Paul and His Fellow Workers—Chapter 2

By Bard M. Pillette [1]

The Kind of Person Who Worked Best with Paul

The Power of Early Influences

Psychological studies show that children’s personalities are formed at a very young age. Their early experiences mold their values and their perceptions of themselves. Often some of the most attractive people consider themselves to be ugly. No matter how often they look in the mirror to assure themselves and no matter how many tell them how beautiful they are, their childhood experience of feeling ugly holds sway over all logic. It is no wonder then that our spiritual lives are often marked by our early experiences as believers. Those who talked to us about Christ and those who taught us or guided us in those first few years as a Christian left an indelible mark on our lives.

I became a believer at the University of Oregon and soon attended Campus Crusade for Christ meetings, but I never went to church. I did not attend church until I went to seminary. As a result, I received almost no systematic teaching in my early years as a Christian. The greatest influence in my life came from another source. I just happened to buy a book entitled Grace by Lewis Sperry Chafer. That book captivated me, so I bought other books by Chafer. Those books forever marked me and set me on a path to a seminary that would teach like Chafer did.

In his book on True Evangelism, Chafer warns against demanding some public action in connection with conversion, such as standing or going forward. [2] He was critical of any actions to hasten a person’s decision and to secure visible results. Because of what I learned from him, I have tended to avoid the common practice of saying, “We had twenty professions of faith.” I never talk about a person having believed in Christ until the person’s words and actions demonstrate true belief. Chafer’s concerns about abuses in evangelism made their mark on me.

The first Christian radio program I ever heard was J. Vernon McGee’s “Through the Bible.” I almost did not stay tuned because of his small-town Texas drawl, but I became hooked by his frankness, his lack of superspirituality when discussing his ordeal with cancer, and the simplicity of his Bible teaching.

Fellow seminary students sometimes made disparaging comments about McGee and Chafer: “They were not real scholars. They did not do serious exegesis.” As I struggled with my colleagues’ assessments and my loyalties to McGee and Chafer, I found the pull of early influence to be surprising. While doing redaction criticism for a class assignment, I could not help but ask: “I wonder what Chafer would think of all this?”

This dogged loyalty to those who early influenced us for Christ is a crucial principle or concept in understanding Paul’s selection of long-term fellow workers. But before we turn to Paul’s powerful influence on his co-workers’ spiritual growth, I would like to make a few observations to help give a broader context to the formation of Paul’s missionary team.

The Formation of a Group of Fellow Workers

Advantages of Paul’s Mobility and Hardships

First, his rather unfavorable working conditions discouraged the mediocre from continuing on with him. If a worker had a change of spiritual attitude, he dropped away. Mark discontinued his travels and returned home (Acts 13:13).

Five workers quit the team in Asia. [3] And Demas dropped out under heavy pressure near the end (2 Tim 4:10). Paul did not have to waste time dealing with the half-hearted. All who accompanied Paul had to work at various times to support themselves as did Paul.4 Opposition was fierce at times and travel was not first class.

It is rather strange that today most mission organizations wish to remove all the stress so as to avoid the loss of new recruits. Stress is removed by assuring recruits of financial security. They then have to raise incredible sums of monthly support to live decently, to travel with ease, and to have computers for the best of communication. Unwittingly, we may be allowing the mediocre to become our fellow workers. The natural consequences of Paul’s hardships weeded out those enamored with the idea of serving Christ so long as it did not involve too much stress.

Second, Paul’s mobility tended to be a convenient way of leaving behind any malcontents.5 They simply did not continue on. For most of us who are in established churches or institutions, we do not enjoy Paul’s advantage. We often must suffer through rather trying and frustrating working relationships. I say this so as to inject a little realism into our rather fuzzy and idealized application of Paul’s model of teamwork to our situation today.

Although his mobility and hardships naturally excluded potentially problematic people, Paul did not purposely plan it that way. In fact, it appears that in the beginning he did not have a fully developed strategy of teamwork. There was a natural evolution in the makeup of his team as he grew older and more experienced.

