Covering (1942) (epikaluma from epikalúpto = to conceal in turn derived from epà = over + kalúpto = cover) is literally a covering or a veil. Figuratively epikaluma is a "cloak" or pretext idea is using Christian freedom as a mask for ungodly license (cp Jude 4). Don't use your freedom in Christ as a pretext. Peter warns his readers not to use their freedom as a “pretext” for doing wrong, an excuse for wickedness or a reason to justify your wrong deeds. Instead, we use our liberty in Jesus to show the kind of love and respect that Peter calls for. Webster defines pretext as "a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs" adding that this word "suggests subterfuge and the offering of false reasons or motives in excuse or explanation." Vincent writes that epikaluma is found only here in the NT and is literally... a veil. The idea is that of using Christian freedom as a mask for ungodly license. Paul uses the kindred verb (epikalupto - to conceal, hide, cover over and figuratively to forgive. See note Romans 4:7) of the covering of sins. On the sentiment, compare Gal. 5:13. Although the word epikaluma is not found in Jude 4, his description of the "certain persons" depicts their use of a spiritual "cloak"... For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:4) Believers are to be different. We are the Lord's freedmen. In the Greco-Roman world a freedman still owed some continuing duties to his or her former master even though they were legally free. The former master remained a patron, who would help the freedman out financially and politically. The freedman remained a client, who would also look out for the former master’s interests and reputation. Freedmen were still considered part of their former master’s household. The upshot is that yes as those redeemed by Christ's precious blood as of a lamb are free indeed, we are not free to sin. Liberty does not convey license. Our freedom does not include the right to live lawlessly. Sinful disobedience cannot and should not be justified by pseudo spiritual excuses ("covering"). As MacDonald rightly observes The cause of Christ is never advanced by evil masquerading in religious clothes. (MacDonald, W & Farstad, A. Believer's Bible Commentary: Thomas Nelson or Logos) In light of the truth we have been redeemed from bondage to sin, we must understand that our freedom in Christ does not give us the right to do as we please. Jesus clearly warned against such licentiousness and continuance in sin declaring... Truly, truly (Amen, Amen - this is a firm truth) I say to you, everyone who commits (present tense) sin is the slave of sin. (John 8:34) Barnes writes that... The apostle has reference to an abuse of freedom, which has often occurred. The pretence of those who have acted in this manner has been, that the freedom of the gospel implied deliverance from all kinds of restraint; that they were under no yoke, and bound by no laws; that, being the children of God, they had a right to all kinds of enjoyment and indulgence; that even the moral law ceased to bind them, and that they had a right to make the most of liberty in all respects. Hence they have given themselves up to all sorts of sensual indulgence, claiming exemption from the restraints of morality as well as of civil law, and sinking into the deepest abyss of vice. Not a few have done this who have professed to be Christians; and, occasionally, a fanatical sect now appears who make the freedom which they say Christianity confers a pretext for indulgence in the most base and degrading vices. The apostles saw this tendency in human nature, and in nothing are they more careful than to guard against this abuse. (Barnes' Notes on the NT) BUT USE IT AS BONDSLAVES OF GOD: all os theou douloi: (Eph 6:6; Col 3:24)