There’s a lot that could be said here (and I may say some of it later), but I’ll say this much now: both Wright and Piper have produced fine examples of ecclesial theology. I don’t agree fully with either theologian’s treatment of Paul, but it’s clear that both men are writing as Christians and as pastors. The subject matter is not mere academics for either of them. Further, these books are not pitched toward a lay audience, but to fellow theologians and thinkers who share their concern for the health of the church and the advancement of the gospel.

Piper and Wright may not have a common vision on justification, but they do share a common vision for theological reflection.

The article briefly recounts the founding of the SAET, and is my latest attempt to flesh out a distinction between academic theology and ecclesial theology. If you read it and have thoughts, I’m interested to hear them.

The basic gist of Gaffin’s argument runs thus: Christ, in taking on fallen humanity, was in need of dying and rising just as much as the rest of humanity. For Paul, Christ’s resurrection was transforming in respect to his humanity—a release from the mortal flesh he incarnated. He writes,

For as 1 Cor. 15:45 and 2 Cor. 3:17 make clear, the resurrection produces a real transformation in the person of Christ, a change which is analogous to that experienced by believers (cf. esp. 1 Cor. 15:51 with vv.45 ff.). Christ’s resurrection is not evidential with respect to his divinity, but transforming with respect to his humanity (105).

Gaffin’s point here is not that Christ was sinful, but that Christ, in taking upon himself “the body of death,” was in need of release from the ravages of sin no less than we.

Along similar lines, Athanasius’ entire soteriological narrative points toward the need for resurrection and ontological renewal. In a telling passage Athanasius notes that even moral perfection cannot overcome humanity’s inherent ontological deficiency. Men such as Jeremiah and John, he writes, had been “hallowed from the womb” and were thus “holy and clean from all sin. . . nevertheless ‘death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams’ transgression;’ and thus man remained mortal and corruptible as before, liable to the affection proper to their nature” (Third Arian Discourse, ch. 33). And speaking directly of Christ, “For while all humanity was perishing because of the transgression of Adam, [Christ's] flesh was the first to be saved and freed, as being the body of the Word himself” (Second Arian Discourse, ch.1)

What’s interesting in all of this is the idea that outward conformity to God’s Law/law is not sufficient for final salvation. Legal righteousness is not enough.  If Christ, being without sin, was in need of a resurrection, how much more are we?