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?