Paul and His Fellow Workers—Chapter 3

By Bard M. Pillette [1]

Paul’s Successes and Failures at Teamwork

The Investment Required for Good Partnerships

My wife Pam and I have been married twenty-six years. She is my friend, confidante, and partner in the work. She has home schooled our three children and raised them to be sincere, committed believers who actively work with us in starting new works. Although not gifted as a teacher, she teaches the women and accompanies me on our evangelistic Bible studies, sometimes five nights a week. She sits next to me, putting her arm on my leg. Often we have stopped after a study at a café for coke or coffee and French fries to talk about our impressions of how a particular couple was responding to the gospel. I have never had a friendship with anyone else like what I have with my wife. There are very few couples who are as like-minded as we are. We make a great team.

Nevertheless, we must periodically struggle to maintain our good working relationship. I would like to have people over all the time for meals. My wife thinks our lives are busy enough as it is and once a week is plenty. She dares me to bring in a third party to give their opinion. I know that the only women who would defend me are bedraggled and worn out, and that would only prove my wife’s point. True partnership is not easy nor automatic. It requires great investments of emotional energy and of humility. Partnerships are painful because they remind us just how difficult we are to get along with.

I am somewhat reluctant to address the issue of teamwork since I have not always enjoyed success in this area — but then of course neither did Paul. Many have experienced disappointment in their attempts at teamwork because they enter into it with unrealistic expectations. Paul’s experience is insightful and encouraging.

Analysis of Paul’s Partnerships

Time Physically Present with Partners

Most Bible students are aware that Paul almost never was alone and that he most often worked with a number of other men. But few have given much thought to how he actually worked together with others.

It may be surprising that Paul worked with a total of forty-one itinerant workers. Yet only fifteen of those itinerants labored with him for any significant time, and only ten maintained considerable contact up until his death. [2] Those ten friends worked with Paul for a minimum of fourteen years and a maximum of twenty-five. [3]

Some perhaps have a general idea of these facts just presented. But few know exactly how much time Paul was physically present with each of these co-workers. Table 1 on the next page will help give a more realistic view of the innerworkings of Paul’s long-term partnerships over the course of his ministry. The years of service in this list are derived from Hoehner’s chronology. [4] The time of service for each worker is a general approximation and is not to be taken as an exact figure. Also the percentage of time physically present is a rounded-off figure.

It is rather surprising that no fellow worker spent more than fifty percent of his time physically present with Paul. Teamwork did not always mean being together in the same city. It is actually possible that the most trusted fellow workers were delegated difficult tasks in other cities and thus spent less time with Paul. Luke and Aristarchus are high on the list for time spent with Paul, but they were not necessarily doing pioneer work. Most of their time with Paul was spent in prison.

Person	Years Associated	Years Together In Same Place	Percentage of Time Physically Present
Titus	25	13	50%
Timothy	19	9	50%
Luke	18	6 ½	30%
Aristarchus	11–17	6 ½	30%
Aquila and Priscilla	17	4	25%
Tychicus	14	4	25%
Trophimus	14	2	15%
Mark	20	2 ½	10%
Erastus	16	2	10%

Table 1

Number of Partners at a Given Time

There is another aspect that is often overlooked. Paul seldom had more than two of these men with him at any given time. Table 2 on the following page gives an overview of the number of workers Paul had with him at any particular phase of his mission work. When Paul was not actually involved in pioneer work or he was settled in one city for an abnormal amount of time, the name of the city is given in parenthesis.

The average number of partners Paul had at any one time was two, but he often had only one co-worker present with him. The curious part in all this is that Paul’s favorite co-workers, Timothy and Titus, were seldom together with Paul as a trio. The three can be put together only a few times for a total of a few months. As a consequence, there was no long-term necessity to meld together the various personalities.