Evolution in Paul’s Choice of Co-Workers

The first team was formed by mutual consent, not by Paul’s initiative. It was 100 percent Jewish. Barnabas had the same work experience as Paul. Both Barnabas and Mark had stronger ties to the apostles in Jerusalem than to Paul.

Although they worked as equals, Paul did take more initiative (Acts 13:13–16). [6] This pattern was repeated in Lystra (Acts 14:11–12). The people of Lystra actually considered Barnabas to be superior, likening him to the god Zeus, but they saw Paul as Zeus’ spokesman, Hermes, because he took the initiative to speak for the two of them. [7] Paul, no doubt, was by personality more aggressive than Barnabas. But it is also very probable that Paul had the gift of leading. As a result, Paul took more initiative, but he was not the leader. Paul did not foolishly consider himself superior because of his gift of leading. And Barnabas was not jealous of Paul’s abilities and did not attempt to squelch Paul in order to ensure strict equality in the team. Nevertheless, this working relationship was not long-term. It all ended rather abruptly.

The second team formed shows a distinct transition in personnel. This time, Paul chose his workers. No one was sent to work with him, nor was the team formed by mutual consent. Paul chose Silas (Acts 15:40). Although Silas was a Jew tied to the apostles of Jerusalem, he had less experience than Barnabas and, therefore, naturally assumed less leadership. Paul alone (without Silas, Acts 16:3) [8] chose Timothy, a Jew-Greek with no ties to the apostles in Jerusalem. Timothy was very young and a new believer from Paul’s influence in Lystra. In Acts 16:10, the “we” indicates that Luke was also added to the team. Luke was most probably fully Gentile (Col. 4:10–14) and a convert of Paul’s at Troas or possibly Antioch. [9]

Paul now had a racially mixed group with only one person with ties to the apostles in Jerusalem. The majority were his own converts and all had less experience in the work than Paul. Interestingly enough, the only one in this group not to work with Paul long-term was Silas, a man whose early Christian experience was not influenced by Paul.

This transition from experienced Jews tied to Jerusalem to inexperienced Gentiles tied to Paul was completed on the third missionary journey. He added seven more workers, three Jews and four Gentiles. [10] All were the results of his own evangelistic work. [11] There were in all ten long-term partners who worked in close association with Paul up to the very end. Only one of the ten was not a convert or early disciple of Paul. That was Mark, the only one with ties to the apostles in Jerusalem. No doubt his youthfulness and inexperience made him compliant to Paul’s influence.

It would seem that Paul’s most loyal and effective co-workers were those who came to Christ or were greatly influenced in their early Christian experience under his own teaching. Is this just coincidence? Possibly so, but it is highly unlikely.

Qualities of Paul’s Closest Companions

Loyal and Indebted to Him

Now there is another element related to what we have just seen that contributes to the harmonious partnerships Paul enjoyed. In most cases, his co-workers saw the great price Paul paid to bring them the message and to teach them. Paul’s evangelistic and discipleship efforts often occurred under very conflictive and hard circumstances. Timothy saw Paul stoned in Lystra (Acts 14:19–20; 16:1), and Titus saw Paul stand firm for him in a tense situation before the noted leaders in the Jerusalem church (Gal 2:1–5).

A few years back I found myself confronting a very difficult situation. I believed that a very highly respected professor was slowly drifting from the historic doctrinal emphasis of a certain organization. After a period of confrontation and a great deal of tension, it all was coming to a head. Some privately would encourage me, stating that they were glad I was speaking to the issue, but few wanted to personally become embroiled in the matter. At that point, a friend in a high leadership position and with almost thirty years’ experience as a missionary and professor publicly put all of his reputation and long-time friendships in the organization on the line to back me up. It was like Paul standing with Titus. His stand was potentially very costly. I was at once and forever indebted to him. This is the kind of co-worker Paul attracted to himself because of the high price he was willing to pay to bring them to Christ and to defend them.

