In his book Justification NT Wright responds to John Piper’s critique of Wright’s earlier work on Paul. The book has a wealth of useful and careful theological definition. These quotes from the book from 64, 65, 66, 67

BOQ

Then and subsequently he [Piper] has expounded a view of the righteousness of God which, he claims, goes deeper than covenant faithfulness, deeper also than the lawcourt implications. God’s righteousness, he claims, is God’s concern for God’s own glory…

First, there is a huge mass of scholarly literature on the meaning of God’s righteousness, and Piper simply ignores it. I am not aware of any other scholar, old perspective, new perspective, Catholic, Reformed, Evangelical, anyone, who thinks that tsedaqah elohim in Hebrew or dikaiosyne theou in Greek actually means “God’s concern for God’s own glory.” Rather, the widespread view is that tsedaqah/dikaiosyne in general (i.e., the Hebrew meaning, still reflected in biblical Greek as opposed to classical Greek where dikaiosyne means “justice”) refer to “conformity with a norm,” and when this is further contextualized as God’s “righteousness” the strong probability is that this refers to God’s fidelity to the norms he himself has set up, in other words, the covenant. Thus J. I. Packer: “The reason why these texts (Isaiah and the Psalms) call God’s vindication of his oppressed people his ‘righteousness’ is that it is an act of faithfulness to his covenant promise to them.”15 Of course, when God acts in faithfulness to his own promises, this results in his name, his honor and his reputation being magnified or glorified. Nobody would deny that. But nowhere is it clear that “God’s righteousness” actually denotes that glorification. Piper’s attempt to show that there must be a “righteousness” behind God’s “covenant faithfulness” is simply unconvincing. It begins to look as though Piper has simply not understood what covenant faithfulness means, and its enormous significance throughout Scripture. As many representatives of both old and new perspectives have said, following Ernst Kasemann who, though in some ways a classic Lutheran and therefore naturally an old perspective person, was too good an exegete not to notice many of the phenomena which then turned into the new perspective, God’s dikaiosyne is, not least, his faithfulness to, and his powerful commitment to rescue, creation itself. it always has in view God’s utter commitment to put things right. But, as we shall see presently, in Scripture, in second-temple Jewish literature, and in Paul himself, not least in Paul’s reading of Scripture, God’s way of putting the world right is precisely through his covenant with Israel. This is the theme that will emerge clearly in the exegesis in due course. God’s single plan to put the world to rights is his plan to do so through Israel…

Second, it is not at all clear how Piper’s idiosyncratic definition of “God’s righteousness” works out within the scheme of imputation that lies at the heart of his own reading. If “God’s righteousness” is “God’s concern for God’s own glory,” what does it mean to suggest that this is imputed to the believer? It could only mean “the believer’s concern for God’s own glory.” But concern for someone else’s glory is not the same as concern for one’s own. Here we meet, not for the last time, the confusion that arises inevitably when we try to think of the judge transferring, by imputation or any other way, his own attributes to the defendant. And, in any case, though it is true that Paul does see Abraham, for instance, as giving “glory to God” (Romans 4:20), there is nothing to say that this is what was meant by his having “righteousness” imputed to him. Indeed, Paul says in Romans 4:22 that this “giving glory to God,” along with faith, and trust in God’s promise, and full conviction of God’s power, was the reason why God “reckoned [it] to him as righteousness.” The two can then hardly be the same thing, though since Piper does not discuss Romans 4:20-22 in this book I cannot be sure.

In any case, Paul’s repeated quotation of Genesis 15 throughout Romans 4 indicates strongly what is going on. That chapter was where God established his covenant with Abraham. To be sure, this was for God’s own glory. But Abraham’s righteousness is his right standing within that covenant, and God’s righteousness is his unswerving commitment to be faithful to that covenant—including the promise (Romans 4:13) that Abraham would inherit the world. Here we have it: God’s single plan, through Abraham and his family, to bless the whole world. That is what I have meant by the word covenant when I have used it as shorthand in writing about Paul. My justification for using it is not that every time the idea is present Paul uses the word diatheke, the normal Greek for berith, “covenant,” because obviously he doesn’t. My justification is that this massive, many-sided and multiply explanatory narrative is rooted, by Paul himself, in classic covenantal passages such as Genesis 15, Deuteronomy 27-30 and Daniel 9.

EOQ

I like what Wright is doing here. The definitions of clear, and in fact traditional, and his view nicely keeps the overall Biblical covenantal narrative tight. The book obviously has way more stuff, but this will give you a taste.