Continuing my response to this.

The third criticism Lane lists is especially gratifying by the time the reader reaches it because

1. It doesn’t involve accusing Wright of holding a position that he does not hold (with one major exception, see below), and
2. It doesn’t involve Gordon saying something about Wright in which he had openly declared the opposite in the Westminster Theological Journal.

However, I can only conclude that Gordon is plainly wrong, though I reserve the right to change my mind when I read him.

In the first place, nothing he says seems weighty enough to counter a positive case.

Secondly, anyone who reads WSPRS can attest that Wright affirms a judicial context for justification. Claiming that Wright removes justification from a judicial context is akin to claiming that the problem with Marx was that he thought the civil government should obey the law of God as found in Holy Scripture.

Third, the Seifrid strategy of claiming that “righteousness” applies to “his unwavering commitment to judge his creation uprightly-without compromise, favoritism, or inequity” and therefore is not to be considered covenant faithfulness, posits a false antithesis. For example, Wright himself teaches that the righteousness of God is vindicated in Christ’s work of salvation because He “has dealt with sin on the cross; he has done so impartially.”

Fourth, using 3.1 as evidence that Paul would never use “righteous” to designate God’s faithfulness, while bold, is plainly the opposite of what the passage teaches us.

Here it is Romans 3.3-5 with the two word groups emphasized:

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

“That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged.”

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)

This passage does not show two different meanings but establishes precisely what Wright and many other Bible scholars are saying. The “faithfulness of God” (v. 3) is also the “righteousness of God” (v. 5)–just as “their faithlessness” and “our unrighteousness” are both referring to human sin. The Psalm quotation gives even further evidence of this (if any was necessary) because it refers to God being declared righteous (“justified”) in against the accusation that human faithlessness nullifies the faithfulness of God. Being declared faithful means being declared righteous in this passage.

The argument Lane relates is similarly astounding. “His argument runs like this: the wrath of God must have reference to His judicial wrath. that same wrath is revealed in the righteousness of 1:17-18 in Jesus Christ’s propitiation of God’s wrath. Therefore, the righteousness of God does not refer to covenantal faithfulness (which isn’t even remotely present in the context), but rather to God’s law-wrath.”

First of all, if “righteousness of God” is parallel to “wrath of God,” then Gordon is admitting that the translation “righteousness from God” is incorrect. In fact, if Lane is summarizing his views accurately, he is reverting to the precise position that tormented Martin Luther. This just can’t be right, but it is the only place the argument leads. And far from being a real criticism of Wright, it fundamentally vindicates his point that “the righteousness of God” refers to his own character and attitude, not a quality that is transferred.

Second, there is a contrast between verse 17 and 18. It is not uncontextual to understand Paul as saying that the Gospel reveals God’s covenantal faithfulness because his wrath is also revealed and he has promised to deal with it.

Thirdly, covenantal and judicial categories are simply not mutually exclusive. It is no great leap to say that the Gospel reveals God’s covenant faithfulness which involves pouring judicial wrath on sin.

Lane’s review gets even more confusing:

He argues that NTW has some hermeneutical problems with regard to the dik-group. He argues that NTW takes an ambiguous occurence of the word (dikaiosune theou) and renders it in a manner that is different than its unambiguous usage in the very same context. That passage in question is Romans 3:5-4:6.

But no commentator alive or dead takes “righteousness of God” in 3.5 as imputed righteousness from God. Wright’s entire point is that we should be consistent with what we know about Romans 3.5.

Gordon notes that no Reformed theologian says that justification is about a person’s relationship to God. Rather, it is about a right standing before God and the law (pg. 72).

Okay. Let’s play that game: No one says good citizenship is about a person’s relationship with their country. Rather it is about their right standing before God and the laws of the country.” More false antithesis.