Athanasius is an Eastern Father if ever there was one, and it is rather obvious from his text that he thought there were far more reasons for Christ to suffer than merely to offer an example of virtue, although to offer an example was certainly one reason.
In order to answer the question why did Jesus have to suffer, I cannot recommend too highly this work by St. Athanasius. It is not long, and very comprehensible to the eyes of faith. It is an absolute gem.
St. Athanasius On the Incarnation
BTW, I also think the text shows that there is something fishy about this line that "the East rejects Augustine, and in so doing developed a different theology of the Atonement" (a line favored by Frederica Matthews-Greene). After reading Athanasius, I was surprised (perhaps wrongly) at just how "Augustinian" it is -- even though it was written fully two generations before Augustine's conversion.
I think that Anselm and Aquinas should be read as continuators of the Athanasian train of Atonement theology. Although they use the WORD satisfaction in their explanations, their CONCEPT of it is the same as Athanasius'-- which is wildly different than the concept of satisfaction popularized after the concept of HUMAN NATURE was rejected in the west a century after Aquinas.
After the rejection of the conept of human nature, the concept of satisfaction mutated from meaning rehabilitation and medicine for human nature to mean the fulfillment of an entirely arbtirary divine command issued from God's will alone -- the divinely issued command that sin is to be punished extrinsically or from without. If that is what satisfaction is, then I could not possibly be a Christian. Where is the mercy is that theology of the atonement? And dont tell me it is because Jesus chose to suffer when he did not have to suffer for us, for God need not have issued the command in the first place. It was entirely arbitrary. Athanasius clears all this up by presenting the Atonement in terms long lost to the west -- in terms of human nature.
I am a Catholic, and I hold that until an Athanasian concept of the atonement is retrieved and popularized in the west, and until the Catholic saints and doctors are read more correctly as continuators of the pre-modern tradition of the atonement as medicine for a wounded nature as well as the source of divinizing elevation, Christianity will continue to evaporate in the west -- simply due to senselessnes concerning a central teaching.
I think the most convincing statement was this one -
"For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have "become a curse," unless He received the death set for a curse? and that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: "Cursed is he that hangeth on a tree."
On Good Friday this is what we sing of in the Orthodox church..
I found your post to be most intriguing.
"Athanasius clears all this up by presenting the Atonement in terms long lost to the west -- in terms of human nature."
This is, of course, exactly how we see it as well.
That's interesting.
I'm going to guess (and correct me if I'm wrong) that when you refer to "the concept of HUMAN NATURE was rejected in the west a century after Aquinas", you're referring (at least tangentially) to the supra-Augustinian development of the Lutheran and Calvinist Protestant doctrines of the "Bondage of the Will" and the "Total Inability" of Man.
Well, I actually agree -- in a sense. The notions of "The Bondage of the Will" and "Total Inability" do not do proper justice to HUMAN NATURE, after the Fall.
The notions of "Bondage of the Will" and "Total Inability" do not in any way properly describe the Spiritual Condition of Fallen Man according to the Orthodox Calvinist understanding of the case.... because they don't go far enough.
The idea that, after the Fall, Man has become a spiritually-dull, spiritually-incompetent, totally-unable, inactive, unwilling Prisoner of Sin is simply a pitiable Condition. Bad enough, I suppose, if that were the case; but that's not really the Orthodox Calvinist view of the matter. There's a reason that the Orthodox Calvinist, in describing the condition of Fallen Man, will prefer the term "Total Depravity" to the term "Total Inability" every time.
The Calvinist teaching on the condition of Fallen Man is not merely pitiable.
It is horrifying.
NOW, you may begin to understand the Calvinist teaching on HUMAN NATURE. To the Calvinist, the Fallen Man is not a "wounded nature" which needs "medicine". It is not even, as the Lutherans might say, a "Will under Bondage" which suffers from "Total Inability".
