Working today and wish I had time to respond but I'll post a quick bit of information that might be of assistance.
Were the early church fathers pre mill and believed in the doctrine of immanence or where they amill?
Millennialism was a minority belief held by a small but vocal group in Asia minor. It was never a universal position of the church and was rejected for many reasons. The following review might help shed light on the early church and what they believed.
The Review: Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity: Charles E. Hill: 9780802846341: Books - Amazon.ca
There is a common misconception among some Christians that early Church's eschatology was universally premillennial and only gradually did this premillennialism (or chiliasm) fall out of favor with the credit (or blame) usually given to Origen and Augustine. This claim, often put forward by those clinging to the dispensationalist eschatology, overlooks the fact that the earliest Church Fathers have no trace of chiliasm in the eschatalogical passages of their writings. It is only in the second century that chiiasm appears and goes on to be the more widely held position - although never universally so - and then fades again in popularity. The questions then become: Where did chiliasm originate? Why did it become so widespread? What led to its demise?
In Regnum Caelorum, Charles E. Hill explores these question and in the process arrives at some ground breaking conclusions on the connection between the rise of chiliasm and the disemination of certain beliefs in the nature of the intermediate state between the believer's earthly passing and resurrection popularized by two pseudopigraphical Jewish apocalyptic writings that had attained some status within the fledgling Christian community. These two writings - II Baruch and IV Ezra - intimately linked the belief that souls would remain in Hades until the establishment of the millennial kingdom and not go to heaven as believed by others.
Hill begins by noting that during the height of chiliasm, its most ardent defenders did state that there were true believers in Christ who did not hold the chiliast position. One of the most famous was St. Irenaeus of Lyon who believed that Christians not holding to a chiliast position were troubled because they - wrongly in his mind - believed the souls of the faithful departed would go to heaven and a subsequent return to an earthly millennial kingdom would be a step back from the glories of the beatific vision. Instead, St. Irenaeus asserted that their souls would remain in Hades - located in the bowels of the earth - unitl Christ returns and not in heaven (with an exception made for the martyrs) and so such concerns were baseless.
With a possible link in Irenaeus of chiliasm and an intermediate state in Hades, Hill then examines other chiliasts for further evidence of a similar connection. Papias, a well known figure of the early second century Church whose writings we now only have in fragements quoted by St. Irenaeus and others, held eschatalogical views that were dependant upon the pseudopigraphical II Baruch. Since II Baruch ties in chiliasm and the view of an intermediate state in Hades, it is likely that Papias held a similar outlook and it was through Papias' influence that St. Irenaeus came to the a similar position.
Turning to a chiliast between St. Justin Martyr, a chiliast whose writings appeared between Papias and St. Irenaeus, Hill finds a similar connection between chiliasm and Hades as an intermediate state. There is some dispute as to the consistency in his writings on both matters, but where his he assert chiliasm, the subterranean intermediate state assertion also appears. Hill then turns to other Christian chiliasts throughout the ante-Nicene period and finds that, with one exception, all of them also hold to the belief in a subterranean intermediate state in Hades (with some but not all making an exception for the martyrs). The one exception is late - St. Methodius of Olympus at the turn of the fourth century - and was reacting to criticism by Origen by attempting to fuse elements of chiliast and non-chiliast eschatologies. Thus a strong correspondence of the two beliefs is established.
Having established a link within chiliasm - possibly through Papias - to the eschatalogical views expressed in Jewish pseudopigraphia, Hill takes a look at Jewish eschatalogical speculation in the peiod. There was a great deal of messianic fervor within Judaism prior to the time of Christ and this heightened after the shock of the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jersualem. From that date until the Roman's crushing the Bar Kochba revolt (~130 A.D.), an intense period of apocalyptic speculation occurred in Phariseeic circles and it was during this period that II Baruch and IV Ezra - the only Jewish books to link chiliasm and the subterranean intermediate state - were from this period. The interaction of early Christians with Jews during this period certainly would have familiarized them with such expectations and Papias, St. Justin Martyr, and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas all demonstrate a dependancy on one or both of these documents. It was through this influence that we see that such beliefs entered into the Christian consciousness at the turn of the second century A.D. Hill further notes that the entry of such beliefs is marked by some gnostic writers reacting to the chiliast belief and in so confirming its linkage to the belief in a subterranean intermediate state.
Hill then begins to examine the writings of non-chiliasts in the ante-Nicene Church. First examining the writings of the first century Apostolic Fathers, he demonstrates both the lack of chiliastic beliefs and a of belief in a subterranean intermediate state. In fact, there is strong evidence of a contrary belief in a heavenly intermediate state. This pattern is also reflected in the writings of non-chiliast Christians, Christian pseudopigraphia, and Christian martyrologies of the second century.
Hill then tackles the issue of the Montanists. The excesses of the Montanist movement (and its subsequent censure by the Church) are often credited with the decline of chiliasm on the assumption that Montanists were largely chiliasts. However, Hill points out that the patristic critics of Montanism - including many who ardently opposed chiliasm - did not bring up any such link. The misconception may result from the fact that Tertullian, by far the best known figure to embrace Montanism, was also a chiliast but he was a chiliast long before he was a Montanist. In fact, the description of Montanist beliefs we find in the Church Fathers indicates a variety of eschatalogical positions. There is no doubt, however, that an erroneous link between the two became established later.
(continued in the next post)
