Equality... because Christ lifted the curse

Few people in all of history have had more impact on the church than that of John Chrysostom. He was born during the most critical years of the Christian, years that shaped everything that we know today. He is respected for his role as Doctor of the Church one of only eight people to ever be elevated to this status. As I have pointed to in the past the earlier a doctrine emerges in Christian history the more we must look to it. We call this the Law of Proximal Authority, the closer an orthodox idea is to the time of Christ the more foundational it is to the Church (so for the doctrine of love we lean on Augustine, rather than on Calvin). Chrysostom was one of the Greek Fathers, and wrote extensively on theology. He is respected across denominations and traditions as the greatest preacher of the early church. He spurred on the monastic movement, and in many ways shaped the counsel of Constantinople in 381 ad. While this is not his principal teaching, he brings great clarity to a very prevalent issue in our modern church, the role of women in the Church. Great Christian leaders in the church today such as John Piper, and James MacDonald have a tragically poor, and distorted view on the subject, and my hope is to always encourage people to look back to what the Consensual thought has been from the Church over time. I must articulate that I do not doubt the love Piper and MacDonald have for Christ, or their role in furthering His kingdom, I lament at the fact that they were educated in a shallow tradition based on pop-theology, and passing trends, instead of looking to the great Tradition already laid by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church. Do not hear me wrong, they are making great contributions to the gospel, and are men of God. I just hope to show the history, and help to bring you to a faith rooted in scripture, and the teachings of those great Fathers of our faith.