To the Calvinists, the condition of Fallen Man is one of Total Depravity. The Bible teaches that the condition of Spiritual Death into which the Race of Man has fallen is not a merely condition of "spiritual wounding", not even a condition of "spiritual inactivity" -- but rather, Spiritual Death is a condition of abject spiritual hatred against God. So the Apostle declares:
Just as the Eastern Orthodox rightfully teach that the Mind and Heart and Will of the Christian should be fervently devoted to Deification, a life-long foretaste of and preparation unto the Heavenly Estate (the Eastern term "deification" is sometimes preferable to the Western term "sanctification", because it properly implies our identification with Christ in this life and our progression towards Eternity)... so Calvinists understand that the native condition of Fallen Man is one of Satanification, the fervent devotion of the Mind and Heart and Will of Fallen Man to Rebellion against his Creator.
From Nimrod's arrogant Tower of Babel to the Homosexual-Rapes of Sodom to Israel's murdering of the Prophets to Aztec human sacrifices and Pagan ritual cannibalism to every sacrilegious work of Self-Righteousness which Man attempts through False Religions to justify himself, the Imago Dei is there, and it is not silent. It is active, operative, and will-fully blasphemous. Mankind, the Icon of God, has declared active and bitter Warfare against God Himself... defiling ourselves with murders, idolatries, and fornications in an active attempt to spit upon the face of God, and impugn His Majesty by profaning His Image -- Man Himself. And when given the chance, when given the opportunity -- we committed the crime of Deicide itself. God walked among us, and for all our transgressions against Him, He subjected us to no harm -- teaching only Love.
And for this... we murdered Him.
You want to cry me a river that "the Concept of Human Nature has been lost in the West"? Well, not among Calvinists. We Calvinists have not forgotten HUMAN NATURE. Re-read what I have written above... THAT is "Human Nature". Take a long, hard look at our vaunted "Human Nature". Because by Nature, after the Fall, that is what we ARE.
But I think it's missing something.
It's missing the fact that when Jesus braved the Walls of Death, it was us who were defending the ramparts for Our Lord Satan, firing Nail-guns into His hands and feet and throwing spears into His side. To the Calvinist, the better analogy would be that Jesus was a Jew who invaded the "Kingdom of Hitler", to save We who are by nature NAZIS.
All of which, incidentally, has more than a little to do (IMHO) with the Suffering of Christ.
We do not truly understand the Holiness of God, until we come to terms with the fact that God HATES Sin. He doesn't consider Sin a minor inconvenience. It's not merely a thorn in His side. He's not fretting away in Heaven because He's disappointed about it. God HATES Sin, furiously.
And Man... is a SINNER. Or, just to put a fine point on it, the very Imago Dei himself is WILL-FULLY SINFUL against God. Deliberately Sinful against God.
Think about that.
Now, I like to write Skits. I generally do not include the Persons of the Trinity in my Skits, because... well, shoot -- will a mere Man speak for God? BUT, as I have mentioned before, I am not a very "Iconoclastic" Protestant -- so long as they are not "worshipped", I personally have no objection to Icons for their use in education and illustration and meditation, which is an ancient and venerable practice of the Church particularly in pre-literate societies.
So, if Erasmus could include the Holy Spirit as one of the characters in his own Skit condemning the Excesses of the Popes, I pray that I will (in reverence) be able to do the same -- in an Iconic fashion, not attempting to speak for God, but only to present an Idea for meditation (subject as always, of course, to the Scriptures: "Has some good thought come to you? Have you felt some good impulse or inclination in your heart? Stop! Check it with the Gospel." ~~ Blessed Vladyka Ignatij Brianchaninov)
And THAT is why the Son suffered as He did. If we have to ask -- realize that GOD HATES SIN with a vengeance, and Jesus BECAME SIN for Us... and look within ourselves.
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes, we are healed.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief: when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see his seed, He shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
(Isaiah 53:5,10. This concludes OP's morality play in one act)
Best, OP