is the Christian walk, and the sacred command is the gospel. The proverbs rip the façade off sin to show its true ugliness. We must remember that when we’re tempted to go back.

NOTE: Supplemental notes on Eternal Security begin at the 41:20 mark of the recording. 

The false teachers of 2 Peter 2 were monsters. But what were they like before they became false teachers? The answer to that question is crucial for maintaining your walk with the Lord and for understanding why we so often return to sin that we have forsaken in the past.

 

2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the defilement of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have come to know the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the holy command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverb is true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” 

Introduction

As portraits go, it doesn’t get much uglier than the one Peter paints of the false teachers in 2 Peter 2. They sound like demons. He says nothing good about them, and a whole lot that’s really, really bad.

They were horrible men. But did you ever stop to think what these men were like before they became false teachers? They didn’t come out of the womb as false teachers. How did they get this way, and what were they like before they fell?

That’s Peter’s focus in this concluding paragraph of chapter 2, and it is a doozy of a conclusion. Peter wants us to understand what these men used to be like and what happened to them, because the thing that ruined them was a mistake that every one of us is prone to.

But once you see it, not only will that help you avoid it, but it also will make everything Peter has been saying in this whole chapter all come together in an absolutely unforgettable way.

Review

Just a quick review: Peter has been telling us that the judgment coming on the false teachers is  absolutely guaranteed to happen, and  it will be incredibly severe—blackest darkness is reserved for them.  Why? Three reasons. Three reasons that God’s judgment is going to come down so hard on these false teachers.  First, because of their immoral lifestyle. Second, because of the damage they do in leading people astray. They really do a lot of spiritual harm to the church and to individuals, and they deserve punishment for that.

Their Escape

The Context—Our Glorious Escape

That’s what we’ve covered so far. But then here, in the final paragraph, Peter gets to the third reason why they deserve such extreme punishment, and this one you may not have thought of but it hits really close to home.

The key to understanding this paragraph is to notice that Peter is quoting himself. He quotes his own words from the opening statement of the book.

Peter opened the book with a glorious, beautiful description of our salvation. Or to use his word, our “escape” from the world. That’s Peter’s term for becoming a Christian—escape.  We saw just a couple verses ago in verse 18 of ch.2 when Peter described baby Christians, recent converts, “those who have only recently escaped.” They just recently got saved.

And Peter’s description of our salvation—our escape from the world in ch.1 was so beautiful and rich that we spent four sessions studying it. You probably remember the part about how it involved us sharing in the divine nature—one of the most staggering statements in all of Scripture about what salvation entails—sharing in the very nature of God.

And that sharing in the divine nature happened as a result of your escaping.

2 Peter 1:4 … you may share in the divine nature having escaped

The grammatical structure there indicates that it was the escaping that brought about the sharing in God’s nature.

Escaping from what?

2 Peter 1:4 … you may share in the divine nature having escaped the corruption in the world

As an unbeliever, you were part of the morally corrupt world system, and one day you escaped from that. How? How did you manage to gain freedom from sin? Was it by being a good person and cleaning up your act? No. By religious rituals? No. Verse 3 tells us how it happened. It happened:

2 Peter 1:3 … through our knowledge of him who called us

You escaped the corruption of the world by coming to know God.

Not knowledge about God. The devil has information about God. Knowing God refers to knowing him personally, in a relationship of trust and love. And knowing God that way is the most important thing in life.

Jeremiah 9:23 This is what the Lord says: “Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast about this: that he … knows me”

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Knowing God personally is how you get eternal life.

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Knowledge of God is what sets true Christians apart from fake Christians.  A fake Christian does a lot of Christian stuff on the outside, but he doesn’t know God in a personal relationship of love and trust. This is what Jesus will tell those people on judgment day:

Matthew 7:23 … “Depart from me. I never knew you.

Does that mean Jesus was ignorant about them? No. Jesus knew everything about them. “I never knew you,” means there was no personal relationship.  

So it’s no surprise when Peter tells us that when we escaped the corruption of the world, it happened through knowing God. Deep, intimate, profound, personal knowledge of God.  And just to make sure no one makes a mistake and thinks he might be talking about mere information or “head knowledge,” Peter intensifies the word for knowledge. The normal word for knowing God is ginosko. Here Peter uses epiginosko, which is a strengthened form.

