Act 4:24, 2Ti 2:21, 2Pe 2:1, Jude 4, Rev 6:10 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 24. They lifted up their voice . To lift up the voice, among the Hebrews, was a phrase denoting either an address to the people, , or a phrase expressive of weeping, ; , or was expressive of prayer . To lift up the voice to God means , simply, they prayed to him. With one accord . Unitedly. Properly with one mind, or purpose. . The union of the early Christians is often noticed in the Acts of the Apostles. Thus far there was no jar or dissension in their society, and everything has the appearance of the most entire affection and confidence. Lord . Greek, δεσποτα. From this word is derived the word despot . This is not the usual word employed by which to address God. The word commonly translated Lord is Κυριος. The word here used denotes one who rules over others, and was applied to the highest magistrate or officer. It denotes authority, power, absoluteness in ruling. It is a word denoting more authority in ruling than the other. That more commonly denotes a property in a thing; this denotes absolute rule. It is applied to God , in to Jesus Christ, ; to masters, ; to husbands , ; and to a possessor or owner , . Thou art God . This ascription of praise seems to have been designed to denote their sense of his power to deliver them; and his right to dispose of them. They were employed in his service; they were encompassed with dangers; and they acknowledged him as their God, who had made all things, and who had an entire right to direct, and to dispose of them for his own glory, in times of danger and perplexity we should remember that God has a right to do with us as he pleases; and we should go cheerfully and commit ourselves into his hands. Which hast made , etc. . This passage is taken directly from ; comp. . (c) "Lord, thou art God"

Acts 4:24

Verse 24. They lifted up their voice. To lift up the voice, among the Hebrews, was a phrase denoting either an address to the people, Jud 9:7, or a phrase expressive of weeping, Gen 29:11; Jud 2:4, Ruth 1:9, 1Sam 24:16, or was expressive of prayer. To lift up the voice to God means, simply, they prayed to him.

With one accord. Unitedly. Properly with one mind, or purpose. Acts 1:14. The union of the early Christians is often noticed in the Acts of the Apostles. Thus far there was no jar or dissension in their society, and everything has the appearance of the most entire affection and confidence.

Lord. Greek, δεσποτα. From this word is derived the word despot.

This is not the usual word employed by which to address God. The word commonly translated Lord is Κυριος. The word here used denotes one who rules over others, and was applied to the highest magistrate or officer. It denotes authority, power, absoluteness in ruling. It is a word denoting more authority in ruling than the other. That more commonly denotes a property in a thing; this denotes absolute rule. It is applied to God, in Lk 2:29, Rev 6:10, Jude 1:4 to Jesus Christ, 2Pet 2:1; to masters, 1Timm 6:1, Tit 2:9, 1Pet 2:18; to husbands, 1Pet 3:6; and to a possessor or owner, 2Ti 2:21.

Thou art God. This ascription of praise seems to have been designed to denote their sense of his power to deliver them; and his right to dispose of them. They were employed in his service; they were encompassed with dangers; and they acknowledged him as their God, who had made all things, and who had an entire right to direct, and to dispose of them for his own glory, in times of danger and perplexity we should remember that God has a right to do with us as he pleases; and we should go cheerfully and commit ourselves into his hands.

Which hast made, etc. Gen 1. This passage is taken directly from Ps 146:6; comp. Rev 14:7.

2 Timothy 2:21

Verse 21. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel of honour. If a man cleanse or purify himself. Comp. Jn 15:2. The word "these" refers, here, to the persons represented by the vessels of wood and of earth--the vessels made to dishonour, as mentioned in the previous verse. The idea is, that if one would preserve himself from the corrupting influence of such men, he would be fitted to be a vessel of honour, or to be employed in the most useful and honourable service in the cause of his Master. On the word vessel, Acts 9:16.

And meet for the Master's use. Fit to be employed by the Lord Jesus in promoting his work on earth.

(b) "If a man" Jer 15:19 (c) "prepared" 2Ti 3:17

2 Peter 2:1

CHAPTER II.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

THE general subject of this chapter is stated in the first verse, and it embraces these points:

(1.) that it might be expected that there would be false teachers among Christians, as there were false prophets in ancient times;

(2.) that they would introduce destructive errors, leading many astray; and,

(3.) that they would be certainly punished. The design of the chapter is to illustrate and defence these points.