Turn in your Bible to Genesis 1, we'll be using the first three chapters of Genesis to set up God's understanding of the sexes.
Then God said,^A)"> "Let us make man^a]"> in our image,^B)"> after our likeness. And^C)"> let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth (Genesis 1:26, ESV)." Notice if you will in the ESV Bible there is a foot note after the word man, it says that "The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam." We see here that God created them in His image, that without the reflection of man in woman there is not completion of the image of God. This echoes in the trinity, one God in three divine persons. In the tradition of Hebrew literataure, a Jewish author will repeat something when it must be made clear, it is a flag to really lean into the teaching. We see this countless time in the Old and New Testaments, and in the teachings of Jesus. God does this here through the author Moses. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." It was as if there must be a foundational understanding to move on. The image of God is reflected in man and woman. If you know this passage you know that it moves on to paint a beautiful picture of marriage, that she is now bone of my bone (bone was the strongest thing in a person), and flesh of my flesh (flesh was the weakest thing in a person), and so woman is now strength of my strength and weakness of my weakness. Everything good in a man was woman, she is even granted the prestigious title of "helper," a title most often used to describe God, our great helper, or our strength. "In order to fully appreciate the intended unity of male and female, it is important to notice the materials employed in their creation. The man comes from the ground. In Hebrew, the most common means of expressing the feminine gender is with a suffix, -ah. The word for “man” in most of chapter two is ‘adam. The ground from which the man is created in v. 7 is ‘adamah. Therefore, when God introduces the woman to the man, he cannot use the ‘adam/’adamah distinction, because ‘adamah has already been used as a word to mean something else. Instead, the man uses two new words, ‘ishah for woman, and ‘ish for man. Thus as the man (‘adam) was taken from the ground (‘adamah) and will return to it (Gen. 3:19), so the woman (‘ishah) was taken from the man (‘ish). However, here something happens that is unexpected. Instead of the woman returning to the man, and thus completing the circle, the man returns to the woman (Gen. 2:24). The man and woman together create “one flesh,” as was the case before the woman was created from the man. This picture reverses the expected means of reconnection. By doing so, it avoids any sense in which the woman is a derivative secondary figure who must find her way back to the man for completion. While the woman is taken from the man, the man returns to the woman to complete the picture of unity. This symmetry of activity emphasizes harmony rather than dependence. And indeed, the picture at the end of Genesis 2 is one of harmonious relations. The man and woman are naked and unashamed (v. 25), without any barrier between them" contests Richard Hess in his Evidence for Equality.
So then we begin to gain clarity in that the intent was total equality between the persons of Adam and Eve. We also know that God meant for total unity between God, and mankind. In the fall all of this was shattered. The beautiful harmony of the Garden was shattered, and our relationship to God and each other wouldn't be restored until Christ. We see this hierarchy, not part of the original creation, but reality to most of history "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come (Galatians 3:19, NIV)..." The beauty of the Christ event is that the wounds of sin were, in Christ, reconciled. The one blood sacrifice was made to bring us back into harmony with each other and God, and to relegate inequality to history. Paul says it so powerfully "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:27-29, NIV)." All is made new in Christ. So then we have this restorative tone to all of Christ teachings. God wants to restore His creation.
We know that Christ had women disciples (Acts 9:36 Tabitha is called mathetria meaning disciple, Luke 8:1-3 where we see his male disciples financially dependent on female disciples who were likely financial independent, and in Luke 10:38 where we see Mary learning at the feet of Jesus).
We know that women taught men, we learn this in Acts 18:24-28. We know of Aquilla as the great teacher of Ephesus, but it is unclear why Priscilla is mentioned. Several extraneous sources inform us that Priscilla was teaching in tandem with her husband. We find another example of this in the lives of Andronicus and Jounian. They are mentioned in the same short passage of scripture as Apostles, and Apostles of high respect. You can interpret Jounian two ways as it is a first declension Greek noun, making Jounia a teacher and Apostle, or you can read it Junianus, which because of the wording would make Andronicus homosexual, a very significant problem in light of the teaching of historic Christianity. We then can infer that Andronicus and Jounia were an Apostolic couple, with powerful ministry, much like Priscilla and Aquila, and that Paul was making two strong examples of exceptional ministry couples.
We know that the New Testament has women prophets, Acts 21:19.
We know that women were deacons in the church according to Paul Romans 16:1-2. For centuries the greatest minds in the Church have given Phoebe great acclaim on account of her office, John Calvin says "He (Paul) begins by commending Phoebe... first on account of her office, because she exercised a very honourable and holy ministry in the Church." Paul joins Jesus then in elevating the role of women in the Church.
We then must look to the teachings of those people foundational to our faith to continue to build upon the Biblical case for gender equality. John Chrysostom wrote in regards to 1 Timothy "Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject. He is speaking to those who hold the rank of Deaconesses." Chrysostom says of Jounia "Greet Andronicus and Junia... who are outstanding among the apostles.’ To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been, that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle."
There is such an overwhelming tone in the vastness of scripture, with all passages leading to one direction, complete and irrevocable equality among the genders. And then we have a hitch. We have two, very specific passages with one very controversial line each, that seem to completely go against the grain of the Scriptures; that go against the current of the great reclamation of the created order to God. Rev. Dr. Kenneth E. Bailey says this "On the negative side are two critical texts. The first of these is 1 Cor.14:33-36 which tells the women to be silent in church. The second is 1 Tim. 2:11-15 which adds that they must not teach or ‘have authority’ over men. These two texts seem to affirm the exact opposite of all that we have thus far observed." Now there are two tendencies in response to these passages, both are wrong. One seeks to build an entire Biblical case on two passages that do not make any sense in light of the bigger story of Scripture, and the other, and equally as dangerous, direction would be to say that they are conflicting with the whole stream of the Canon, and must be a fault inserted over time, not found in the original autographs, and that we must throw them the way of the Apocrypha. I would say, boldly, that these are the only two responses that have any logic behind them if you do not look at the bigger picture of these two very controversial texts.
We know that 1st Corinthians 11-14 is a single treatise of Paul. Dr. Bailey brings great clarity to the teachings of 1st Corinthians 14:33-36 and has an incredible essay on this subject that you must read. I end with that rationalizing of the passage from Corinthians and hope and pray that you might begin to see the depths of the Scriptures, and to take part in the great movement that is the Tradition of the Church. If you are a pastor, I pray with all in me that you would begin a conversation with God about the implications of these teachings, that you would allow God to work in your heart, and that you would begin to see with new clarity the purposes of God in His creation, that you would not impose your views on God, but let His Holy Word speak for itself.

