How can the translation of δοξης as "glory" in Romans 3:23 be justified?

Question

According to Liddell and Scott’s Intermediate Greek Lexicon (also called Middle Liddell) the word δόξα or δοξης can mean: expectation, an opinion, judgment, the opinion which others have of one, estimation, reputation, credit, honour, glory. (Link to it on Perseus)

Did the English translators of basically all Protestant translations (other than the NLT) just miss this? or is there doctrinal bias involved in translating as "glory" which makes it sound like its a sin to not literally be God? After all, not falling short of the "glory" of God is impossible without literally being God. Surely that can't be what Paul really means.

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” (KJV, but same as any Standard Protestant Translation)

“for all have sinned and fall short of the expectation of God,” (makes more sense)

"For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard." (NLT)

Answer 1

This is an instant where the Greek doesn't capture it's original sense in the Hebrew.

In Hebrew 'kabod'(glory) originally meant 'weight'. We see this illustrated in 2 Chron. 5:14,

So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of God.

In Ex. 33:22, the Lord says to Moses,

And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

One's 'doxa', no matter how highly regarded, doesn't match the "kabod" of God's Presence. Another word used is 'brightness', or 'splendor", which are certainly attributes of God's glory but don't quite capture the full meaning of the word.

In John 17:5, Jesus says,

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory(doxe) which I had with thee before the world was.

God the Father's opinion of Jesus had never changed,"This is My Beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased(Matt. 3:17)." Therefore, what changed?

Jesus 'traded' His heavenly 'glory' for one of a man. He was sinless, therefore He did not "...fall short of the glory of God". But He traded the 'weight of His Presence' with the Father for the 'glory' of a man, who was made in the image and likeness of God, and made to reflect His glory, which is what we do when we walk "in His Presence" through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, when we 'exchange',

the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen(Rom 1:23-25)

we exchange the 'Presense of God" for the carnal appetites and affections, and false worship-thereby falling "short" of the glory of God.

In summary; the Greek 'doxa' is inadequate in explaining the idea of 'glory'; the Hebrew word "kabod" provides a fuller measure of the truth of the word "glory".

Answer 2

The sources that Liddell and Scott cite for meanings other than 'glory' are all much older than the NT:

• Homer (7-8th century BC)
• Aeschylus (5th century BC)
• Euripides 5th century BC)
• Herodotus (5th century BC)
• Pindar (5th century BC)
• Demosthenes (4th century BC)
• Plato (4th century BC)
• Thucydides (4th century BC)
• Xenophon (4th century BC)

Liddell and Scott say the word in the NT has the sense of 'glory, splendour, effulgence'. Without evidence to the contrary this looks like a case of semantic change. So I'd expect that the reason why the translators all translated it something like 'glory' is because they must believe that was the only current meaning.

Answer 3

Go back to your Perseus link and look up the unabridged LSJ. You will see several attestations for the meaning "glory" in Koine Greek (LXX and NT). http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=do%2Fchs&la=greek#lexicon

Answer 4

It is telling that Liddell and Scott list only LXX and NT references for "δόξα" as "of external appearance: glory". Everywhere else, it is used to discuss the public's expectations and approval of someone's actions based on those expectations. Those who do what others expect of them (δόγμα), meaning what is proper (δίκαιος), maintain their reputation (δόξα).

Romans is rife with this vocabulary because Paul's central point is that propriety (δικαιοσύνη), and therefore being approved (δικαιόω), is not obtained by following rules but by relying on Jesus.

20 all flesh will not be approved before him out of works of law...God's propriety has been made conspicuous...through reliance of Jesus Anointed... 23 for all failed and lack the reputation of God, 24 being approved for free by his favor through the redemption in Anointed Jesus...to the indication of his propriety...into his being proper and he who approves...

The translation of the Hebrew "kabod" (heaviness) as "δόξα" (reputation) in Greek is understandable; Abraham, for example is described as "heavy in livestock, silver, and gold" in Genesis 13:2. The conflation of that with the Hebrew "Shekhinah", the settling of the presence of God, however, is not a given simply because it is also often translated "glory" or because the author of a text is Hebrew. The sheer number of cases where a person gives δόξα to God should deny that. It only applies to texts where someone's external appearance is being discussed as an object, such as Acts 7:55 ("he saw the glory of God") or even more where it is acting as a subject, such as Luke 2:9 ("glory of the lord shone around them"). Romans 3 is not such a text, and should not be interpreted to be a discussion about the effulgence of God, but about his reputation or expectations.