So all that is how Peter began this book.  His very first priority was to make sure we understand the glorious, amazing salvation God has given us, and he describes it with these words: We have escaped the corruption of the world through knowing God.

And with all that language still ringing in your ears, in chapter 2 Peter spends the whole chapter describing these horrific, condemned false teachers, and then he ends the chapter by saying, “Listen: I want you to know what these false teachers were like before they became false teachers.” Now listen to his description—Peter intended this to hit us like a ton of bricks. What were they like before they became false teachers?

2 Peter 2:20 … they[1] escaped the defilement[2] of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior[3] Jesus Christ[4]

Whoa. Peter, of all the ways you could describe what these monsters used to be, why are you using the exact same words you used to describe our glorious salvation? They escaped, just like us? And they escaped, not just external actions in some superficial way, but they escape the actual defilement of the world—that’s an internal, spiritual reality.

And they escaped it, not through false religion or self-effort or human works, but the same way we escaped—through knowing God. Could it be a head knowledge and not a true relationship? No. It’s epiginosko—the same knowledge of God that brought you and I to share in the divine nature.

Could it be that the god they knew was a false God? No. Peter is very specific and emphatic. It was by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Could it be a superficial knowledge that didn’t produce a transformed life? No. Peter says it was a knowledge that resulted in them escaping the defilement of the world.

He goes on to say they “came to know the way of righteousness.” And he uses the perfect tense, which points to an action with continuing results.  That’s the tense that’s often used to describe becoming a Christian—it happens in a moment of time, but with ongoing results.

Do you see what Peter is doing here? He says, “Here, I’m going to show you what these condemned brute beasts were like before they became false teachers, he turns the picture around so you can see it, and when you first see it, you gasp because you think you’re looking in the mirror. I think Peter means for this final paragraph to hit us hard. He spent a whole chapter describing how these men will get the hottest hell, and in the final paragraph of the chapter he wallops us right on the head with this bombshell—they used to be exactly like you.

Why Use This Language? So We’ll Take Heed

Of all the ways Peter could have described them, what motive could Peter possibly have for using this terminology to describe what the false teachers used to be? Peter knows human nature. He knows our tendency will be to hear the warnings in this chapter and think, “I’ll never end up like them. I’m not like them. I know the Lord!”

Peter says, “So did they.”

“But my relationship with God transformed my life. I escaped the corruption of the world through it.” So did they.

“But I was redeemed.” So were they (v.1).

“I’ve been washed and cleansed”  Them too (v.22).  

“But I’m on the straight way, the path of righteousness.”[5] So were they (vv.15, 21). Peter doesn’t give us any wiggle room for imagining that their salvation wasn’t real or was lesser than ours in any way. If the Holy Spirit wanted us to think of them as fake Christians, fundamentally different from you and me, why would he have used the exact same language he used to describe us? I believe the purpose of this is to wake us up from our “This could never happen to me” stupor. Peter is grabbing us by the lapel and shaking us and saying, “Hey!  Look at me! This is what you are now; this is what they used to be. Can you see how the two images are identical?

This is the outline of the whole book. Chapter 1—don’t fall away. Chapter 3—make sure you don’t fall away. In between, chapter 2—here are some guys who fell away, and guess what? Before they fell, they were exactly like you. The message couldn’t be clearer. Peter is drilling home the message of 1 Corinthians 10.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Let him who thinks he stands firm take heed, lest he fall!

Now, you should know that many preachers would take exception to what I’ve said. They insist that the false teachers were never truly saved because if they were, it creates a problem for the doctrine of eternal security. If you’re interested in that debate, I’ll address it at the end—after the sermon. But for now, I’ll just show you what I believe this passage is saying and you can decide if you agree.

Okay, so all that is under the heading, “Their Escape.” Peter says, “Their escape was just like your escape—now let me show you where they ended up.” They used to be like you—what’s their situation now?

Their End

It’s bad. Here’s how bad it is:

2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the defilement of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

Worse off now than before they escaped. You say, “Whoa, that’s quite the statement! Is Peter saying they would have been better off never to have even heard the gospel? That’s exactly his point, and in case anyone misses it, he spells it out in exactly those terms in the next verse.

2 Peter 2:21 It would have been better for them not to have come to know the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the holy command that was passed on to them.

The “way of righteousness” and “the holy command” both refer to the gospel. They would have been better off if they had never heard the gospel at all.