"In 11:4-5 the men and the women are prophesying. Thus the reader knows that the prophets who interrupt one another in chapter 14 are comprised of both men and
women. So when the women in 14:34-35 are told to be silent and listen to the prophets, it is clear that some of
those prophets are women. Also relevant is the fact that 14:26-36 lists three groups of people who are disturbing the worship. These are as follows:
1. The prophets are told: Don’t all talk at once. Be silent in the church.
2. The speakers in tongues are told: If there is no interpreter, be silent in the church.
3. Married women with Christian husbands (who attend) are told: Don’t ask questions during the worship and don’t chat. Ask your husbands at home and be silent in the church.

Each of these groups is told to be silent when it disturbs worship. Paul is not issuing a command for perpetual prophetic silence! In like manner when they disrupt public worship the women are asked to be quiet. Thus Paul is saying to the women: ‘Women, please keep silent in worship and listen to the female and male prophets. Don’t interrupt them with questions, and don’t talk/chat in church. If you can’t understand what is being said, ask your husbands at home. They understand more Greek than you do and will be able to explain things to you.’ The scene is easy to reconstruct. Corinth was a tough immoral town. Transportation workers, porters and metal workers made up a significant portion of the population. It is easy to assume that the inhabitants came from different places and spoke different languages. Their common language was Greek. The men were naturally ‘out and about’ more than the women and thus were more likely to be at ease in that common language. It follows that in church the women could perhaps not easily follow what was being said and so would begin to ask questions or lose interest and start ‘chatting’. A documented case of this phenomenon is recorded in a sermon of John Chrysostom, preached in the cathedral of Antioch in the latter part of the fourth century. Stenographers recorded Chrysostom as follows: Text: And if they (the women) will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. Chrysostom: Then indeed the women, from such teaching keep silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamour and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place (the cathedral). They may all be seen here talking more than in the market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet, they cannot learn anything that is useful. For when our Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Page 7 discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do to them?20 If this was the scene in the cathedral of the great city of Antioch in the fourth century, what can we imagine for Corinth in the days of Paul? Corinth was, no doubt, even more disorderly. (The present writer has personally experienced Chrysostom’s predicament in isolated middle-eastern village churches!) The women of Corinth were told (when they disrupted worship) to be silent. Paul assumed that the readers remembered the women prophets of 11:5 when he wrote 14:35-36."

http://www.cbeinternational.org/files/u1/free-art/women-in-new-testament.pdf

A God Who Needs?

Dr. John Piper is among the most influential modern theologian, and while not solely responsible for, may be the biggest contributor to the revival of Calvinistic theology we are experiencing today.


Born in 1946 Piper has been in ministry at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota for longer than I have been alive. His book "Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist," came out the year after I was born, and has been without question Pipers' principle theological contribution. Some might say that all of his other books are in summed up in the teachings of Desiring God.

Dr. Piper is an interesting case study, he is a true Hyper-Calvinist, adhering to all five points of Calvin's teachings, but also adding two points of Edwardian Calvinism, making him what some might title a Seven Point Calvinist. Yet he affirms the teachings of justification by faith. He believes in Double Predestination, yet he is not a Dispensationalist. He asserts unconditional election, and perseverance of the believer. Some would argue that Dr. Piper does not know what he believes, but I am not so quick to throw my dear brother under the bus so to say.

Dr. Piper has made huge leaps in the understanding and explanation of the Sovereignty of God. His doctoral thesis "Love Your Enemies," while not his greatest literary accomplishment showed his theological chops. I believe that he truly loves God, and he is a brilliant writer. His work "Desiring God" spurred me on greatly in my Christian walk. I do want to point out some of the dangers in this doctrinal extreme where I believe Piper has missed the mark.

No person, of any intellectual position worth listening to, would ever contest the sovereignty of God. It is as much a part of the Godhead as water is a part of the man. It is an integral part of the omnipotence of the Trinity. If God is not sovereign, he is not all powerful. Yet if one were to look back on the history of the Church, one might find that, while God is sovereign, you hear other language used first. God is love, God is holy, God is father, God is... sovereign. It is as if the sovereignty of God is presumed, but the patristic literature says "God is sovereign... BUT GOD IS..." And this hierarchy is set up in relation to the divine attributes of God. Not that He is any less sovereignty, but if they could only use one word to sum up his deity, sovereignty would not be what exited the mouths of the Doctors of the Church.

