written from Rome must be allowed to hold the field.  A precise date cannot be

established. We must be content to place it between 60A.D. and 64, probably toward the

later date. The Philippians are Macedonians. These, having received the word, stood

firm in the faith, and did not receive false apostles. The Apostle praises them, writing to

them from Rome, from prison, by Epaphroditus' (The [Latin] Marcionite prologue to the

epistle, dating from the second century)".

See The Epistle to the Philippians by

Professor F. W. Beare, p.24.

Professor 100: H. Dodd points out that Paul, as a Roman citizen, was not in danger of

suffering the extreme penalty as the result of any sentence of a provincial court such as

Ephesus, since he could always play his trump card, an appeal to Caesar. Rome alone

was the place that imprisonment could end immediately in death. Prof. A. T. Robertson,

one of the foremost N.T. Greek scholars, writes "the argument (of the Ephesian origin

propounded by Dr. G. S. Duncan) is more ingenious than convincing. It is not possible

here to review the arguments pro and con that convince me that Paul was in Rome when

he wrote this letter to Philippi" (Word Pictures of the N.T., p.433). Donald Guthrie sums

up the situation thus: "If the Roman hypothesis were proved untenable, the Ephesian

would probably be unchallenged as an alternative theory. But the grounds for disputing

the Roman theory are far from conclusive, and in view of this uncertainty and the fact

that the Acts' silence about an Ephesian imprisonment must be a certain embarrassment

to the Ephesian theory, it seems better to give the preference to Rome as the place of

dispatch" (N.T. Introduction, The Pauline Epistles, p.153). No less an authority than

J. B. Lightfoot firmly supported the Roman origin, and others could be named, so at least

we are in good company from a scholastic standpoint in adhering to Rome as the place

where the Apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians, and we should remember that

this subject is largely one of scholarship and research.

But there are two more important points which must be considered, namely, the

make-up of the N.T.; and the dispensational viewpoint. (1) If Philippians was written

from Rome after Acts 28:, then we get a perfect arrangement of the N.T. epistles

in groups of sevens. Seven of Paul's epistles during the Acts: Galatians, Hebrews,

I & II Thessalonians, I & II Corinthians and Romans (we have given our reasons

elsewhere for maintaining the Pauline authorship of Hebrews despite its unpopularity

today).  Seven of Paul's epistles after the Acts: Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians,

Philemon, I Timothy, Titus and II Timothy. Seven general epistles or epistles of the

circumcision: James, I & II Peter, I, II & III John and Jude. This is so obviously of

Divine origin that we should need very strong positive evidence indeed to take any other

position. If we put Philippians into the Acts, this perfect balance is upset, and not only

this, but the inter-relationship of the Prison epistles themselves;  Ephesians and

Colossians making known the Mystery and Philippians and II Timothy the prize and

crown attached to it. (2) Nothing is surer than the miraculous gift of healing is prominent

all through the Acts as one of the sign gifts of the earthly kingdom related to Israel. It is

as prominent in Acts 28: as at the beginning. How comes it then that Paul laments

in Philippians that he cannot heal his beloved friend Epaphroditus who practically lost

his life through serious illness (if he wrote this at Ephesus or Caesarea), yet later at