Why Do You Say “Lord Lord”

Refuting the Trinitarian Interpretation of Luke 6:46

In the ongoing theological debate between Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians, certain Bible verses have recently become flashpoints. One such passage is Luke 6:46, where Jesus asks,

"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV).

Trinitarians sometimes cite this verse as evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, arguing that the title "Lord" (Greek: "kyrios") equates Jesus with G-d, implying his co-equal status within a triune Godhead. Particularly in this verse, the double use of Kyrios, arguing that the only times this repetition of kyrios is used is uniquely for G-d. However, from a non-Trinitarian perspective this interpretation stretches the text beyond its linguistic, contextual, and historical bounds.

This article explores why Luke 6:46 does not support Trinitarian claims, breaking it down into key arguments. We'll examine the meaning of "kyrios", the rhetorical use of the double "Lord," the verse's ethical context, and broader historical insights. By doing so, we aim to show that the passage is a call to obedient discipleship, and not a veiled affirmation of divinity.

The Flexible Meaning of "Kyrios"

At the heart of the Trinitarian argument is the Greek word "kyrios", translated as "Lord." In the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), "kyrios" is often used in place of G-d's Holy name in Greek, which is in keeping with the Jewish tradition of not saying or writing the Holy Name of G-d flippantly. This little fact has led some to assume that when this same word is applied to Jesus, it proves his divinity. However, this overlooks the word's broad semantic range in New Testament Greek.

"Kyrios" simply means "master," "sir," "owner," or an authority figure, often without divine implications.[6][7] For instance, it's used for human slave owners (Ephesians 6:5) or respected teachers. In Jesus' time it was common for disciples to refer to their rabbi as "master" rather than rabbi, while the general populace referred to the teacher as "rabbi" as a respectful title and not implying personal discipleship under that teacher. In the Gospels, Jesus is addressed as "kyrios" in ways that align with "rabbi" or "teacher," as in John 13:13-14, where he calls himself "teacher and lord" in a non-divine, instructional sense.[1]

Scholarly analysis reinforces this: New Testament expert James D. G. Dunn notes that "kyrios" frequently distinguishes Jesus from the One G-d (the Father), as in phrases like "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 1:3).[8] Dunn argues that Jesus' lordship is delegated, not inherent to a shared divine essence, aligning with unitarian views of subordination.[10]

In Luke's Gospel specifically, "kyrios" appears about 83 times for Jesus, often interchangeably with non-divine titles like "didaskalos" (teacher). This suggests respect for his messianic authority rather than ontological equality with God.[2][3] To assume "kyrios" always implies divinity is selective; it ignores cultural contexts where the term honored human leaders without blurring monotheistic lines.

Dr. Dale Tuggy and James Dunn also emphasize that Jesus' use of "kyrios" fits his role as God's appointed agent. Acts 2:36 declares,

"God has made this Jesus... both Lord and Messiah,"

Indicating derived authority.[8] This subordination (Jesus as Messiah under the Father as an agent) preserves strict biblical monotheism without needing a triune framework.

The Double "Lord, Lord"

Trinitarians sometimes point to the repetition "Lord, Lord" ("kurie kurie") as echoing the Septuagint's double "Lord" for "Ad-nai HaShem," a divine title appearing over 80 times in the Tanakh. They suggest this implies Jesus is claiming HaShem's identity. But this reading is anachronistic and misses the verse's grammar and intent.

The Greek uses the double "lord lord" in the Tanakh because Greek does not have another way to render the Hebrew text, not because "lord lord" together means something extra special or divine. The LXX used "lord lord" because sometimes it had no other choice. The Hebrew word "Ad-nai" (or sometimes vocalized "adoni") means "lord" while very often Hebrew speakers used the word "Ad-nai" in place of the Divine Name. So, when the Divine Name is accompanied by the word "Ad-nai" the natural assumption is to repeat it in the translation. "Lord lord" did not carry a special significance in Jewish thought or theology, it was simply a way to circumnavigate a translational obstacle.

