Notes on the Old Testament, Explanatory and Practical
By Albert Barnes, originally published 1832-1872.
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.
The Pulpit Commentary
Published circa 1890. Edited by H.D.M. Spence, D.D., Joseph S. Exell, M.A.
Even denying the Lord that bought them; literally, as in the Revised Version,
denying even the Master that bought them. The word for "Master" (despothv) implies that the deniers stand to the Lord in the relation of slaves, bondservants. The Lord had bought them; they were not their own, but his, bought with a price, "not with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ"
1Pe 1:18; see also the parallel passage. [
Jude 4] These words plainly assert the universality of the Lord's redemption. He "tasted death for every man", [
Heb 2:9] even for those false teachers who denied him. The denial referred to may have been doctrinal or practical; most of the ancient forms of heresy involved some grave error as to the Person of Christ; and the germs of these errors appeared very early in the Church,
2 denying sometimes the Godhead of our Lord, sometimes the truth of his humanity. But St. Peter may mean the practical denial of Christ evinced in an ungodly and licentious life. The latter form of denial appears most prominent in this chapter; probably the apostle intended to warn his readers against both. It is touching to remember that he had himself denied the Lord, though indeed the price with which our souls were bought had not then been paid; but his denial was at once followed by a deep and true repentance. The Lord's loving look recalled him to himself; his bitter tears proved the sincerity of his contrition.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible
1706-1721
Damnable heresies are commonly brought in privily, under the cloak and colour of truth. Those who introduce destructive heresies
deny the Lord that bought them. They reject and refuse to hear and learn of the great teacher sent from God, though he is the only Saviour and Redeemer of men, who paid a price sufficient to redeem as many worlds of sinners as there are sinners in the world.
It is a widely accepted understanding, Unless like Gill you come the the Scripture determining what it must mean over what it says. I use Gill often but when Calvinism comes up, he will correct Scripture every time to make it say what it needs to, in order for Calvinism to be established.