While he agrees that the “incorporative motif is clearly prominent in Paul, ” he asks, naming N. T. Wright and his conclusions, “How might the relationship of the Messiah and those incorporated into him be expressed theologically, that is, in conversation with the language and thought forms of catholic Christology? What kind of union-incorporation is in view? Within the reality of this union-incorporation, can we still speak of Christ, in any sense, as other than ourselves. If so, how does this affect the reality of the union. In Wright, as in most participants in the discussion, this question is left (to date at least) without elucidation.”

Umm. Maybe Wright’s material has not left Garcia to cognitive rest. I welcome his attempts to get Wright or others to elucidate more clearly what they mean. However, it is quite clear from Wright’s early work on Paul’s theology that confusion of persons is not remotely in view. Wright’s analogy and foundation for his view of Jesus’ representative function is that of the relationship between King David and the people of Israel. Now, I’m quite willing to hear calls for clarification in how we formulate that relationship, but it simply is not cogent to claim that Wright has left a big question mark in his writings so that we can rationally ask: “Within the reality of this union-incorporation, can we still speak of King David, in any sense, as other than the people of Israel?”

It simply does not make sense to ask such a question and it would frankly a pejorative assertion about Wright’s material to assert that it raises this sort of concern. Wright knows that David and Joab are two different people. He knows that he and Christ are two different people