I. That there would be such false teachers the apostle expressly states in 2Pet 2:1; and incidentally in that verse, and elsewhere in the chapter, he notices some of their characteristics, or some of the doctrines which they would hold.

(a.) They would deny the Lord that bought them, 2Pet 2:1. 2Pet 2:1.

(b.) They would be influenced by covetousness, and their object in their attempting to seduce others from the faith, and to induce them to become followers of themselves, would be to make money, 2Pet 2:3.

(c.) They would be corrupt, beastly, and licentious in their conduct; and it would be one design of their teaching to show that the indulgence of gross passions was not inconsistent with religion; 2Pet 2:10, "that walk after the flesh, in the lust of uncleanness;" 2Pet 2:12, "as natural brute beasts;" "shall perish in their own corruption;" 2Pet 2:14, "having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin;" 2Pet 2:22, "the dog has returned to his own vomit again."

(d.) They would be proud, arrogant, and self-willed; men who would despise all proper government, and who would be thoroughly "radical" in their views; 2Pet 2:10, and despise government; presumptuous are they and self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities;" 2Pet 2:18, "they speak great swelling words of vanity."

(e.) They were persons who had been formerly of corrupt lives, but who had become professing Christians. This is implied in 2Pet 2:20-22. They are spoken of as having "escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ;" as "having known the ways of righteousness," but as having turned again to their former corrupt practices and lusts; "it has happened to them according to the true proverb," etc. There were various classes of persons in primitive times, coming under the general appellation of the term Gnostic, to whom this description would apply, and it is probable that they had begun to broach their doctrines in the times of the apostles. Among those persons were the Ebionites, Corinthians, Nicolaitanes, etc.

II. These false teachers would obtain followers, and their teachings would be likely to allure many. This is intimated more than once in the chapter: 2Pet 2:2, "and many shall follow their pernicious ways;" 2Pet 2:3, "and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you;" 2Pet 2:14, "beguiling unstable souls." Comp. 2Pet 2:18.

III. They would certainly be punished. A large part of the chapter is taken up in proving this point, and especially in showing from the examples of others who had erred in a similar manner, that they could not escape destruction. In doing this, the apostle refers to the following facts and illustrations:

(1.) The case of the angels that sinned, and that were cast down to hell, 2Pet 2:4. If God brought such dreadful punishment on those who were once before his throne, wicked men could have no hope of escape.

(2.) The case of the wicked in the time of Noah, who were cut off by the flood, 2Pet 2:5.

(3.) The case of Sodom and Gomorrah, 2Pet 2:6.

(4.) The character of the persons referred to was such that they could have no hope of escape.

(a.) They were corrupt, sensual, presumptuous, and selfwilled, and were even worse than the rebel angels had been--men that seemed to be made to be taken and destroyed, 2Pet 2:10-12.

(b.) They were spots and blemishes, sensual and adulterers, emulating the example of Balaam, who was rebuked by even a dumb ass for his iniquity, 2Pet 2:13-16.

(c.) They allured others to sin under the specious promise of liberty, while they were themselves the slaves of debased appetites, and gross and sensual passions, 2Pet 2:17-19. From the entire description in this chapter, it is clear that the persons referred to, though once professors of religion, had become eminently abandoned and corrupt. It may not, indeed, be easy to identify them with any particular sect or class then existing and now known in history, though not a few of the sects in the early Christian church bore a strong resemblance to this description; but there have been those in every age who have strongly resembled these persons; and this chapter, therefore, possesses great value as containing important warnings against the arts of false teachers, and the danger of being seduced by them from the truth. Compare Introduction to the Epistle of Jude, & 3, 4.

Verse 1. But there were false prophets also among the people. In the previous chapter, (2Pet 1:19-21,) Peter had appealed to the prophecies as containing unanswerable proofs of the truth of the Christian religion. He says, however, that he did not mean to say that all who claimed to be prophets were true messengers of God. There were many who pretended to be such, who only led the people astray. It is unnecessary to say, that such men have abounded in all ages where there have been true prophets.

Even as there shall be false teachers among you. The fact that false teachers would arise in the church is often adverted to in the New Testament. Compare Mt 24:5,24, Acts 20:29,30.