Quoting Jesus

When Peter says they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning, he’s quoting Jesus from Matthew 12:45,[6] where Jesus talks about a man who is delivered from a demon and his heart is swept clean. But later on that demon comes back with 7 more demons worse than himself. The guy would have been better off never to have been delivered from the demon in the first place.

Peter applies that principle to the false teachers[7]—they’re worse off now than before they were saved. Worse off how?

Greater Judgment for Rejecting More Light

One way they are worse off is that they will receive greater judgment.

2 Peter 2:17 Blackest darkness is reserved for them.

They get the blackest darkness in hell—why? Because the more enlightenment a person has, the greater his responsibility.

John 9:41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin”

Luke 12:47 That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Judgment is based on how much you’ve been given—how much enlightenment you’ve received from the Spirit. That’s why the people in Hebrews 6 were beyond ever being restored after they fell away. It wasn’t just because they fell away; it was because they fell away after having been given an extraordinary degree of enlightenment.  Listen to how they are described:

Hebrews 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 and have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance

The more the enlightenment, the greater the judgment if you reject it. And there comes a point where there has been so much enlightenment that, if you reject that, there is no longer any possibility of repentance.

This is a key principle.  Judgment isn’t mainly about how many sins you’ve committed. It’s about how much light you’ve rejected while committing those sins.

That’s one reason we aren’t qualified to judge one another—we have no way of knowing exactly how much the Holy Spirit has enlightened that person’s heart.

But these false teachers had been enlightened. They didn’t just learn the Bible in seminary. They knew the Lord personally and had been given enough enlightenment to enable them to successfully escape the defilement in the world. And Peter’s saying, “When you get that much enlightenment and then reject it, you earn the harshest judgment.”

A Stronger Prison

So that’s one way they’re worse off now than before they heard the gospel. But I think Peter’s saying more than that. Verse 20 begins with the word “for,” which means it’s an explanation of v.19.[8] Verse 19 is about how they were enslaved by their flesh. They escaped, but now they’re re-enslaved.

The reason they’re worse off now is because the last time they were enslaved, all they needed was to hear the gospel. They were enslaved before because they didn’t know the gospel. But this time they do know the gospel and they are enslaved anyway.

So clearly it’s a worse enslavement. If the key that freed you from your first prison isn’t working to free you from your new prison, then clearly the new prison is worse. If hearing the gospel got you out of your first enslavement, but now you know the gospel and you’re still enslaved, what could possibly get you out of this one?

Now, that’s not to say the gospel isn’t powerful enough to get them out of the new prison. It’s not a problem with the gospel; it’s a problem with their ability to respond to it.

You can picture the road of apostasy as a steep trail leading down into a deep, muddy pit, away from God. And turning around and climbing back up is hard, not only because of how steep the trail is, but also because the farther down you go, the less desire you have to come back. It’s like the altitude affects your desire. So every foot farther down you go reduces your desire for God a little more until, at the very bottom, you have no desire left, no willingness to return, so it’s impossible for you to ever go back up. That’s how apostasy makes you worse off at the end than you were at the beginning.

Their Entanglement

Okay, so we’ve seen their escape and we’ve seen how they ended up. Their escape from the world was just like ours. But then something happened, and at the end they were worse off than they were before they became Christians.  What happened?

Mastered

Well, here’s what happened—they were mastered by the world. He uses that same word in v.19 and 20.

2 Peter 2:19 … a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20 For if they have escaped the defilement of the world … and are again entangled in it and mastered, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

That’s what happened—they allowed the defilement of the world to become their master. Sins of the flesh became their god—their greatest love, their highest commitment.  It’s not that they just stumbled into it from time to time like all of us do. They bowed the knee to it completely and gave it the place of God in their lives.

Full Abandonment

Peter already told us about this back in v.15 where he said “they left the straight way.” That word “left” is a strong word. It means to abandon or forsake, and it’s that perfect tense again—they abandoned God’s way with a settled, intentional repudiation. Falling away from the faith isn’t just a matter of stumbling off the path temporarily or having ups and downs in your fight against sin. It’s a conscious decision to turn their backs on God’s way for good.

In our discussion on this last week, someone asked, “What kind of sin makes a person lose his salvation?” The answer is, no sin. Jesus died for your sins. There is no severity of sin, no frequency of sin, no category of sin that is so bad that it overwhelms Jesus’ work on the cross. You can’t lose your salvation by sinning because you didn’t get your salvation by stopping your sin.  