Number of Persons with Paul	Length of Time With Paul	Names
2	3 months	Barnabas, Mark
1	1 year/2 months	Barnabas
1	7 months	Barnabas (Antioch)
1	1 month	Silas
2	2 months	Silas, Timothy
3	4 months	Silas, Timothy, Luke
2	5 months	Silas, Timothy
2	1 month	Aquila, Priscilla
4	1 year/6 months	Silas, Timothy, Aquila, Priscilla
2	6 months	Timothy, Titus (?) (Antioch)
13 (off and on)	3 years/6 months	(Ephesus)
8–11	1 month	(Trip to Jerusalem)
10 (off and on)	2 years	(Imprisonment in Rome)
1	6 months	Timothy (Ephesus)
1	1 year	Timothy (Ephesus)
1	2 year	Titus (Spain ?)
5 (off and on)	4 monthss (?)	Timothy, Tychicus, Artemus, Apollos, Zenas (Asia Minor of Greece)
3 (off and on)	1 year	Titus, Erastus (?), Trophimus (?) (Nicopolis)
8 (off and on)	6 months	(Imprisonment in Rome)

Table 2

Application to Present-Day Teamwork

What are the implications to be drawn from these facts? The concept of a number of couples working together in the same work for a long period of time in one city is not exactly parallel to Paul’s situation. There is nothing anti-biblical about changing the number of fellow workers nor the amount of time spent together. Still, Paul’s example may present us with a few precautions. It should be remembered that the context here is that of itinerant, full-time workers and not local church leaders.

Teamwork is complicated when there are married members. If there are three couples, that means six co-workers. Over a short period, that may work well, but over the long haul difficulties can arise. The men may complement one another well, but the wives and children drastically multiply the number of interpersonal relationships. Marriages operate differently, and the discipline of children widely varies from one family to another. These factors can often lead to unwanted tension within the team. Moreover, by marrying, we already have one fellow worker, and we often are sufficiently occupied learning to adapt ourselves to our marriage partner. As our children grow, they soon become co-workers as well. It is possible that the role a family may play in forming its own team has been undervalued.

The best solution for many, in light of Paul’s approach, may be to work together more loosely, at times separated geographically. They would then periodically help one another in their area of expertise and join together for special projects.

All of this is not to discourage us about teamwork, but to inject a little realism into the whole issue. Paul’s teams usually consisted of one or two others, and they were not physically present with him for long periods of time. Furthermore, they were usually younger, unmarried converts of his who only knew his way of doing things.

Plurality within Paul’s Entourage

Paul’s Example to Local Leaders

There is another facet of teamwork that must be considered. How did Paul actually work with his fellow workers when they were together? He obviously established plural leadership in the churches he founded, both at the beginning and the end of his ministry (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5). Some wish to deny this fact by explaining that there was one elder over each small house church, and there were many house churches in a city, giving a plurality of elders within each city. [5] The argument is basically speculative and driven by the desire to promote the more traditional way of having one man as the head of a church. Paul very clearly promoted a plurality of elders in each congregation. [6] But did he operate this way within his own team while church planting? This is a complicated issue because he was an apostle given special authority to start new works among the Gentiles. He was the “boss.” And yet within his circle of co-workers, he almost never pulled rank but rather treated everyone as his equal. He set an example of how plural leadership ought to function.

Titles Exemplified Plurality

First, he almost never reserved a title for himself alone. [7] There was no attempt to distinguish himself from his co-workers as some might today when they use qualifying phrases such as “senior” and “assistant” to distinguish between pastors. Sometimes it is stated that a certain person is the pastor while other leaders in the same church are called elders or deacons. In contrast to our modern use of titles, Paul used designations that showed his partners were of equal value in the work (1 Thess. 2:6; 3:2). Even the designation apostle is shared with his workers in the sense that they were all messengers. He was uniquely commissioned but did not make that an issue by calling himself the senior apostle.

Decision-Reflected Consensus

Second, he used the first person plural to show consensus (1 Thess. 2:18; 3:1–4). [8] There was no distinction between his will (“When I could endure it no longer, I also sent….” 1 Thess. 3:5), and that of his fellow workers (“When we could endure it no longer…we sent.…” 1 Thess. 3:1–2). He assigned to his partners the same feelings, the same logic, and the same productivity in the work. In fact, he sent Timothy, a convert of just two years and a worker of only a few months, to encourage the Thessalonians to withstand opposition. He also relied on Timothy’s observations there to make a response to issues within the Thessalonian church. That is surely treating others as equals.