Who privily. That is, in a secret manner, or under plausible arts and pretences. They would not at first make an open avowal of their doctrines, but would in fact, while their teachings seemed to be in accordance with truth, covertly maintain opinions which would sap the very foundations of religion. The Greek word here used, and which is rendered "who privily shall bring in," (παρεισαγω,) means properly to lead in by the side of others; to lead in along with others. Nothing could better express the usual way in which error is introduced. It is by the side, or along with, other doctrines which are true; that is, while the mind is turned mainly to other subjects, and is off its guard, gently and silently to lay down some principle, which, being admitted, would lead to the error, or from which the error would follow as a natural consequence. Those who inculcate error rarely do it openly. If they would at once boldly" deny the Lord that bought them," it would be easy to meet them, and the mass of professed Christians would be in no danger of embracing the error. But when principles are laid down which may lead to that; when doubts on remote points are suggested which may involve it; or when a long train of reasoning is pursued which may secretly tend to it; there is much more probability that the mind will be corrupted from the truth.

Damnable heresies. αιρεσειςαπωλειας. "Heresies of destruction;" that is, heresies that will be followed by destruction. The Greek word which is rendered damnable, is the same which in the close of the verse is rendered destruction. It is so rendered also in Mt 7:13, Rom 9:22; Php 3:19, 2Pet 3:16-- in all of which places it refers to the future loss of the soul. The same word also is rendered perdition in Jn 17:12, Php 1:28, 1Timm 6:9, Heb 10:39, 2Pet 3:7, Rev 17:8,11--in all which places it has the same reference. On the meaning of the word rendered "heresies," Acts 24:14; 1Cor 11:19. The idea of sect or party is that which is conveyed by this word, rather than doctrinal errors; but it is evident that in this case the formation of the sect or party, as is the fact in most cases, would be founded on error of doctrine. The thing which these false teachers would attempt would be divisions, alienations, or parties, in the church, but these would be based on the erroneous doctrines which they would promulgate. What would be the particular doctrine in this case is immediately specified, to wit, that they "would deny the Lord that bought them." The idea then is, that these false teachers would form sects or parties in the church, of a destructive or ruinous nature, founded on a denial of the Lord that bought them. Such a formation of sects would be ruinous to piety, to good morals, and to the soul. The authors of these sects, holding the views which they did, and influenced by the motives which they would be, and practising the morals which they would practise, as growing out of their principles, would bring upon themselves swift and certain destruction. It is not possible now to determine to what particular class of errorists the apostle had reference here, but it is generally supposed that it was to some form of the Gnostic belief. There were many early sects of so-called heretics to whom what he here says would be applicable.

Even denying the Lord that bought them. This must mean that they held doctrines which were in fact a denial of the Lord, or the tendency of which would be a denial of the Lord, for it cannot be supposed that, while they professed to be Christians, they would openly and avowedly deny him. To "deny the Lord" may be either to deny his existence, his claims, or his attributes; it is to withhold from him, in our belief and profession, anything which is essential to a proper conception of him. The particular thing, however, which is mentioned here as entering into that self-denial, is something connected with the fact that he had "bought" them. It was such a denial of the Lord as having bought them, as to be in fact a renunciation of the peculiarity of the Christian religion. There has been much difference of opinion as to the meaning of the word Lord in this place--whether it refers to God the Father, or to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Greek word is δεσποτης--despotes. Many expositors have maintained that it refers to the Father, and that when it is said that he had bought them, it means in a general sense that he was the Author of the plan of redemption, and had caused them to be purchased or redeemed. Michaelis supposes that the Gnostics are referred to as denying the Father by asserting that he was not the Creator of the universe, maintaining that it was created by an inferior being.--Intro, to New Testament, iv. 360. Whitby, Benson, Slade, and many others, maintain that this refers to the Father as having originated the plan by which men are redeemed; and the same opinion is held, of necessity, by those who deny the doctrine of general atonement. The only arguments to show that it refers to God the Father would be,

(1.) that the word used here (δεσποτης) is not the usual term (κυριος) by which the Lord Jesus is designated in the New Testament; and,

(2.) that the admission that it refers to the Lord Jesus would lead inevitably to the conclusion that some will perish for whom Christ died. That it does, however, refer to the Lord Jesus, seems to me to be plain from the following considerations:

(1.) It is the obvious interpretation; that which would be given by the great mass of Christians, and about which there could never have been any hesitancy if it had not been supposed that it would lead to the doctrine of general atonement. As to the alleged fact that the word used (Despotes) is not that which is commonly applied to the Lord Jesus, that may be admitted to be true, but still the word here may be understood as applied to him. It properly means a master as opposed to a servant; then it is used as denoting supreme authority, and is thus applied to God, and may be in that sense to the Lord Jesus Christ, as head over all things, or as having supreme authority over the church. It occurs in the New Testament only in the following places: 1Timm 6:1,2; Tit 2:9, 1Pet 2:18, where it is rendered masters; Lk 2:29; Acts 4:24, Rev 6:10, where it is rendered Lord, and is applied to God; and in Jude 1:4, and in the passage before us, in both which places it is rendered Lord, and is probably to be regarded as applied to the Lord Jesus. There is nothing in the proper signification of the word which would forbid this.

(2.) The phrase is one that is properly applicable to the Lord Jesus as having bought us with his blood. The Greek word is απωλειαν--a word which means properly to market, to buy, to purchase, and then to redeem, or acquire for one's self a by price paid, or by a ransom. It is rendered buy or bought in the following places in the New Testament: Mt 13:44,46, 14:15, 21:12, 25:9,10, 27:7, Mk 6:36,37, 11:15, 15:46, 16:1; Lk 9:13, 14:18,19, 17:28, 19:45, 22:36, Jn 4:8, 6:5, 13:29, 1Cor 7:30; Rev 3:18, 13:17, 18:11,--in all which places it is applicable to ordinary transactions of buying. In the following places it is also rendered bought, as applicable to the redeemed, as being bought or purchased by the Lord Jesus: 1Cor 6:20, 7:23, "Ye are bought with a price;" and in the following places it is rendered redeemed, Rev 5:9, 14:3,4. It does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It is true that in a large sense this word might be applied to the Father as having caused his people to be redeemed, or as being the Author of the plan of redemption; but it is also true that the word is more properly applicable to the Lord Jesus, and that, when used with reference to redemption, it is uniformly given to him in the New Testament. Compare the passages referred to above. It is strictly and properly true only of the Son of God that he has "bought" us. The Father indeed is represented as making the arrangement, as giving his Son to die, and as the great Source of all the blessings secured by redemption; but the purchase was actually made by the Son of God by his sacrifice on the cross. Whatever there was of the nature of a price was paid by him; and whatever obligations may grow out of the fact that we are purchased or ransomed are due particularly to him, 2Cor 5:15. These considerations seem to me to make it clear that Peter referred here to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that he meant to say that the false teachers mentioned held doctrines which were in fact a denial of that Saviour. He does not specify particularly what constituted such a denial; but it is plain that any doctrine which represented him, his person, or his work, as essentially different from what was the truth, would amount to such a denial. If he was Divine, and that fact was denied, making him wholly a different being; if he actually made an expiatory sacrifice by his death, and that fact was denied, and he was held to be a mere religious teacher, changing essentially the character of the work which he came to perform; if he, in some proper sense, "bought" them with his blood, and that fact was denied in such a way that according to their views it was not strictly proper to speak of him as having bought them at all, which would be the case if he were a mere prophet or religious teacher, then it is clear that such a representation would be in fact a denial of his true nature and work. That some of these views entered into their denial of him is clear, for it was with reference to the fact that he had "bought" them, or redeemed them, that they denied him.

And bring upon themselves swift destruction. The destruction here referred to can be only that which will occur in the future world, for there can be no evidence that Peter meant to say that this would destroy their health, their property, or their lives. The Greek word (απωλειαν) is the same which is used in the former part of the verse, in the phrase "damnable heresies." See Notes. In regard, then, to this important passage, we may remark,

(1.) that the apostle evidently believed that some would perish for whom Christ died.

(2.) If this be so, then the same truth may be expressed by saying that he died for others besides those who will be saved; that is, that the atonement was not confined merely to the elect. This one passage, therefore, demonstrates the doctrine of general atonement. This conclusion would be drawn from it by the great mass of readers, and it may be presumed, therefore, that this is the fair interpretation of the passage.

