5300. hus
Lexical Summary
hus: Pig, Swine

Original Word: ὗς
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: hus
Pronunciation: hoos
Phonetic Spelling: (hoos)
KJV: sow
NASB: sow
Word Origin: [apparently a primary word]

1. a hog ("swine")

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
sow.

Apparently a primary word; a hog ("swine") -- sow.

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. word
Definition
a hog
NASB Translation
sow (1).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5300: ὗς

ὗς, ὑός, , from Homer down, the Sept. several times for חֲזִיר, a swine: 2 Peter 2:22.

Topical Lexicon
Scriptural Occurrence

2 Peter 2:22 employs the word once in the Greek New Testament: “A dog returns to its vomit, and, ‘A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mire.’ ” The apostle closes his warning about false teachers with a vivid picture drawn from common farm life. The sow is outwardly cleansed yet inwardly unchanged; when left to itself, it instinctively seeks the filth from which it was washed. Peter places this image alongside the equally graphic proverb about the dog to underscore the depth of spiritual relapse that characterizes those who abandon the truth they once professed.

Old Testament Foundations

The Mosaic distinction between clean and unclean animals provides the theological backdrop. Leviticus 11:7–8 and Deuteronomy 14:8 explicitly forbid Israel to eat pork: the pig “though it has a split hoof… does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.” Because holiness required separation from uncleanness, the pig became a symbol of impurity. Isaiah 65:4 and Isaiah 66:3–4 depict idolatrous Israelites sitting among the graves and eating “pig’s flesh,” illustrating covenant infidelity. By the time of Second Temple Judaism, avoidance of swine was emblematic of Jewish identity, so much so that Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecration of the altar with pork (167 B.C.) provoked fierce resistance (1 Maccabees 1:47).

Cultural and Intertestamental Perspectives

Rabbinic literature reinforces the revulsion: “Cursed is the man who raises swine” (Baba Qamma 82b). Swineherding was considered so defiling that it often connoted Gentile occupation. Josephus records that Herod’s household jested it was safer to be Herod’s pig than his son (Antiquities 17.2.4), a quip intelligible precisely because Jews ordinarily shunned pigs.

Pigs in the Teaching of Jesus

Although ὗς appears only in 2 Peter 2:22, the Gospels employ a cognate (χοῖρος) to convey similar ideas:

Matthew 7:6 warns, “Do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
Luke 8:33 describes demons entering a herd of swine, which rush into the lake and drown.
Luke 15:15–16 portrays the prodigal son reduced to feeding pigs, longing to fill his stomach with their food.

Each setting relies on the Jewish view of swine as defiling to reinforce teachings about discernment, spiritual bondage, and repentance.

Symbolic Force in 2 Peter

Peter’s reference presupposes that his readers immediately grasp the proverb’s weight. Two layers of meaning emerge:

1. External cleansing without internal regeneration fails. The sow’s nature is unchanged, so its behavior reverts despite the washing.
2. Apostasy is not a minor lapse but a complete re-immersion in moral filth. As Proverbs 26:11 observes, folly is “a dog that returns to its vomit.”

Together the dog and sow communicate that false teachers, though they once escaped “the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 2:20), reveal their unchanged hearts by returning to corruption.

Historical Interpretation

Early Christian writers read Peter’s proverb as a warning against nominal faith:

• Clement of Alexandria cautioned that those who relapse into sin after baptism imitate the sow (Paedagogus 1.6).
• Augustine argued that the Church contains both washed sows and true sheep; perseverance proves genuine conversion (Sermon 46).

The Reformers echoed this theme, applying 2 Peter 2 to teachers who distort the gospel for personal gain.

Pastoral and Homiletical Applications

1. Regeneration versus Reformation: Moral reform without the new birth will inevitably fail, just as the washed sow returns to mud.
2. Danger of False Teaching: Congregations must weigh doctrine carefully; teachers who reject apostolic truth will drag others into the mire.
3. Call to Perseverance: Believers are urged to “make every effort to confirm your calling and election” (2 Peter 1:10). True saving faith endures.

Practical Ministry Counsel

• Guard the Gospel: Elders must exercise discernment in recognizing and refuting error (Titus 1:9).
• Cultivate Heart Transformation: Preaching and counseling should aim at inward change by the Spirit, not mere behavioral modification.
• Restore with Wisdom: When a professing believer falls, Galatians 6:1 urges restoration “in a spirit of gentleness,” yet Peter’s proverb reminds us that without genuine repentance a return to sin mirrors the sow’s wallow.

Conclusion

Strong’s Greek 5300, though appearing only once, summons the entire biblical portrayal of swine to illustrate the gravity of apostasy and the necessity of inward renewal. The image is unflinching: apart from transforming grace, external washings cannot restrain innate corruption. For the Church, Peter’s proverb remains a solemn call to hold fast to sound doctrine and pursue holiness of heart and life.

Forms and Transliterations
υν υός Υς Ὗς Hys Hŷs Us
Links
Interlinear GreekInterlinear HebrewStrong's NumbersEnglishman's Greek ConcordanceEnglishman's Hebrew ConcordanceParallel Texts
Englishman's Concordance
2 Peter 2:22 N-NFS
GRK: ἐξέραμα καί Ὗς λουσαμένη εἰς
NAS: VOMIT, and, A sow, after washing,
KJV: again; and the sow that was washed to
INT: vomit and [The] sow having washed to [her]

Strong's Greek 5300
1 Occurrence


Ὗς — 1 Occ.

5299
Top of Page
Top of Page