Mathetes, meaning disciple (of the apostles), has been thought
by some to have been a catechumen of St. Paul. He is, perhaps, the earliest of
the apologists. His letter is addressed to one Diognetus and is responsive
to a set of questions regarding the nature of the Christian religion and the
stance of the Christians toward paganism and the Jewish religion. The letter,
as it has come down to us, has twelve chapters. The final two are generally
believed to have belonged to another document.
The chapters on paganism (2) and on the Jews (3 and 4) are, on my view, less than stellar in terms of their reasoning. The later chapters, especially 6, 8, and 9, are beautifully written and full of insight. I'll begin with what I consider the lesser bits.
Matheses first addresses the question of the pagan gods. “Why do you Christians not reckon the gods of the Greeks as gods?” On my reading, five reasons are given.1. They are
made of materials that might be made into other things.
2. They decay.
3. They can’t
see you.
4. You guard
those made of valuable materials (and not the others).
5. You worship
them as if you do not believe that they can see you.
The arguments here are rhetorical at best. The first three, at
least, rely on the implausible assumption that pagans identified their gods
with the representations. This is the shallow sort of reasoning that Catholics
often receive from protestants regarding the use of images. The last two objections
need not make this assumption but probably do. Perhaps the idea is this: that
the pagans would not have treated their idols as they did had they believed in
the gods they were said to represent (because the gods would have been offended).
Even so, additional premises would be needed to motivate. It would have been
better had the author observed that the pagan gods, if they existed, had
beginnings and, so, were in need of an explanation, namely God, and, so, were
not deserving of the designation.
In Chapters 3 and 4 Mathetes turns to the question of the Jews. Here
he adopts an attitude that may or may not undermines the his own position. He
ridicules a number of practices, some (or elements of some) having once been established
by God in anticipation of Christ. While pride is wrong, as is
hyper-legalism, these practices (or, again, elements of them) were once conveyed by God
and, for that reason, cannot be worthy of ridicule in themselves. Mathetes goes further than did
St. Paul, Gal. 4: 10, in reference to Christians retaining these practices. Whether
the Jews were right to retain them, i.e., to reject Christ, is the real issue.
You can let me know in the comments if you disagree with my criticisms
here. I'm often wrong.
Chapter 6 is fantastic. I quote it in full, italics for emphasis.
To sum up all in one word—what
the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is
dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered
through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of
the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The
invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed
to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible. The flesh hates the
soul, and wars against it, though itself suffering no injury, because it is
prevented from enjoying pleasures; the world also hates the Christians, though
in nowise injured, because they abjure pleasures. The soul loves the flesh
that hates it, and [loves also] the members; Christians likewise love those
that hate them. The soul is imprisoned in the body, yet preserves that very
body; and Christians are confined in the world as in a prison, and yet they are
the preservers of the world. The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle;
and Christians dwell as sojourners in corruptible [bodies], looking for an
incorruptible dwelling in the heavens. The soul, when but ill-provided with
food and drink, becomes better; in like manner, the Christians, though
subjected day by day to punishment, increase the more in number. God has
assigned them this illustrious position, which it were unlawful for them to
forsake.
The chapter could be shortened to the italicized portions and
the full meaning would yet be conveyed. I am left asking what it would mean to
forsake this illustrious position, i.e., what this might consist in. It cannot
be thought to consist in the life of the desert hermit or the cloister; for
such fulfil this redemptive function in secret but in fact—as channels of God’s
grace to the world. The answer is, I suspect, more nuanced and more obvious. To
forsake this office would be to cease to love the world. It would be to forget
that the world is as we once were or might have been or might yet become
without Christ and to fail to act with charity towards it, to seek—and be hated
for—its salvation. I suspect that this paradigm held, though less so, at the
height of Christendom even as in pagan times.
In 8, Mathetes begins to provide an answer to a question that Diognetus
no doubt considered fatal to the Christian, viz. that of why his Christ had not
come into the world long before rather than now (that his religion was new). He
admits with Diognetus that this demands an explanation. The Father, he says, had
formed an “unspeakable conception” (plan) that “He communicated to His Son
alone” and as long as it remained concealed “He appeared to neglect us, and to
have no care over us.” What then is the answer? Why did he not reveal his plan
and send his Son at some earlier time? In short, we had to be brought to our
knees—to be shown by iniquity and powerlessness our need for a savior.
As long then as the former time endured,
He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the
desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in
our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of
working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of
righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of
attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of
God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were
unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be
made able.
He continues with a sublime account of that salvation.
“When our wickedness had reached its height… [He] did not regard us with
hatred, nor thrust us away…”
He Himself took on Him the burden
of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for
transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the
unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for
them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins
than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked
and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange!
O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the
wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the
righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore
convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to
life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things
which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to
lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher,
Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that
we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food.
I will leave it there, for now.
DSMW