So one might ask why? If the understanding of sovereignty is so essential to our understanding of omnipotence, why then is it not primary in the vernacular of those most important to architecting the theology of the Church? The answer is very simply this... Sovereignty is not a transcendent attribute of the Godhead.

Before time, before creation, God existed as the trinity (same yesterday today and forever). God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit... All God... See this God is only able to be that which He is. According to orthodox (right understanding, with a lower case "o") teaching, the Trinity, is equal, but distinct. There is no supremacy within the Trinity, and thus no person of the Trinity was sovereign, reigning, or presiding over any other person of the Trinity. Therefor before creation God... was not sovereign... Sovereignty then is temporary language, used in relation to the created order. God's sovereignty is secondary to His overall nature.
So then my friends, why did I speak earlier of the dangers of Piper's theological extreme. It is simple... If we focus on a secondary attribute of God, one that is fleeting and only exists from tree to tree, we miss out on the fullness of theology. We create for ourselves a God that needs... A God that is understood on a foundation of sovereignty, who will not always be sovereign. He does not need us to be sovereign over. In fact the Bible asserts that after these things have come to pass, He will no longer be sovereign. He forfeits sovereignty to be in communion with us, only maintaining those things that are primary to His person. No longer judge, no longer king, no longer sovereign. We will then only use familial language, primary language, Father, Son Holy Spirit. See, if the extent of our understanding of theology is centered around sovereignty as our axis of theological interpretation, our understanding will never achieve depth. Worse yet, it will fail to give adequate importance to those characteristics that are both primary to His nature, and transcendent of time.


I am very slow to hang a theologian. Piper is a true man of God, his church is making a radical difference on the world. The tragedy is this, people of the Calvinist discipline are leaning so hard on the modern theology of Dr. Piper, without a deep broad understanding of the rest of theology. We must look to the earliest teachings of the Church. Thomas Oden brilliantly organizes what must be the focus of our time. 1 Canon (Bible), 2 Testaments (Old and New), 3 Creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian), 4 Councils (Niceae, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon), and the first 5 Centuries of the Church. That is the lens by which we must view what is important in theology. With so very few exceptions, everything outside of this is just a flash in the pan of theology.




Disclaimer: While this blog at no point claims to portray the express views of a source, much of it is drawn from the teachings of Dr. Albert Outler, Dr. Thomas Oden, and Dr. Chris Bounds. These are the opinions and findings of the Author; Zachary Aument and are only meant with the purist intentions. Taking any teaching to an extreme is dangerous, and one must seek to temper theological views within the context of the larger Christian community.

Ecclesiastical Interpretation

Vincentius (Vincent of Lérins) was an early church father who lived and wrote in Lérins, France. His contribution that deserves our attention is a work called the "Commonitory." It is often held that the Commonitory was a work by Vincentius meant to create a rubric where by the Christian might determine true Ecclesiastical Interpretation and Doctrine, from heresy. When one looks to address the Commonitory as a literary work it is by and large a refutation of Augustine's doctrine of Predestination. Most scholars would give a wide range of dates for the writing of the Commonitory, but the stream of thought that I want to present is that Vincentius wrote the Commonitory in 434, three years after the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.


Now even as I said that the primary goal and purpose of the Commonitory is to refute the Augustinian doctrine of Predestination, his stance and verbage on searching out heresy is exceptional, and has now formed the foundation by which I view doctrine.


Vincentius would contest that due to the highly interpretive nature of Scripture, while complete and sufficient of itself, must be read through the lens of the Ecclesiastical Tradition. My theology professor Dr. Chris Bounds points out the ease with which an Evangelical discards the Tradition of the Church over time. The urging of Vincentius is to embrace the work done for us by those that have predated us. Outside of the Tradition one can easily diverge from Orthodoxy. It is nearly impossible for a person, independent of community, to arrive at an Orthodox understanding of scripture. I do not recall who said these words, but the effect was that "if we by chance see further than those that have gone before us it is because we have the privilege of standing on their shoulders." Thus, the collective work of the founders of our faith gives strength to our understanding, apart from which we would fall into heresy.