How did you get your salvation? How did you come to know God? Through faith. Faith is the always the basis of a relationship with God. So if you come to a point where you no longer believe, then you’re not saved. Salvation is never about how much you sin or don’t sin—it’s always about faith.

And so falling away is not a matter of just getting caught up in sin. If anyone knows that, it’s Peter. He committed the worst sin of all in denying Christ. But didn’t fall away because he still believed, which made him repent and return to Christ. Falling away happens when there is a settled, final, conscious decision to turn your back on God altogether and abandon his way and you no longer have faith in him. And that’s what the false teachers did.

The Path to Apostasy

But how does that happen? How does a person go from knowing God, loving God, having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to total repudiation of God?

Peter explains it with a single word—and if there’s one thing you get out of this message, make sure you get this. The one word Peter uses to describe the entire process of their fall is the word entangled.

2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the defilement of the world … and are again entangled in it and mastered, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

That’s a word picture.  The word “entangled” refers to braiding hair or weaving fabric—one strand laid across another strand, then another—interlacing them so that you end up with one piece of fabric.   

How did these men fall away? And how could it happen to you? A strand of the world falls across their heart—not a big deal at that point. But then a strand of your heart folds around it a little bit. You could still break free easily enough, but then another strand of the world’s way of thinking cuts across at another angle. Then a layer of your heart curls around that. Then another, and another, and they twist around and weave together until eventually you have one unified piece of cloth that can’t be separated.  Your heart and the defilement of the world become an inseparable unity. That’s how it happens. That’s why Hebrews 12:1 tells us to “throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles

And Peter uses a passive form here, which vividly portrays entanglement as something that can gradually happen to a person.  It’s not that you wake up one morning and decide, “I’m going to abandon God.” You just gradually go from resisting the strands to cooperating with them.

It makes you think, what are the strands of this world that threaten to entangle my heart? For these false teachers, it was pride, greed (financial greed and sex greed), desire for freedom from God’s laws, and desire to indulge the flesh. For you it might be something else.  But all of us need to be on our guard and throw off everything that hinders and entangles so we can run with perseverance the race marked out for us.

Their Depravity

Now, if all that isn’t enough to motivate us, Peter tries one last ditch strategy in v.22. And if you’re eating right now, I’d advise you to either stop eating or stop listening—maybe finish this sermon at another time because this last verse gets really rough.

2 Peter 2:22 Of them the proverb[9] is true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”[10] and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

Once again Peter points out how these false teachers are living like animals. That’s been a theme in this chapter. We found in our study of v.19 that the path to true freedom is to pursue that which makes you more and more human. But the “freedom” the false teachers push degrades your humanity.  It makes you more like an animal.

And not just an animal, but specifically an unclean animal. Dogs and pigs were among the filthiest and most despised of all the unclean animals.

Vomiting and Washing

Vomiting = Escaping

So let’s interpret these proverbs. What does the act of vomiting represent? When you throw up, that’s your body rejecting something. Vomiting has saved a lot of lives. You ingest something that could kill you or make you really sick, and your body figures that out and says, “Nope!” And out it goes. Vomiting is expelling something bad.

So in Peter’s analogy, what does the act of vomit represent? The defilement of the world. That’s the gross thing they returned to.

And what does the act of vomiting represent? Their escape. When they escaped the defilement of the world, that was like throwing up. They were saying, “YUCK! Get this away from me. I reject it!” So then when they returned to it, that was like a dog returning to its vomit.

What about the pig? Again, not difficult to interpret. The mud represents the defilement of the world, and being washed represents their escape. So returning to that old defilement is like a pig returning to the mud.

Ripping off the Veneer

So, why this analogy? And why are you sitting there wishing I would stop saying the word “vomit”? You’re wishing that because that word is disgusting, which is exactly Peter’s reason for using it.

The reason we forsake sin but then later return to it is that we forget the ugliness of it. We forget why we forsook it in the first place. We’re like the children of Israel when they were enslaved in Egypt. They cried out to God, “Save us from this bondage!” And he did. But it wasn’t long before they start saying, “Remember, back in Egypt, all the amazing food? We had all you can eat fish, and melons and garlic …” and they go on and on about how good the food was. And nobody says, “Well yeah, the food was good, but did you forget how miserable the slave labor part was? And how heartbroken we were when they took our babies away from us and drowned them in the Nile?”