Now there are some who can gather followers and co-workers based on their charismatic personality and giftedness. [12] People are drawn to winners. Nevertheless, the kind of partnership Paul produced requires time, experience, and a heavy investment. Seminary and Bible school graduates are often inclined to want an immediate and enthusiastic response to their teaching, strategy, and leadership. They tend to expect recognition based on their gift and winsome personality. They fail to recognize that in the beginning they normally work with people who are experienced, are tied to others who influenced their early growth, and who have not seen these new graduates under fire. The new leaders have made no investment yet in these people’s lives.

Strong Similarities in Discernment

The men who worked best with Paul were his converts and early disciples. They were also kindred spirits, which is to be expected, since their first and often only example was Paul. It was not just his teaching, but his attitudes, discernment, and ethics that influenced them.

According to 2 Corinthians 8:16–17, Titus had the same earnestness, the same feel or intuition as Paul. And ultimately, the bond between them was God-produced, God-determined. There is no training program that can produce that kind of partnership. In 2 Corinthians 12:17–18, we see that Titus conducted himself in the same spirit. Titus left the same footprint, the same ethical impression. The same is true of Timothy (Phil 2:19–21), a kindred spirit. Literally, he had an equal soul or mind. Some translate it soul-mates. [13] Timothy could read the subtleties in people’s attitudes. He could read between the lines. That is why Paul sent him to remind the Corinthians of his “ways” (1 Cor 4:14–17). Paul’s “ways” included both doctrine and attitudes or perspective. [14] Many can sign the same doctrinal statement, but they have a different approach to the application of truth. They read certain situations differently. Can you imagine how misdirected Paul’s letters would have been had not Timothy and Titus relayed to him the kind of perceptive, penetrating, and judicious evaluations of the churches that Paul himself would have made if he had gone to those same churches?

Shortly after a Christian function at college, I became convinced I had found my soul-mate. The campus leaders at the University of Oregon were explaining to the students why they were leaving their particular Christian organization to begin the third expression of the church. The traditional church was lifeless and not reaching unbelievers. Their organization was reaching unbelievers but was too authoritarian and restricted. According to them, there needed to be a new expression of the body of Christ. This was an unsettling time for all of us as new believers. After the meeting, I walked a girl to her dorm and asked her what she thought of the meeting. She said that she could not put her finger on it, but something troubled her, perhaps a disturbing element of spiritual pride. Her observation struck a cord deep inside. We were too immature to articulate our observations, but we had the same mind or soul. She became my wife and co-worker for life. I do not have to explain to her every feeling I have about a given situation. She automatically picks up the same signals. Deep and lasting trust is the result. It is indispensable that long-term partners perceive the world about them in the same way. They must interpret the subtleties of life with the same accuracy.

No Doctrinal Differences

Some may be troubled by this method of choosing partners. Does this not lead to having “yes-men” surrounding us? Where is the diversity to keep us healthy? There is a growing desire to encourage diversity of biblical views within a given team to avoid an ingrown environment. [15] For Paul, diversity was to be found in personality and gift but never in doctrine or practice. Timothy was to remind the Corinthians, both by his teaching and conduct, of Paul’s ways, which were the same in every church (1 Cor 4:17). To be effective he had to have the same conviction, ethics, and practice. He could not arrive in Corinth offering various options, claiming that they were all equally valid.

Conclusion

In conclusion, then, what kind of person worked best with Paul? Probably Timothy and Titus represent Paul’s most effective long-term team workers. Both were younger than Paul and both became believers through Paul. Both saw Paul pay a high price for their best interests. Both had discernment like Paul’s. They read churches and the spiritual health of these churches through Paul’s eyes. That is why his letters were right on target. From a distance he was able to zero in on attitudes as well as doctrinal deviation. They were soul-mates with Paul.

I have found that my most faithful and loyal co-workers have grown out of situations of turmoil, conflict, or great upheaval emotionally. Such situations are rare opportunities to show conviction under great heat and pressure. It is God’s sovereign way of using painful circumstances to draw out those with like convictions about Christ.

