‘the unexamined basis for resolving all questions about [Paul’s] soteriology’.18 That, of course, is just a smokescreen: the only ‘lack of examination’ on show here is not biblical covenant theology, which I and others have examined pretty thoroughly, but Seifrid’s own persistent refusal to examine what is thereby actually being said.19 Westerholm excuses his earlier failure to mention ‘covenant’ by saying, with gentler sarcasm than Seifrid, that it is because he has been narrowly preoccupied with