(3.) It follows that men may destroy themselves by a denial of the great and vital doctrines of religion. It cannot be a harmless thing, then, to hold erroneous opinions; nor can men be safe who deny the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. It is truth, not error, that saves the soul; and an erroneous opinion on any subject may be as dangerous to a man's ultimate peace, happiness, and prosperity, as a wrong course of life. How many men have been ruined in their worldly prospects, their health, and their lives, by holding false sentiments on the subject of morals, or in regard to medical treatment! Who would regard it as a harmless thing if a son should deny in respect to his father that he was a man of truth, probity, and honesty, or should attribute to him a character which does not belong to him--a character just the reverse of truth? Can the same thing be innocent in regard to God our Saviour?

(4.) Men bring destruction "on themselves." No one compels them to deny the Lord that bought them; no one forces them to embrace any dangerous error. If men perish, they perish by their own fault, for

(a.) ample provision was made for their salvation as well as for others; (b.) they were freely invited to be saved;

(c.) it was, in itself, just as easy for them to embrace the truth as it was for others; and

(d.) it was as easy to embrace the truth as to embrace error.

(c) "There were" De 13:1 (a) "among you" Mt 24:5, Acts 20:29,30, 1Timm 4:1 (*) "privily" "craftily" (+) "heresies" "heresies of destruction" (++) "Lord" "Sovereign Lord"

Jude 4

Verse 4. For there are certain men crept in unawares. The apostle now gives a reason for thus defending the truth, to wit, that there were artful and wicked men who had crept into the church, pretending to be religious teachers, but whose doctrines tended to sap the very foundations of truth. The apostle Peter, describing these same persons, says, "who privily shall bring in damnable heresies." 2Pet 2:1. Substantially the same idea is expressed here by saying that they "had crept in unawares;" that is, they had come in by stealth; they had not come by a bold and open avowal of their real sentiments. They professed to teach the Christian religion, when in fact they denied some of its fundamental doctrines; they professed to be holy, when in fact they were living most scan- dalous lives. In all ages there have been men who were willing to do this for base purposes.

Who were before of old ordained to this condemnation. That is, to the condemnation (κριμα) which he proceeds to specify. The statements in the subsequent part of the epistle show that by the word used here he refers to the wrath that shall come upon the ungodly in the future world. See Jude 1:5-7,15. The meaning clearly is, that the punishment which befell the unbelieving Israelites, (Jude 1:5;) the rebel angels, (Jude 1:6;) the inhabitants of Sodom, (Jude 1:7;) and of which Enoch prophesied, (Jude 1:15,) awaited those persons. The phrase of old--παλαι--means long ago, implying that a considerable time had elapsed, though without determining how much. It is used in the New Testament only in the following places: Mt 11:21, "they would have repented long ago;" Mk 15:44, "whether he had been any while dead;" Lk 10:13, they had a great while ago repented; Heb 1:1, "spake in time past unto the fathers;" 2Pet 1:9, "purged from his old sins;" and in the passage before us. So far as this word is concerned, the reference here may have been to any former remote period, whether in the time of the prophets, of Enoch, or in eternity. It does not necessarily imply that it was eternal, though it "might apply to that, if the thing referred to was, from other sources, certainly known to have been from eternity. It may be doubted, however, whether, if the thing referred to had occurred from eternity, this would have been the word used to express it, (comp. Eph 1:4;) and it is certain that it cannot be proved from the use of this word (παλαι) that the "ordination to condemnation" was eternal. Whatever may be referred to by that "ordaining to condemnation," this word will not prove that it was an eternal ordination. All that is fairly implied in it will be met by the supposition that it occurred in any remote period, say in the time of the prophets. The word here rendered "before ordained": προγεγραμμενοι, from προγραφω--occurs in the New Testament only here and in the following places: Rom 15:4, twice, "Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning;" Gal 3:1, "Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth;" and Eph 3:3, "As I wrote afore in few words." Gal 3:1. In these places there is evidently no idea implied of ordaining, or preordaining, in the sense in which those words are now commonly understood. To that word there is usually attached the idea of designating or appointing as by an arbitrary decree; but no such meaning enters into the word here used. The Greek word properly means, to write before; then to have written before; and then, with reference to time future, to post up beforehand in writing; to announce by posting up on a written tablet, as of some ordinance, law, or requirement; as descriptive of what will be, or what should be. Comp. Rob. Lexicon. Burder (in Rosenmuller's Morgenland, in loc.) remarks that "the names of those who were to be tried were usually posted up in a public place, as was also their sentence after their condemnation, and that this was denoted by the same Greek word which the apostle uses here. Eisner," says he, "remarks that the Greek authors use the word as applicable to those who, among the Romans, were said to be proscribed; that is, those whose names were posted up in a public place, whereby they were appointed to death, and in reference to whom a reward was offered to any one who would kill them." The idea here clearly is that of some such designation beforehand as would occur if the persons had been publicly posted as appointed to death. Their names, indeed, were not mentioned, but there was such a description of them, or of their character, that it was clear who were meant. In regard to the question what the apostle means by such a designation or appointment beforehand, it is clear that he does not refer in this place to any arbitrary or eternal decree, but to such a designation as was made by the facts to which he immediately refers- that is, to the Divine prediction that there would be such persons, (Jude 1:14,15,18;) and to the consideration that in the case of the unbelieving Israelites, the rebel angels, and the inhabitants of Sodom, there was as clear a proof that such persons would be punished as if their names had been posted up. All these instances bore on just such cases as these, and in these facts they might read their sentence as clearly as if their names had been written on the face of the sky. This interpretation seems to me to embrace all that the words fairly imply, and all that the exigence of the case demands; and if this be correct, then two things follow:

(1.) that this passage should not be adduced to prove that God has from all eternity, by an arbitrary decree, ordained a certain portion of the race to destruction, what-ever may be true on that point; and,

(2.) that all abandoned sinners now may see, in the facts which have occurred in the treatment of the wicked in past times, just as certain evidence of their destruction, if they do not repent, as if their names were written in letters of light, and if it were announced to the universe that they would be damned.

Ungodly men. Men without piety or true religion, whatever may be their pretensions.

Turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness. Abusing the doctrines of grace so as to give indulgence to corrupt and carnal propensities. That is, probably, they gave this form to their teaching, as Antinomians have often done, that by the gospel they were released from the obligations of the law, and might give indulgence to their sinful passions in order that grace might abound. Antinomianism began early in the world, and has always had a wide prevalence. The liability of the doctrines of grace to be thus abused was foreseen by Paul, and against such abuse he earnestly sought to guard the Christians of his time, Rom 6:1, seq.

And denying the only Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. 2Pet 2:1. That is, the doctrines which they held were in fact a denial of the only true God, and of the Redeemer of men. It cannot be supposed that they openly and formally did this, for then they could have made no pretensions to the name Christian, or even to religion of any kind; but the meaning must be, that in fact the doctrines which they held amounted to a denial of the true God, and of the Saviour in his proper nature and work. Some have proposed to read this, "denying the only Lord God, even (και) our Lord Jesus Christ;" but the Greek does not demand this construetion even if it would admit it, and it is most in accordance with Scripture usage to retain the common translation. It may be added, also, that the common translation expresses all that the exigence of the passage requires. Their doctrines and practice tended as really to the denial of the true God as they did to the denial of the Lord Jesus. Peter in his second epistle, (2Pet 2:1,) has adverted only to one aspect of their doetrine--that it denied the Saviour; Jude adds, if the common reading be correct, that it tended also to a denial of the true God. The word God (θεον) is wanting in many manuscripts, and in the Vulgate and Coptic versions, and Mill, Hammond, and Bengel suppose it should be omitted. It is also wanting in the editions of Tittman, Griesbach, and Rahn. The amount of authority seems to be against it. The word rendered Lord, in the phrase "Lord God," is δεσποτης, despotes, and means here Sovereign, or Ruler, but it is a word which may be appropriately applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the same word which is used in the parallel passage in 2Pet 2:1. See it explained 2Pet 2:1. If the word "God" is to be omitted in this place, the passage would be wholly applicable, beyond question, to the Lord Jesus, and would mean, "denying our only Sovereign and Lord, Jesus Christ." It is perhaps impossible now to determine with certainty the true reading of the text; nor is it very material. Whichever of the readings is correct; whether the word (θεον) God is to be retained or not, the sentiment expressed would be true, that their doctrines amounted to a practical denial of the only true God; and equally so that they were a denial of the only Sovereign and Lord of the true Christian.

(a) "unawares" 2Pet 2:1 (b) "who" Rom 9:22 (c) "turning" Tit 1:15,16 (*) "Lord God" "The only Sovereign"

Revelation of John 6:10

Verse 10. Rev 6:9

(d) "how long" Zech 1:12 (e) "avenge" Rev 11:18, De 32:41-43