# From Methodius of Olympus's writings



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2014)

Methodius of Olympus is a transitional period from the Origenist polemics to the Nicene debates

All citations taken from Schaff’s Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 6

*Pros of Methodius
*
His prose often exquisite and always lyrical. He occasionally approaches the talent of Gregory Nazianzus, the Christian Pindar.
While he often gets off track of his topic, his “wanderings” are very interesting and usually more sound than his main point.

*Cons*
I do not believe Methodius lost the gospel. I do think he came within a razor’s edge of losing it.
His use of excessive allegory is subject to the critiques of that position. If allegory is true, it is impossible to falsify since there is no permanent standard to say “X is wrong.”

_Banquet of the Ten Virgins
_
Like many ancient Christians, Methodius held perpetual virginity to be the summum bonum. Unlike other ancient Christians, his defense of it, while suffering in terms of exegesis and argument, is the best-written defense (Augustine’s is confused and he knows it; Tertullian’s ranks as the worst treatise in the history of written thought).

“Virginity mediates between heaven and earth” (312-313).
Methodius bases much of his argument on legal analogies from Old Testament shadows: 327-329; 344. Even though this is a form of the Galatian heresy, even here he is not consistent, for he knows that people can bring up another OT text: Genesis 1:27ff about procreating (and even worse, maybe enjoying it). Indeed, he calls such men “incontinent and uncontrolled in sensuality” (320).

“The likeness of God is the avoidance of corruption.” A problematic statement, but not too bad. It gets worse when he adds another premise: virgins have this likeness (313). This brings up a troubling conclusion: can married people have the likeness of God?

Indeed, if you are married you need to work towards the goal of never having sex again. Methodius writes, “Until it removed entirely the inclination for sexual intercourse engendered by habit” (312). It gets worse: if married people enjoy sex, “how shall they celebrate the feast” (347)? What does Methodius mean by feast? Probably not the liturgy in this section (though of course he would draw that same application; you cannot have sex the night before Eucharist, nor can you eat or drink anything that morning); it could be either “the kingdom of God” or the “proper Christian life.” The narrative isn’t clear.

He knows the prohibition against marriage is a demonic doctrine, so he hedges his bets: marriage is to produce martyrs (314). 
He has a fascinating discussion on numerology (339) and his commentary on the Apocalypse, while wild and fanciful, is no less arbitrary than any other “spiritual” interpretation of it

*Evaluation*

It is not accidental that Methodius used OT legal shadows to buttress his argument. He picked and chose from God’s law and supplemented it with the doctrines of man. Gone is the freedom of the Christian life. Indeed, the Gospel has become a New Law (348-349). 

*Concerning Free Will
*
This is an important text because it summarizes ancient thought on freedom and necessity. What is the origin of a human action (357). Methodius wants to make sure that God is not the author of evil, but without the categories of “ultimate and proximate causality,” it’s not clear he can avoid giving evil a semi-independent existence.

His larger point is worth considering, though. The form of necessatarianism he fights is some mixture of astrology and fatalism. Methodius wants to free God from the charge of evil by noting he is separate from matter. (Nota bene: in ancient thought matter and necessity were linked. It makes sense if you think of it. If the above two are connected, and the will is immaterial, then the will is free).

*Evaluation*

As a full treatise on freedom it is inadequate, but his suggestions on matter and freedom are quite interesting.

_Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna
_
“and preserved his mother’s purity uncorrupt and uninjured” (385). the last two words suggest Jesus was born miraculously without damaging Mary’s ‘lady parts.” He “opened the virgin’s womb and yet did not burst the barriers of virginity.” While this sounds absurd, it is consistent. The evil for men, per Methodius and ancient Christians, is corruption. The tearing of the vaginal canal, for example (forgive the rough illustration), is corruption. Therefore, the Logos, the Incorrupt One, could not have caused it.

The only way to really combat this idea is to attack the original premise.

_Minor Works and Fragments
_
Many of these are corrupted mss and/or lyrical panegyrics on deceased saints. Not much of history except we see early Marian devotion. While this is perhaps uncharitable towards Methodius, one wonders if the point of Jesus in our lives is so we can praise Mary.

*Evaluation and Conclusion*

Methodius is a good witness to Eastern Christianity before the Nicene Council. He has some interesting suggestions on free will and determinism. Unfortunately, he exalts man-made ideas of perpetual celibacy to the first-order level of the gospel. It is instructive that we see why: sex--assuming it to be married sex--is messy and smelly and arouses extreme passions between man and wife. This is low on the scale of being and it does not become the one who wants to transcend finitude to the realms of the passionless. 

This is very good Hellenistic philosophy, but is an open attack on an earthy Hebraic Christianity. Methodius himself suggests as much (see page 344). 