We tend to remember the pleasures of our former bondage but forget the misery and ugliness of it.  And so Peter helps us with that.

Peter could have illustrated this point in any number of ways. He could have said, “Imagine a drunk, whose life is being ruined. So he gives up booze, but then, he falls off the wagon and drink again.”

He could have said that, but people who like to drink might hear it and think, “I could see that. In fact, I could go for a drink right now.”

Imagine a guy whose life is destroyed by gambling, he’s bankrupt, his wife left him, but then goes back to the casino.” Part of you might say, “Well, that’s stupid.” But another part of you might think, “Going back to the casino—I can see the appeal. Sounds kind of fun.”

Peter doesn’t want to give illustrations like that. What he wants to do is rip the façade off of sin—the veneer that hides what it really is and expose the true ugliness of it.  The whole reason we find sin so tempting is that we don’t see the ugliness of it. So instead of drinking or gambling, it’s vomit. That’s what sin really is. If we could see sin for what it really is—if we could see it like God sees it, it would disgust us even more than the idea of eating a dog’s vomit.

The Dog

So Peter uses the most disgusting illustration he can think of—vomit.  And if there is anything more disgusting than vomit, it’s a dog’s vomit. He’s not talking about your house pet. These were dirty, dangerous wild mongrels in the streets. They throw up. That steaming pile of vomit sits there in the dirt, and they come back and eat it.

And at this point you’re saying, “Darrell, just stop! You’ve made the point—that’s enough. We’ve spent enough time thinking about this.” And Peter says, “I don’t think you have. Here—let me give you another proverb just to make sure this really sinks in.”

The Pig

22 …”A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

This is another stomach-turning analogy.  It says they wallow in mud, or mire. We think of mud as dirt plus water, but what pigs roll around in has more ingredients than that. At the risk of driving even more people to turn this sermon off, what pigs roll around in really stinks, and it stinks for a reason. It came out of the pig. Not out of the same end as vomit, but you get the idea.

And if there is something more disgusting than vomit, it’s that. You and I get a little of that on our hand and we freak out and scrub our hand with soap—with good reason, because fecal material has a lot of bacteria.  Pigs just roll in the stuff—covering their whole body with it.

Peter is using every tool he can dream up to make you feel horrified at the thought of returning to that which you have previously escaped. He rips away the deception and exposes sin for what it really is so that your whole being will just repulse at the idea of returning to it.

Foolishness

The dog returning to its vomit is from Proverbs 26.

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.

The point of that is, not only is returning to a sin that you’ve previously forsaken gross and disgusting, but it’s also foolish. It makes no sense, because you’ve already decided to reject that thing. You did that for a reason.

The worst thing about re-ingesting vomit, believe it or not, isn’t the taste. It’s the fact that there’s something in there that your body already rejected for a reason. It’s food poisoning or some other poison—something your body decided was dangerous or deadly. Eating it again would bring that poison back into your stomach again. This is how Peter is teaching us to think about returning to a sin that you’ve already forsaken in the past.

And the two proverbs make the same point but from two different angles. The dog proverb shows the folly of re-ingesting something you already rejected. The pig proverb shows the folly of undoing something that was done to you (cleansing).  When you escape the corruption of the world, there are two parts to that—your part and God’s part. You reject it, through repentance. And God cleanses you, through the cross. And Peter says, “If you return to it, you’re undoing both of those.”

Conclusion

Well, after all that ugliness, what do you say we end this on a positive note? How about we take one more look at that gospel that the false teachers turned their back on?

The Sacred Command

2 Peter 2:21 [They turned] their backs on the sacred command that was passed on[11] to them.

The Gospel is a command to bow the knee to Christ.[12] But it’s a sacred, precious command. It’s a command that invites you to a beautiful life that Peter calls, “the way of righteousness.”

The Way of Righteousness

That’s the other phrase Peter uses to describe the gospel.

2 Peter 2:21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness

We would say, “That person became a Christian.” Peter’s way of saying the same thing is, “That person came to know the way of righteousness.” That’s what Christianity is.

The word righteous means to be on good terms with God. Your relationship with him is what it should be. And if you look at how Peter uses this word in each chapter of 2 Peter, you get a great picture.

It starts with Christ’s righteousness in ch.1.

2 Peter 1:1 … To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours

So it originates with Christ’s righteousness. Here in ch.2 the gospel reveals the way of righteousness—a path through life characterized by righteousness. And where does that path ultimately take us?