Third, Paul seldom had to override his fellow workers’ decisions. In Acts 21:10–14, Paul’s age, experience, and special commission were given preference. In the end, his partners allowed Paul’s convictions to take priority. On the other hand, there are cases where Paul gave preference to a fellow worker’s contrary opinion (1 Cor. 16:12). Paul and Apollos agreed on the need for a trip to Corinth but disagreed on the timing. Paul apparently was persuaded by Apollos’s logic and feelings on the matter. [9]

A Balanced Application of Plural Leadership

These passages show that, although Paul had special authority, he operated on the basis of plural leadership, seeking consensus. Still, as the older, more experienced team member, he naturally and rightly was given preference in the decision-making process. This is a crucial subtlety in plural leadership. Too often there is a tendency toward one extreme or the other. Some want what is called the point man, the mover or shaker, and the visionary to be the head of the team. Such a man may demand to be the CEO, with clear lines of authority drawn. He expects respect based on his gift, education, and business savvy. Quite frankly, this is often a weak man who is unable to submit to anyone else.

Many seminary graduates in my generation were attracted to the concept of plurality until they became involved in church leadership. They felt held back by the elders. Their ideas and training were not properly appreciated. So they decided that plurality was impractical. The real problem is that most of us do not want to wait for respect. We are unwilling to build a good reputation over the years and cultivate our authority based on proven character. We prefer authority based on position, gift, or education.

At the other extreme, some want absolute equality despite disparity in age and experience. They are unwilling to give preference to the one who has proven his ability and character over the years. They are intimidated by anyone with the gift of leading and jealous of any special attention given to any particular individual on the team.

Plurality of leaders should avoid both extremes. There can be equality and, at the same time, deference shown to those who are more experienced. The only reason this arrangement may not work is that humility and spiritual maturity are often in short supply.

Disunity in Teamwork

Conflict between Barnabas and Paul

It might be nice to think that Paul’s approach to leadership and partnership would be immune to conflict. But Bible students know that this is not the case. There is in fact the rather disturbing case of an irreconcilable difference between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36–40). Many suspect that Paul erred in the split-up of the first Gentile mission. He appears to be quite inflexible and unforgiving. After all, a year and a half had passed since Mark had failed them. Furthermore, Paul seems to indirectly admit his error later when he speaks positively of Mark and his contribution (2 Tim. 4:11). Since modern man has a strong and growing distaste for intolerance, Paul is increasingly seen as the mean-spirited one.

Luke would have had trouble with that assessment. The words he used in Acts 13:13, “He left them,” and 15:38, “He had deserted them,” are almost always used in a negative sense referring to unfaithfulness. In the Septuagint, the one word is almost a technical term for religious apostacy. [10] According to Luke’s terminology, Mark’s action was no minor failure. Furthermore, after the team split, Paul was committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord (Acts 15:40). Then Luke highlighted Paul’s achievements in the rest of Acts. All of this indicates that Luke found no fault in Paul’s obstinacy with Barnabas.

It is helpful to remember that Paul had just recently confronted Peter about withdrawing from the Gentiles at meal times. That Barnabas had joined Peter in that incident was no doubt of considerable concern to Paul. [11] Also, it should not be overlooked that Mark was Barnabas’s cousin. Would it not be natural for Paul to question Barnabas’s objectivity in defending a relative? [12] Paul considered Mark’s failure so serious that one-and-a-half years was not enough time to prove himself to be a changed man.

Unity at All Costs

There are times when team unity must be forsaken for one’s convictions even in non-doctrinal areas. It is possible to make an idol out of Christian unity. Paul’s decision to separate from Barnabas (after seven years together) is a warning signal that sometimes the price for unity is too costly. Paul separated, still able to consider Barnabas a respected colleague in Christ. One’s partners need not be considered carnal or heretical in order to separate from a mission, a school, or a church. Paul separated from Barnabas over an issue of principle and yet could still consider him a brother in Christ.

Spurgeon, upon separating from the Baptist Union, said, “Complicity with error will take from the best of men the power to enter any successful protest against it.” [13] Waiting too long to separate can debilitate one’s moral strength. [14]

Conclusion

Paul’s example points to the following principles of teamwork in pioneer situations: (1) He seldom worked with more than one or two others at any given time; (2) although he had two favorite co-workers, those two were seldom together with Paul as a fixed trio; (3) often there was some geographical distance between Paul and his various co-workers; (4) his working relationship with others taught the principle of plural leadership and consensus; and (5) he did not allow the principle of unity to swallow up every difference of conviction.