He is worth reading for the occasional insight, but even where he is right (e.g., the Trinity) he has been surpassed by other luminaries. Where is wrong, he is fatally wrong.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 5, 2014)

Where does he almost lose the Gospel?


----------



## MW (Nov 5, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> This is very good Hellenistic philosophy, but is an open attack on an earthy Hebraic Christianity.



Jacob, Why do you accept this dichotomy between Hebraic and Hellenic thought? Are you aware of its origins and agenda?

Is it possible that virginity was appealing because of conversion from a society which was viewed as sexually corrupt? The philosophy might have been adopted merely to give a rational account of it. Moral judgements are not always the result of a coherent rational system.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2014)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > This is very good Hellenistic philosophy, but is an open attack on an earthy Hebraic Christianity.
> ...



I don't believe there is a Hellenic/Hebraic mindset, but I reject that the pagan Hellenists were closet Hebrews. That's why the Athenians couldn't accept the resurrection of the body. _Soma sema_. The "body" is lower on the chain of being than the immortal soul, so reasons the Hellene. This is why they thought Paul was complete nonsense.

I understand that Methodius over-reacted to a sexual culture. But when he says that married people should stop having sex and likens virginity as the way to get closest to God, well that's a problem.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2014)

arap said:


> Where does he almost lose the Gospel?



When he applies analogies of the Hebrew ceremonial system as binding on Christians today.


----------



## MW (Nov 5, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> That's why the Athenians couldn't accept the resurrection of the body.



And yet Dionysius believed. As did Methodius. There is no reason to impute a system of "Hellenic" thought to a writer simply because he uses some of its terms and concepts.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2014)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > That's why the Athenians couldn't accept the resurrection of the body.
> ...



His hatred of God's gift of married sexuality is not biblical. His acceptance of chain of being is not biblical. His two-class Christianity is not biblical.


----------



## Philip (Nov 5, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> His hatred of God's gift of married sexuality is not biblical. His acceptance of chain of being is not biblical. His two-class Christianity is not biblical.



These are problems that are not unique to Greek thought. The Essenes were Hebrews and held the same positions, not the mention the Churches of the East, which were Syriac, not Greek.

I would avoid "Hellenic" and "Hebraic" as meaningful categories if I were you, just as I would avoid "Platonism" as pejorative. Generally, in the literature, "Hebraic" ends up meaning "stuff I like" while "Hellenic" or "Greek" means "stuff I don't like." Calling something "Hellenic" doesn't actually say anything about it except "I dislike it."


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2014)

Philip said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > His hatred of God's gift of married sexuality is not biblical. His acceptance of chain of being is not biblical. His two-class Christianity is not biblical.
> ...



That is certainly true, but when I read Greek literature (both pagan and Christian) I see common themes (passion of any sort = a movement away from the simplicity of The One).


----------



## Philip (Nov 5, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> That is certainly true, but when I read Greek literature (both pagan and Christian) I see common themes (passion of any sort = a movement away from the simplicity of The One).



Sure, and while we're at it, Paul warns Timothy to flee youthful lusts, and James says that the passions that war within his listeners are the cause of ungoadly quarrels. Further, orthodox Christian teaching is that God is metaphysically simple. Just because the Greeks had an idea doesn't make it false. Paul uses Greek ideas about philosophical monotheism in his speech to the Athenians!


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2014)

Philip said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > That is certainly true, but when I read Greek literature (both pagan and Christian) I see common themes (passion of any sort = a movement away from the simplicity of The One).
> ...



true, but I don't think Paul's injunctions against youthful lusts negate Genesis 1:28ff. God's law allowed a woman to call her husband to account if he denied marital rights to her. Methodius wants the husband to do precisely that! I do agree that God is simple. I do not agree with some inferences that early theologians drew from that.


----------



## Philip (Nov 6, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> true, but I don't think Paul's injunctions against youthful lusts negate Genesis 1:28ff. God's law allowed a woman to call her husband to account if he denied marital rights to her. Methodius wants the husband to do precisely that!



Sure, but let's extend him some charity here. Most of the church, up to the reformation, read 1 Corinthians 7 to mean that marriage was only for the weak Christian who was having trouble keeping it in his pants, so to speak. We can level the same charge against Augustine, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, and pretty much any theologian before Luther. Methodius is not unique in this regard.



ReformedReidian said:


> I do agree that God is simple. I do not agree with some inferences that early theologians drew from that.



Such as?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 6, 2014)

Philip said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > true, but I don't think Paul's injunctions against youthful lusts negate Genesis 1:28ff. God's law allowed a woman to call her husband to account if he denied marital rights to her. Methodius wants the husband to do precisely that!
> ...