In San Luis Potosí in the early stages of beginning the new work, we began to have weekly Bible study with two sisters and their husbands, Rodrigo, a construction worker, and Adrian, a head waiter. Within two months they all had believed in Christ. Rodrigo began to visit family members with whom he had not spoken in years. His ten brothers and sisters, all immoral and conflictive, were impressed with the change in him. Four months after becoming a Christian, he fell onto rebar sticking up out of the concrete. One entered the back of his head. The doctors at an antiquated, government hospital ignored the family for twelve hours. Nothing was being done for Rodrigo. I was able to get a private doctor, a specialist, to come and look at him. He was brain dead-no hope. Then came the attacks: “See, this happened because he was unfaithful to the Virgin, and he was studying with those gringos.” We had to deal with superstitious, irate, and drunk relatives for five days in that smelly and inefficient hospital. Death finally came and there were arguments over whether mass should be offered. At the wake, we were going to sing hymns. “Unheard of” was the complaint. I had to travel ten hours through the night to drop off my daughter and another girl to work with a medical caravan. I returned for the funeral at a dusty un-cared-for cemetery. Chaos is the only word to describe the whole situation. I stood on a mound of dirt, holding up Rodrigo’s Bible. He had written, “I believed in Christ March 7, 1990.” Over the wailing, I explained what that meant. All week Adrian had been watching me as I, a stranger among them, attempted to stand for the truth that Rodrigo had embraced and his family worked to destroy. He saw me dealing with feuding relatives, incapable of loving each other. He saw me constantly fighting back tears for a man I had only known six months. In the midst of chaos, emotional trauma, and my own bumbling inexperience, he had a glimpse of the Christ-like fiber that can bring purpose and order in the midst of confusion. Adrian, with deep emotion, expressed his sense of indebtedness. That week a co-worker was born. God had sovereignly provided the painful means by which to make us soul-mates.