Since Paul’s principles of teamwork grow out of a context of mainly single men working together, it is possible to inadvertently overlook how marriage and family may provide a worker with his most important team. My wife complements my gifts and is at my side in all aspects of the work. Her part in raising our children to be committed to Christ gives my teaching authority. But then also my children participate in the work as team members. Tiffera’s respectful and engaging manner of talking with Efraín was the determining factor in his decision to accept an evangelistic study with us. Cabe’s wholesome influence and practical application of Scripture encouraged two teenage boys, Alejandro and Emanuel (and their parents), to believe in Christ. Tamin, the youngest, goes with us to keep the little kids occupied while we have evangelistic studies with people like Efraín and his wife Leti. Perhaps skills in teamwork are best developed in the home (1 Tim. 3:4–5).

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 third in a series of four articles on Paul and his companions.
2. The five who probably should be considered medium-term itinerant workers are Apollos, Barnabas, Epaphras, Philemon, and Silas. The ten long-term itinerant workers then would be Aquila (with Priscilla), Aristarchus, Erastus, Luke, Mark, Timothy, Titus, Trophimus, and Tychicus. The remaining twenty-six should be considered as short-term itinerant workers.
3. Titus might be considered as having the longest working relationship with Paul, lasting from a.d. 43 to 68. Trophimus was associated with Paul the least, from a.d. 53 to 67.
4. Harold Hoehner, “Chronology of the Apostolic Age” (Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965).
5. Vincent P. Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul, Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1989), 22–27, 78–96. Floyd V. Filson, “The Significance of the Early House Churches,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939): 111-112. Abraham J. Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity, second edition, enlarged (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 70.
6. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, revised and expanded (Littleton, Colorado: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995), 35–50, 101–117.
7. The one exception is his use of master builder (1 Cor.. 3:10). He uses teacher and preacher of himself alone (1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11) but includes others when he uses the verbal forms (1 Tim 4:11; 2 Tim 4:2).
8. William Frederick Lofthouse, “‘I’ and ‘We’ in the Pauline Letters,” Expository Times 64 (May 1953): 241. Lofthouse does not believe that Paul is using an epistolary “we” as some have suggested. Similarly Raymond F. Collins, “Paul, As Seen Through His Own Eyes. A Reflection on the First Letter to the Thessalonians,” Louvain Studies 8 (April 1981): 352-53. A. T. Hanson, The Pioneer Ministry (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 48. Hanson considers the “we” of 1 Thessalonians 3:1–2 to be epistolary. I. Howard Marshall, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans., 1983), 90. Marshall follows Lofthouse and suggests that the “we” means that Silas, Timothy, and Paul made the decision together.
9. Bengt Holmberg, Paul and Power (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 45, 67. If Paul had doubted Apollos’s motives or loyalties, he probably would not have sent him back. Obviously, he was confident that Apollos agreed with his assessment of the situation (1 Cor. 3:1–9) and would himself not tolerate the “Apollos party.” It is possible that Apollos felt it was best that he not go so as not to foment any greater divisions, and Paul’s assurances to the contrary were of no avail. Harris disagrees, interpreting Apollos’s rejection of Paul’s recommendation as proof of his complete independence from Paul. Rendel Harris, “Who Sent Apollos to Corinth?” Expositor 2 (January-July 1916): 175-83.
10. H. Schlier, “ἀφισ́τημι, ἀποστασία, διχοστασία,ς in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 1:512–14. W. Bauder, “ἀφίστημι,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), 1:606–8. From this word are derived the words translated revolt, deserter, political rebel, rebellion, and apostacy.
11. R. Bauckham, “Barnabas in Galatians,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979): 61-70.
12. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), 474. Haenchen wrongly conjectures that Luke did not reveal Barnabas’ relationship to Mark in order to protect him from “suspicions of nepotism.” Nevertheless, the issue of nepotism no doubt crossed Paul’s mind.
13. C. H. Spurgeon, “Notes,” The Sword and Trowel (October 1888), reprinted in The “Down Grade” Controversy, 66.
14. Warren Bennis, Why Leaders Can’t Lead (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989), 127. Bennis, who struggled with the issue of resigning from the presidency of the University of Cincinnati, said, “So instead of resigning, we reason to ourselves that the organization could go from bad to worse if we resigned. This may be the most seductive rationalization of all. Meanwhile, we have become more deeply implicated in the policy that we silently oppose, making extrication progressively more difficult.”