Thanks John - the sentence was misleading: should have been something like "Wright insists that righteousness is not a moral quality shared with God’" etc.

My understanding of Wright is that everything points to the eschaton, the vindication of God’s people, but that we can experience the effects of that vindication in some measure now. This is his explanation of ‘justification’ - the understanding of which has of course been massively (and in his view, erroneously) influenced by Luther, but is now being given a significantly different interpretation.

Incidentally, this may be a key difference between Wright and the approach being suggested by Andrew - where everything hinges on a parousia (and maybe eschaton also) which took place in A.D.70, rather than an eschaton yet to come.

In what sense is ‘righteousness’ a covenant term today? I suppose loyalty to Jesus in the new covenant parallels the loyalty to Jahweh of the old covenant (an emphasis that seems to get played down or even ignored in some presentations today). And like the old covenant, the new covenant begins with something received, rather than, as is popular supposed, a contrast between ‘works’ in the one and ‘faith’ in the other.

The evidence of righteousness would be Spirit-reception and the joining with God’s people who are characterised by the life of the Spirit - gifts and fruit - having Jesus as the focal point and object of their worship and loyalty. 

This is a slightly (very?) simplistic summary, but it brings into play some of the key features which I think would be relevant in a discussion of ‘righteousness’.

By the way, thank you for your review of ‘The coming of…’; being an unreformed cheapskate I have held back from buying a copy, but now have one on order from our cathedral bookshop which offers 10% discounts to members of the clergy. I’m not ordained, but pleading ‘the priesthood of all believers’ always works and we do hold a parish account at the shop.