Notes

1. Bard Pillette was for many years a missionary in central Mexico. He is presently involved in an assembly in Medford, Oregon in a ministry of evangelism and Bible teaching to Hispanics. This is the second in a series of four articles on Paul and his companions.
2. Lewis Sperry Chafer, True Evangelism: Winning Souls by Prayer, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967), 19. We “find that many methods in evangelism are more a habit than a necessity, or that they have been employed in an effort to produce visible results, rather than to create a means by which sin-burdened souls may find rest and peace through a personal and intelligent faith in Christ as Saviour.”
3. Hymenaeus (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17–18), Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20), Phygelus (2 Tim. 1:15), Hermogenes (2 Tim. 1:15), Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17). These five may never have actually been itinerant workers with Paul, but they were in some way involved in the work with him.
4. Paul worked day and night so as not to be a financial burden to his new works (1 Thes. 2:9; 2 Thes. 3:7–8). The use of the plural we means that Timothy and Silvanus followed Paul’s pattern. Likewise, so did Barnabas (1 Cor. 9:6), Titus (2 Cor. 12:13–18), Aquila and Prisca, Apollos, Sosthenes, and others (Acts 20:34–35) who were in Ephesus with him.
5. Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 27. Hock calculates the extent of Paul’s travels (and that of his fellow workers) at being around ten thousand miles based on land and sea travels in Acts.
6. Of the eighteen occasions when speaking, praying, encouraging, or commending took place on the first missionary journey, Paul was the spokesman four times (Acts 13:9–10, 16, 45; 14:9). Although Barnabas might speak along with Paul, he never was the spokesman.
7. W. M. Calder, “Acts 14:12,” Expository Times 37 (1925–26): 528. Since he had performed a miracle, he could have been associated with another god, but Paul’s role as spokesman rather than miracle maker resulted in his identification with Hermes, Zeus’ messenger. W. M. Calder, “Zeus and Hermes at Lystra,” Expositor 10 (1910): 5.
8. Edwin Basil Redlich, S. Paul and His Companions (London: Macmillan, 1913), 65. It is possible that Silas, being a prophet (Acts 15:32), gave the prophecy that accompanied Timothy’s commission to work with Paul (1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). So he may not have been totally passive in the selection of Timothy.
9. The Western text of Acts 11:28 inserts “when we were gathered together,” indicating Luke’s presence in Antioch as early as a.d. 44. Also, in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, the author is described as a Syrian of Antioch. It claims also that Luke was a disciple of the apostles and not Paul. See F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (London: The Paternoster Press, 1958; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 230; Richard Glover, “Luke the Antiochene and Acts,” New Testament Studies 11 (1964/65): 98-100.
10. Aquila, Priscilla, and Aristarchus were Jewish while Titus, Tychicus, Erastus, and Trophimus were Gentile.
11. Titus probably became a believer in Antioch shortly after Paul’s arrival there (Gal. 2:1; Titus 1:4). Cf. Charles Kingsley Barrett, Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 119. Titus is listed as being in Antioch in Acts 13:1 in a Latin text that originated in the African church in the fourth century. He is described as being the foster-brother of Luke (Lucius) who was supposedly at Antioch as well. See F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 259; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962), 390. Since there is the possibility that Luke was related to Titus, Ramsay suggests that Titus’s absence from Acts (and thus the story of his conversion under Paul) resulted from Luke’s reluctance to name himself or any relatives. Timothy became a Christian through Paul in Lystra (Acts 14:8–20; 16:1–2: 1 Tim. 1:2). Aquila and Priscilla are assumed by many, including Poucouta, to have been believers when they met Paul. P. Poucouta, “Un Couple au Service de l’Évangile: Aquilas et Prisca,” Spiritus [Paris] 28 (107, 1987): 167. The evidence seems to contradict Poucouta’s position. Luke writes that Paul stayed with them because “he was of the same trade” (Acts 18:3), not because they were believers. That would explain why Paul used Titius Justus’s house rather than Aquila’s (Acts 18:7). Furthermore, Luke does not say that they left Rome because of persecution against Christians, but rather against Jews (Acts 18:2). Luke probably became a believer through Paul at Troas or possibly at Antioch. Tychicus was converted during Paul’s Asian work and was thus a representative with Trophimus from the Ephesian church (Acts 20:4; 21:29). Aristarchus probably believed when Paul passed through Thessalonica (Acts 19:29; Col. 4:10–11). Erastus most likely was converted during Paul’s stay in Corinth (Rom. 16:23; 2 Tim. 4:20).
12. There of course is nothing wrong with being gifted, but Carson warns: “As long as people are impressed by our powerful personality and impressive gifts, there is little room for you to impress them with a crucified Savior.” D. A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages from 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 39.
13. H. C. G. Moule, Colossians and Philemon Studies (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1975), 77. Panayotis Christou, “ΙΣΟΨΥΧΟΣ, Phil. 2:20, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951): 294-95. Christou finds parallels to Philippians 2:20 in early Christian and late Byzantine writings. In war-like situations men are characterized not merely as friends, but also as “secret advisers and as completely trustworthy companions.” In combination with ἔχω, ἰσόψυχος becomes one who is in the “confidential service” of some leader. Therefore Christou would like to translate ἰσόψυχος as confidant rather than as like-minded.
14. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 92. Conzelmann understands Paul’s “ways” to refer mostly to his teaching. Fee on the other hand believes that Paul’s “ways” imply “both behavior and teaching, which in Paul are intimately bound together.” See Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 189. Similarly Carson, The Cross and Christian Leadership, 110.
15. Rex A. Koivisto, One Lord, One Faith: A Theology for Cross-Denominational Renewal (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1993), 100. James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993), 104–106. Since diversity of opinion is said to be essential to the health of a company, leaders are to “build dissent and controversy into the decision making process so that people will be willing to speak openly and offer ideas contrary to their own. So look for good people from many molds, and then encourage them to speak out, even to disagree.”