2 Peter 3:13 … we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

That’s where we’ll live forever.

Choose the Good

So what’s the bottom line in all this? When the world is calling your name, that familiar temptation that promises to make you happy, you have a choice. And Peter puts it in stark relief—vomit, or the righteousness of Christ that takes you along the way of righteousness to the home of righteousness—closeness with God, enjoying his favor forever. When the world tries to entangle you, see that vomit for what it is. And remember that the false teachers used to be just like you. Take the warnings seriously, and remember what Peter taught us in ch.1.

2 Peter 1:5 … add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. … 10 For if you do these things, you will never fall, [you’ll make your calling and election sure,] 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ—the home of righteousness.

Supplemental Notes: Eternal Security

Conflict with Eternal Security

Okay, For those who are interested, here are my supplemental notes on the topic of eternal security into this passage.

I’ll start by saying this: From what I can see, the passage is as clear as it could possibly be that the false teachers used to be genuine Christians. And if you’ve listened to me very long, you know that I’m honest about difficult or ambiguous passages. You’ll hear me say things like, “I’m not sure which interpretation is correct,” or, “My view is this. That other view is possible, but I don’t think it’s correct.” I’ve often said that. But here, I wouldn’t even say that. I do not see any possibility from this text that allows for the interpretation that the false teachers were never truly saved.  

But many commentators disagree.  One of the pillars of Calvinism is a doctrine known as the Perseverance of the Saints. That’s the belief that God promises to preserve our faith such that every believer will persevere to the end. So no true Christian can ever be lost. Others call it eternal security, or once-saved-always-saved.

Of the commentators and pastors who believe these false teachers were never truly saved, 100% of the ones I’ve heard and read take it that way, not because of anything in the text, but because of a desire to harmonize this passage with their the doctrine of eternal security. Their theology doesn’t allow for someone to be saved and then lost, so they have to assume the false teachers were never truly saved before their fall. I’m quite confident there are no exceptions to that, and many of them admit that plainly. Doug Moo is an example. He wrote the NICNT volume on 2 Peter, and I appreciate his honesty. In his commentary he examines every argument people raise for how maybe the false teachers were never truly saved, and he shoots them all down. And he admits, he really wanted one of those arguments to work, because he’s committed to the doctrine of eternal security, but if he’s honest with the text, he says, “I have failed to come up with a natural and convincing interpretation of second Peter 2:20-22 that harmonizes it with my ‘eternal security’ theological context.”  … Am I sure about those passages that I think teach this [eternal security]? Yes. … Where then does all that leave me? … That the false teachers of second Peter 2:20-22 are not really genuine Christians. I admit that this is not the most natural reading of the text. … I will honestly admit that I am not fully satisfied with this conclusion, and I keep coming across warning passages that I struggle to do exegetical justice to. Finally certainly do not accord “eternal security” … non negotiable status … I am in process on this issue, still convinced that eternal security is a biblical doctrine, but less convinced than I used to be.[13]

Why Does Peter Use the Ch.1 Language?

If you’re like Doug Moo and you can’t bring yourself to accept that this is describing true salvation, I would just urge you to consider—why does Peter use that language? It’s such an obvious repetition of the language he used to describe our salvation in ch.1, there has to be some reason.

And I would also ask this—suppose Peter had wanted to describe true salvation—what words could he have possibly used that would convince you? For Doug Moo, it sounds like there are no words Peter could have used to convey that in the context of the false teachers. No matter how plainly he stated it, Moo could never accept it as referring to true Christians because it would contradict his theology. I would suggest that if that’s the case, that means the reader has carried his or her conclusion to the text without letting the text itself speak.

I honestly don’t know of any words Peter could have used to say it more strongly. If this statement, “They escaped the defilement of the world by a deep personal knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” appeared anywhere else in the Bible, they would say it’s a beautiful description of salvation. And, in fact, it does appear in another place—in chapter 1, and these same commentators do say that it’s a beautiful description of true salvation there. So beautiful that it took our breath away when we studied it in ch.1. But the same words in ch.2 have to refer to hypocrites?

The Meaning of the Chapter as a Whole

And another question I would ask is this: if saved people can’t fall away, why would Peter warn his readers about falling away? He does it in ch.1 and in ch.3, and in ch.3 it’s the final conclusion of the whole book.

2 Peter 3:17 Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your steadfast position.

Why write a whole book warning us about something that’s impossible?  