I am all for charity, but when he creates second class Christians, he needs to be called on it.



> We can level the same charge against Augustine, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, and pretty much any theologian before Luther. Methodius is not unique in this regard.





> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree that God is simple. I do not agree with some inferences that early theologians drew from that.
> ...



The idea that any movement or thought or such constitutes diastasis and a movement away from the One. Clement and Origen were particularly bad on this point, though this wasn't quite a problem any more by the time of Basil. Rowan Williams does a good job in the second half of his _Arius_ on this topic.


----------



## Philip (Nov 6, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> I am all for charity, but when he creates second class Christians, he needs to be called on it.



Sure, but this is a problem for most Christian theologians, for practical purposes, until the 16th century. In fact, we all tend to do this. Example: Christians and alcohol. Both sides in the debate try to claim that they are somehow more spiritual. I remember once asking someone why he didn't drink and he basically said, "It's not that I have anything against Christians who drink, but I was reading Jesus saying that he wouldn't drink until the New Heavens, and so I decided to imitate him." And there have been times when my own attitude on the subject has been just as bad from the other direction. We all want there to be levels of spirituality because it enables us to puff ourselves up.



ReformedReidian said:


> The idea that any movement or thought or such constitutes diastasis and a movement away from the One.



Fair enough, but this isn't a uniquely Greek conception either.


----------



## MW (Nov 6, 2014)

Humility does not come naturally, especially in spiritual things.

But I think something else was at work in Methodius, and that is where I find Jacob's critique somewhat vague and misleading. Methodius developed a biblical theology of virginity. He was aiming to be biblical. His position should be examined in that light. Further, he had something to say about the resurrection of the body and appears to oppose the very philosophy he is being charged with.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 6, 2014)

MW said:


> Humility does not come naturally, especially in spiritual things.
> 
> But I think something else was at work in Methodius, and that is where I find Jacob's critique somewhat vague and misleading. Methodius developed a biblical theology of virginity. He was aiming to be biblical. His position should be examined in that light. Further, he had something to say about the resurrection of the body and appears to oppose the very philosophy he is being charged with.



And his stuff on the Resurrection is decent, as are most of his shorter works. I have to firmly reject his "theology of virginity," especially in light of the following argument

Premise 1: Virginity is a necessary condition for attaining the likeness of God (Methodius, like all Eastern writers holds to the faulty image/likeness distinction).
Premise 2: Some married people are not virgins (true by definition, except in the case of some Russian Orthodox saints like John of Kronstadt).
-------------------
Conclusion: Married people can attain the image but not the likeness of God.

Why not hold to the Puritan family ethic instead? Compare angelic celibacy's effects on churches and societies versus the Puritan sexual ethic. It's a rather open and shut case.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 6, 2014)

Philip said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > I am all for charity, but when he creates second class Christians, he needs to be called on it.
> ...



Yes, which is why we should rejoice in the gains of Calvin and the Puritan tradition on this point and not surrender an inch to those who want to form Christian spirituality around OT ceremonial shadows (which is what Methodius admits he is doing; cf. 327-329; 344)



ReformedReidian said:


> The idea that any movement or thought or such constitutes diastasis and a movement away from the One.



Fair enough, but this isn't a uniquely Greek conception either.[/QUOTE]

True, but Latin writers of the time were using slightly different concepts (Augustine, whose theology of the One mirrors this, did not work with the diastasis/systasis concept).


----------



## MW (Nov 6, 2014)

ReformedReidian said:


> Why not hold to the Puritan family ethic instead? Compare angelic celibacy's effects on churches and societies versus the Puritan sexual ethic. It's a rather open and shut case.



No doubt we should adopt the Puritan family ethic. Still, I would like to know why Methodius adopted his position, and what might be contained in it which is of Christian value. Identifying it with "Hellenism" and rejecting everything on that basis is not helpful. His biblical theology might be adjusted to assist the Puritan ethic. What he says of virginity might properly be applied to being chaste in heart, speech, and behaviour. Rather than denigrate the body he appears to have had an appreciation for its purity and ultimate destiny, and this surely has something to say to the people of our day.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 6, 2014)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Why not hold to the Puritan family ethic instead? Compare angelic celibacy's effects on churches and societies versus the Puritan sexual ethic. It's a rather open and shut case.
> ...



No doubt, and you raise a good point: if we can reinterpret his "ethic" to apply to a chaste heart (and he hints at such at times), then it can surely be done. 

I don't want to come across as attacking the church fathers. I spent the greater part of a decade reading, indexing, debating, and even literally breathing (don't ask) them at times. I had pages and pages of Gregory Nazianzus memorized (which feat, sadly, I can no longer repeat).


----------