Vincentius also sets up a series of beautiful tools by which the Christian can check the authority of a doctrine. He states that we must look to the Universality of a doctrine. To see if it is accepted by Christians everywhere. Assuming, as we must, that there is one and only one faith that is true for all. Secondly we look to the Antiquity of a doctrine. It begs of a doctrine its authority based on its age. This is HUGE! There is a law within the pursuit of theology called the law of "Proximal Authority." It states that the closer a thought is to the chronological date of Christ, as Christ is the insertion of the ultimate authority on theology into time, the more weight it must hold in our hearts. That something said by Jesus is chief, followed closely by His disciples, then the Apostolic Church Fathers, followed then by the Greek and Roman Fathers and on down the line to the theologians of our day. Thus we are presented with our third rule which is the position of the Doctors of our faith.


Consensus within the Church on a doctrine can be arrived at by looking to the past. One must see everything through the eye of Consensual Theology. What has been agreed on over time? We must take great care, looking to see if any general or Ecumenical councils have been assembled over, or have spoken to the issue at hand. If not one must look to the collective wisdom of the fathers of our faith. I, in my naivety, fail to truly appreciate the severity of the nuances of doctrine. A statement that would send shutters down the spine of a more learned wise man, is uttered with total apathy from my lips. I, and those like me, must, absolutely must lean into, and run with fervency toward understanding, lest we truncate the essence of our Lord.


I will leave you with an image that Vincentius uses to speak to the progression of understanding of doctrine. He compares the evolution of doctrinal understanding to the growth of the human body. Canon lays the foundation in the womb of our understanding. The general anatomy of doctrine is forged in the sacred Scriptures, and through time theologians of old have formed and nurtured it. Growing it into a more mature understanding. Taking great care not to change an element of it, because we believe that it holds within it the capacity to grow to it intended state. It is logical that when one begins with a boy, it will become a man. Theologians then form doctrine within the constructs of Scripture arriving, in time, at holistic understanding. Articulating elements that were unclear in the text, and emphasizing those areas that require assertion. So now when one takes the cumulative works of Canon and the texts of the Traditions, one is able to experience the fullness of the understanding of God, and to that end we strive.

Formation

Albert Outler was a 20th century theologian, and a long time professor at Southern Methodist Unniversity. Many experts would credit Outler as the very first United Methodist theologian. He was among the first theologians I was exposed to, and his writing has served to form a great deal of my personal theology about God. In fact he would come in a very significant third place (after John Wesley, and Thomas Oden) for my personal tope 10 theologians. I have been engrossed by a number of other writers, philosophers, and theologians for quite some time, and had not revisited his works until today. I was reading an excerpt by John Wesley, an 18th century theologian and founder of the Methodist movement, and Outler was cited.
My understanding of where his notoriety comes from is in his systemization of John Wesley’s theology forming process. One of the most profound ideals of theology is that it is meant to bring God into our understading. A deep current that I have noticed in scripture is that of God nudging us into a hunger for understanding of Him and His character. Theology has moved to this awful place of high cerebral pretentiousness in so many circles. God wants people to strive for a deeper understanding of Him, and theology, at its best, is the avenue to do so.

Outler was asked to provide the introduction to a publishing of John Wesley’s works, given his status as one of the greatest Wesley scholars of all history. He published a set of four principles that show how Wesley formed his theology. Its funny I don’t think John Wesley even knew that this was how he operated, but it is very congruent when one looks at the progression of his theology. It was great for me to see that Albert reallly did want everyone to understand God, he wanted us to have our apetites wet for knowledge. Outler contested that Wesley had four parts to the process of his theology forming.

Canonical Scripture (a.k.a. the Holy Bible)
Christian Tradition (the general consensus of the Christian Church)
Third Person Reason (unbiased, and objective logic)
Personal Experience (the individual interpretation based on first person history)

One of the many things, aside from his theological prowess, that I love about Outler was his compartmentalization of his own life. He broke his life down into every category possible, and worked with great diligence to make each sub-category excel. He was devoted to Christ, and to methodology, and his intellect served to further the understanding of so many. It is my opinion that if theology is to matter, in the grand scope of time, it will be more for its work to make God accessible than anything else.