And what would be the point of giving the example of the false teachers? What relevance would their phony escape have for people who have actually escaped the corruption of the world? Why would Peter even tell us about that?

If someone is a phony and a hypocrite, pretending to be something he isn’t, the Bible’s message to that person is not, “Make sure you persevere and don’t fall from your present condition.” It’s just the opposite. Falling away from hypocrisy and finally becoming honest about your unbelief is a step in the right direction.

No Change in Nature?

Now, I’ve said that those who believe the false teachers were never saved hold that view because of their theology, not because of indications from the text. There is one argument from the text itself that has been suggested. It comes from v.22 about the dogs and pigs. They say the proverbs describe someone whose nature never changed.  The dog never stopped being a dog, and the fact that he went back to his vomit just proved his true nature. Same with the pig.  The cleansing of the pig is meant to describe a superficial self-reformation, but not a true cleansing by God.

I don’t think that argument works for a couple reasons. The biggest one is it contradicts what Peter said explicitly—that the false teachers had indeed escaped the defilement of the world. If they just had a superficial cleansing, but in their heart they were still as defiled as ever, then it wouldn’t be true that they escaped the defilement of the world through knowledge of Christ.

The proverbs aren’t about their nature. The purpose of the proverbs is to show the folly of returning to what you have rejected and been cleansed from. If those proverbs only apply to people who pretend to have escaped the world’s corruption, then they have no application for true believers.

The Straight Way

But not only does Peter say they did escape the world’s defilement, he also says they left the straight way (v.15). But fake Christians and hypocrites are never said to be on the straight way. Being a hypocrite and a phony is part of the crooked way, not the straight way. And fake Christians can fool people, but they can’t fool the Holy Spirit, who is the one who describes them as having been on the straight way.

Only Appeared to Be Saved?

Another argument that is sometimes used is that this is all phenomenological language, meaning Peter is only describing these people as they appear, not as they really are. So the real meaning is this: If they [appear to have] have escaped the defilement of the world by [appearing to] know our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have [appeared to have] known the way of righteousness, than to have [appeared to have] known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that [appeared to have been] passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that [appears to have been] washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.” That’s a lot to add to a passage without anything in the context calling for it.  And there’s nothing in the text itself that calls for all that.

The Larger Debate

So what about all those other passages that have people like Doug Moo so convinced of once-saved-always-saved? And what about arguments like:

• What about God’s promises to preserve our faith? If staying saved depends on me, I’m doomed
• If falling away is possible, wouldn’t we have to live in constant fear?
• If we’re forgiven, how can we ever be unforgiven?
• How can new birth and calling and election and all that be reversed?

What about passages like “They went out from us because they were never of us” or “Those he justified he glorified” or “No one can snatch us from his hand”? To deal with each of those arguments and all the relevant passages would take an entire message, or maybe a series of them. I would be happy to do that, if someone wants it.  But I don’t think I will unless someone requests it because I don’t want to do it if no one is interested. So if you’d like that, put it in a comment or send me an email, and I’ll be happy to provide that. But if I don’t hear from anyone, I’ll move on to other things.

But let me just end with this: Regardless of what your theological commitments might be, I really hope you can find a way to take this passage seriously because it is the climax of the entire chapter. Give careful thought to why Peter used the wording he used, and what the significance is for you.

[1] Some take this as referring to the followers of the false teachers, but the “for” at the beginning of v.20 shows Peter is elaborating on what he said about the false teachers in v.19. The false teachers have been overcome by depravity, for those who are overcome after escaping are worse off at the end.

[2] This is the same word as v.10 “desire of defilement,” which governed the false teachers. The defilement that now controlled them, they had previously escaped through their knowledge of Christ.

[3] Peter is the only NT writer who uses this title “Lord and Savior,” and he uses it four times—once by itself (3:2), and three times “Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:11; 2:20; 3:18). Jesus is often called Savior and often Lord, sometimes in the same verse, but never the exact phrase “Lord and Savior” except in 2 Peter. Some have used that to argue 2 Peter must have been written in the second century, when that title for Jesus was common. But why wouldn’t it be just as likely that it became common in the second century because of Peter’s influence? People read it in 2 Peter and liked it. If we argue that Peter couldn’t have used that phrase in the first century because there’s no record of other people using it, by that logic, no one could have ever used it for the first time. But someone had to get it started. Presumably someone of some influence in the church. Why not Peter?