In fact the double vocative was not always the translation of choice even for the LXX. The LXX chose to render it as "lord G-d" far more often than the double vocative. The double "lord lord" is one of the least used translational decisions in the LXX and depending on which version of the LXX one consults the "adoni HaShem" would sometimes be left alone entirely, leaving the Hebrew in its place, like we see in Papyrus Fouad no.266.

This further illustrates that the double vocative is not some especially significant and well-known unique title for G-d. Its use depended entirely upon the translator, which also shows that its use is not a commonly accepted practice known throughout the Hellenistic Jewish world. Were this the case that it was, we should expect to see it far more often than we do. Rather, its use is so rare that one could argue it is the exception that proves the rule.

Additionally, the linguistics of the double "lord" are completely different syntactically between the LXX and the Gospels. The double form "lord lord" used in the gospels uses present-tense verbs, indicating habitual or collective address during Jesus' ministry and not a direct divine claim.[3][5] It is worth noting here as well that no Gospel records anyone addressing Jesus as "Lord Lord" in dialogue at all; it's Jesus' rhetorical device to critique hypocrisy, professing honor without obedience.

In first-century Jewish culture, addressing a rabbi like Jesus with a HaShem-specific phrase would be unthinkable, risking blasphemy. Larry W. Hurtado Specifically states,

"the reverence for the One God was so intense that any notion of sharing divine glory or titles with a human being in a way that blurred the Creator-creature distinction would have been unthinkable and potentially blasphemous." [4]

In other words, nobody was addressing Jesus with divine titles like this. Instead, the repetition signals intensity or frequency, akin to "truly, truly" in John for emphasis. This is highlighting Jesus' messianic lordship, delegated by G-d (See this article on Philippians 2:9-11), not some aspect of co-divinity. [5]

Think of it this way; In first century Israel Jesus would have been speaking Hebrew/Aramaic, not Greek. The use of the double "lord lord" is only relevant in Greek to begin with. But in Hebrew/Aramaic this is unnecessary. If Jesus here claimed full deity, then in his original tongue, he would have spoken the Hebrew/Aramaic phrase "Ad-nai HaShem" (or some variation of it), and surely if Jesus had done that, the crowd would have immediately readied stones for throwing with deadly intent. Or at the very least would have pointed out this incredible overt claim as blasphemy and alerted the authorities right away. Something they seem eager to do when Jesus even so much as hinted at his divine authority given to him by G-d, such as the case in John 10:30-39.

However, we see no such reaction at all in this passage nor the corresponding one in Matthews Gospel (Matthew 7:21-23). It therefore fits logically that Jesus' audience never interpreted the words as asserted by trinitarians and instead understood the repetition of "master master" to simply illustrate that people call him "master" all day every day and yet do not follow him like a "master". This interpretation avoids shoehorning later doctrines onto the text, focusing on the verse's call to action over empty repeated confessions of authority.

Contextual Emphasis: Obedience Over Ontology

Luke 6:46 sits within the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49), a teaching on ethics, judgment, and spiritual foundations. Jesus critiques superficial faith, calling him "lord" or "master" without doing his will, paralleling Matthew 7:21-23, where kingdom entry hinges on obeying the Father's will.

 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. ²² On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’ ²³ Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’

This and the Luke 6 passage mentions neither Jesus' divine status nor his relationship with The Father; it's about discipleship, obedience, and empty honorifics, not ontological doctrine. Inserting Trinitarianism here is eisegesis, importing post-biblical creeds like Nicene theology.[9] The Idea that Jesus here is claiming deity is entirely anachronistic as well as a clear violation of the plain reading of the text in context.

The verse clearly warns of hypocrisy, testing true profession through obedience and that merely confessing with your mouth "master" no matter how often one does it, means ultimately nothing.

Historical and Broader Theological Refutation

Early Christianity featured diverse Christologies; The Trinity, however, (and the idea of Jesus being G-d more broadly) emerged post-biblically, influenced by Greek philosophy.[12] Claims that Luke 6:46 specifically proves Trinitarianism rely on circular reasoning, without historical precedent. The doctrine is first assumed and then the verses are interpreted (or reinterpreted) to support it. In fact, there are exactly zero known instances from any of the Church Fathers or Apostolic Fathers that utilized this passage or line of argumentation in any way whatsoever as a proof text for Jesus' divinity pre 180AD.

