Since beryllium is an alkaline earth metal, the bonds between beryllium atoms could be considered metallic and we can use molecular orbital theory (MOT) to explain metallic bonds in metals.
Consider metallic bonding in lithium metal. Say, $n$ lithium atoms combine to form $\ce{Li_n}$. Here $n$ atomic orbitals (AOs) combine to from $n$ molecular orbitals (MOs). Since there is only one valence electron per atom in lithium, and a MO can hold two electrons, only half the MOs are filled. As the result, all bonding molecular orbitals (BMOs) are occupied, and antibonding molecular orbitals (ABMOs) left unfilled.
I tried to explain metallic bonding in beryllium metal in a similar way. But the results are weird. This is because all the $n$ MOs (formed after combining $n$ beryllium atoms) get completely filled with electrons. As there are equal number of electrons in BMOs and ABMOs, this type of bonding is not possible in beryllium metal. A similar explanation is used to describe the instability of the $\ce{He2}$ molecule.
According to MOT, beryllium metal $\ce{Be_n}$ shouldn't exist. But we know that beryllium is metal exists with strong metallic bonds. Isn't a contradiction to MOT?
How are beryllium atoms in a metal are linked? Is there any new theory to explain this or is there any concept I missed in MOT?