[4] All the words are identical, except here he says they escaped the corruption of the world, and in ch.1 we escaped the defilement of the world, and we escaped through the knowledge of him who called us and they escaped through knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

     The term “defilement” focuses more on religious defilement and that has more sexual connotations. Peter Davids offers this explanation: “The point is that the choice of the new term here not only connects the teachers back to the defilement in the world but also lays the emphasis on the behavior of the world as separating it from God (i.e., cultic defilement), whereas the term in 1:2 lays the emphasis on the destructive nature of such behavior.”

[5] Peter doesn’t say they knew about the way of righteousness. He said they knew it—again, experiential knowledge. They knew it in the sense that someone who has been very poor would say he has known poverty.

[6] γέγονεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα                                       χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. (2 Pe.2:20)

  γίνεται               τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. (Mt.12:45)

It became to them the end worse than the beginning (2 Pe.2:20).

It is the end of that man worse than the beginning (Mt.12:45).

[7] Jesus applied the principle to Israel as a whole, which would be far worse off after Jesus was gone than they were before he came. Peter’s application of Jesus’ words gives insight into how to interpret Scripture. Jesus was talking about people with demons and applied it to Israel; Peter applies it to apostates. That shows that Jesus taught principles that were not limited to the specific example he used when he taught them. The principle that a person who is delivered and then re-captured is worse off than before he was delivered applies in a general way.

[8] Verse 20 begins with the word “for” in the Greek.

[9] This is singular. Peter says the proverb is true, quotes it, then goes on to quote another proverb. No need for the NIV to change it to a plural.

[10] Literally, “A dog having returned to its vomit.” The aorist participle functions as a declarative observation: “Look! A dog that just returned to its vomit.”

[11] One indication that this command refers to the gospel is that it was “passed on to them.” That word was used of passing along a tradition. We have a similar phrase when we talk about passing the baton. And the tradition that was passed on to the early church was the gospel message the Apostles had received from Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you

     The reason that matters here is because it points to the authoritative nature of the message. It originated with Jesus, and he authorized the Apostles to carry it to the world. This is the same term Jude used for the faith handed down once and for all to the saints (Jude 3).

     So Peter is highlighting the fact that they are rejecting the message that the Lord himself created, and that was delivered to these false teachers through the very agents the Lord authorized. It’s not just a philosophy or one of the opinions floating out there. It was the true, official, validated, verified, sanctioned message from the Lord himself.

     And, the fact that it was passed on to them like a baton means they had the responsibility to pass it to the next generation. That’s God’s design.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

     Five generations in that one sentence—Jesus handed the baton to Paul, then Paul to Timothy, then Timothy to the reliable men, and then the reliable men to others. Each generation of preachers has the responsibility to pass that baton to the next generation intact. And that has happened for 2000 years now. Think of the preachers who have passed the message of the New Testament on to you, and the preachers before them who passed it along to them.

     But Peter points to these false teachers and says, “They received the baton, but then fumbled it.”

Worse than that, they perverted it, which is a really big deal because the message they messed with was holy.

[12] Sometimes preachers will make point that the word “Gospel” literally means “good news,” and so they say, “That’s all it is—just news. Just information about what Christ has done. It’s not a command, not a law, it doesn’t require anything of you. It’s simply a declaration of good news about Jesus.” But Peter calls it a command here, and again in ch.3:2.

2 Peter 3:2 I want you to recall … the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

     You don’t have to read much of Jesus’ teaching to discover that his message was something to be obeyed.

John 14:15 If you love me, you will obey what I command.

John 8:51 … if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.

     What’s the Great Commission? To make disciples of all nations teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:19-20). People always want to leave that last part off. But Peter’s not the only one who sees the gospel as a command.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 He will punish those who … do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

1 Peter 4:17 … if [judgment] begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

     The gospel is good news, but that good news comes with a command.

Acts 17:30 … God commands all people everywhere to repent.

     And if that sounds like salvation through works, then you’re not understanding the nature of the command. You’re probably thinking of his commands as being like a job description. They’re not.  They’re more like a doctor’s prescription. If you follow the instructions on a doctor’s prescription, you’re not earning your healing. You’re not even causing your healing—the medicine is doing that. All you’re doing is trusting the doctor enough to take his cure. But Doctor Jesus does require some things of you to receive his healing touch.

[13] Moo, NIVAC, pp.150-155.