The biblical authors uphold monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4; John 17:3), where the Father is the "only true G-d," and Jesus is subordinate to The Father, given authority from The Father, exalted by G-d either after his death or during his ministry, submitted wholly to the father while retaining his own individual will apart from The Father's, and worshiped G-d as "his G-d." In fact, Sean Finnegan notes "John contains more texts about the Son’s subordination to the Father than any other book of the Bible."[11] Elevating one title out of context is anachronistic and contradicts the authors original intent. [4]

It's worth noting also that there is no president within Jewish culture, neither today nor in Jesus' day, for the repetition of "lord" to be a circumlocution for "HaShem" or "The" G-d. No such pattern exists in any regional Jewish literature from the time, and the only exception to this rule is the LXX, which as we covered above, only used this double vocative because it had no other choice translationally. Neither Philo nor Josephus use the double vocative and there are exactly zero Jewish written Greek documents outside of the LXX that used the double vocative to indicate divinity. The Hebrew equivalent "lord lord" (repeating "adoni") also does not exist in any Hebrew/Aramaic literature as an indicator of deity either. There is simply no historical cultural president to support the claim that using the double vocative was an indication of divine status. The LXX is the exception, not the rule.

Conclusion: A Call to Faithful Discipleship

Luke 6:46 in context urges obedience to Jesus as G-d's Messiah, not proof of deity. This preserves scriptural integrity and avoids inserting later doctrinal overlays. For believers, the verse challenges simply: Does our faith and confessions show in actions?

---

References:

[1] Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle (Nashville: Nelson Bibles, 1989), John 13:13

[2] Eric D. Huntsman, "Luke's Jesus: The Compassionate and saving Son of God" in Thou Art The Christ: The Son of the living God: The Person and Work of Jesus in the New Testament, (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018) p 112-135

[3]. "Luke 6:46." Let the Truth Come Out (blog). May 27, 2024. https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/tag/luke-646.

[4] Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd Ed. (London: T&T Clark, 2015) p35-41

[5] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) p547-548, 717-718

[6] Stewart, Don. "What Does the Greek Word Kurios (Lord) Mean?" Blue Letter Bible. Accessed February 3, 2026. https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1307.cfm.

[7] "Strong's Greek: 2962. κύριος (kurios) -- Lord, master, owner." Bible Hub. Accessed February 3, 2026. https://biblehub.com/greek/2962.htm.

[8] Tuggy, Dale. "Dunn on Jesus as kyrios (“Lord”) in the New Testament." Trinities (blog). December 17, 2018. https://trinities.org/blog/dunn-on-jesus-as-kyrios-lord-in-the-new-testament.

[9] Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound (Morrow, GA: Restoration Fellowship, 1998)

[10] Dunn, James D. G. "Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence." Bethany Independent-Presbyterian Church Myanmar. 2010. https://www.bethanyipcmm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Dunn-Did-The-First-Christians-Worship-Jesus-the-New-Testament-Evidence-2010.pdf.

[11] Finnegan, Sean. "The Father Is Greater Than I: Exploring Biblical Subordination." Restitutio. Accessed February 3, 2026. https://restitutio.org/2021/10/16/the-father-is-greater-than-i-exploring-biblical-subordination.

[12] "Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed February 3, 2026. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html.

---

Other resources:

[13] Tuggy, Dale. "A Lesson in Christological Rhetoric." Trinities (blog). October 12, 2020. https://trinities.org/blog/christological-rhetoric.

[14] Finnegan, Sean. "Five Major Problems with the Trinity." Restitutio. January 19, 2019. https://restitutio.org/2019/01/19/five-major-problems-with-the-trinity.

[15] Tuggy, Dale. "20 classes of facts which show that the NT authors are unitarian." Trinities (blog). December 14, 2025. https://trinities.org/blog/20-classes-of-facts-which-show-that-the-nt-authors-are-unitarian.