Election

While Karl Barth has received more than widespread revocation from Calvinist theologians the world over, it is my humble opinion that his writings on the subject of election, as I have read them from his work Church Dogmatics, have great influence over the entire subject.
It is my understanding that the debate was begun by John Calvin, a mid to late 16th century theologian, and arguably one of the most important to date. Calvin believed that God chose some humans for salvation through Christ. This statement by all means would then logically imply that God also chose some to not receive salvation through Christ, or more directly, to chose some for eternal damnation. This has become known as “double predestination (see Westminster Confession of Faith).” I don’t want to get into the idea and theology of absolute decree, but it is my opinion that Calvin’s absolute decree takes away the fundamental Christian concept of human independence, the idea that God gave us the ability to chose, independent of external, divine, force.
Barth believed that the idea of absolute decree, as explained by Calvin, undermined God’s sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Pointing instead to His decree being the willful sacrifice of His son on the cross, an act that beckons human response. Barth maintains the doctrine of double predestination that is core to the Reformed teachings, but moves the center of absolute decree to be over the person of Jesus Christ, and salvation through Him. Thus, Jesus is the vessel for both dietous election, and divine reprobation.
As I have explored the heart of this debate, I have begun to realize something about theology as whole. It is not so much that there is two sides to every debate. That there is a line in the sand that one must stand on one or the other side, poised for attack of the other. It is much more that there are forces, pulling in dissimilar directions that keep the debate in tension. I like this analogy more because it doesn’t cause static. It keeps a great almost anxious heart to explore either direction. More deeply spurring the Christian mind to investigate these concepts. I am so deeply thankful for Barth dusting off this tired old theology, and giving it some new depth. While I do not claim to be so wise as to be able to make a decision on this, I believe that Barth’s understanding more closely matches the heart of God. That by giving people more choice, it more clearly shows His greatness.

Philipians Realization

I was reading a commentary by Ralph P. Martin, Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence at Fuller Theological Seminary, today. I have come to the conclusion, after some heavy cross referencing, that Paul wrote the letter to the church at Philippi during an imprisonment in Ephesus. It is documented in Acts 20:18, and in 2 Corinthians 1:8 that Paul suffered hardships in Asia, the region Ephisus would be most logically belonging to.

In 1 Corinthians 15:32 Paul is explaining his reason for daily ascribing to the gospel, dying daily in his words. He says of his struggles "If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus." Upon first look, and for most of my Christian life I believed this meant that he was in true Roman fashion in a fight with wild beasts. But Martin points toward a more likely explanation. The 'beasts' as I understood them are a fate Paul, by his Roman citizenship, would have been exempt from, the literal 'ad bestias.' Martin points to the fact that Paul does not list beasts in his list of hardships in 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. A figurative statement is cited that draws a better parallel to this phrase. Ignatious writes that "from Syria to Rome I am fighting with wild beasts... bound to ten leopards, that is, a company of soldiers." When I look at scriptures there are seven imprisonments Paul endured. Three of them are accounted four, which I am calling named imprisonments. These are Jerusalem,Caesarea, and Rome. Leaving room for four unnamed imprisonments, which I would, and others with me, say may be Ephesus.

This Ephesus imprisonment would line up swimmingly with the missionary plans and travels described by Acts, and enforced by history.

Also, one final note is that there are five journeys Paul speaks of during this letter.

-Timothy's journey to Paul's side (Philippians 1:1)

-A message's journey from the place of Paul's imprisonment to Philippi to say Paul was both in prison, and in need (Philippians 4:14)

-Epaphroditus' journey to Paul's side with a love offering from Philippi (Philippians 4:18)

-A message's journey from the place of Paul's imprisonment to Philippi saying Epaphroditis had fallen ill (Philippians 2:26)

-A message's journey from Philippi to Paul saying the Philippians had heard of Epaphroditis' illness (Philippians 2:26)

The journey from Philippi to Rome, is very simply too long to have happened that many times during Paul's imprisonment at Rome. It is much more likely that these trips would have been shorter, such as a trip from Philippi to Ephesus.

Also there is the subject matter of the Pratorian Paul speaks of. A sect of guard which the numbers Paul describes would be more logically found in Ephisus, as opposed to Rome.

It was unclear what the convictions of R.P. Martin were, but from these facts, this was my conclusion.