The main background to my view: 1) Paul talks about apostleship in his teaching on spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. 'Apostle' is listed right along with other "gifts" such as healing, helping, administration, and speaking in tongues (1 Cor 12:28-30). I point this out to make the distinction between the concept of a 'gift' and that of an 'office.' The most definite cases of 'offices' or 'positions' I see in the church of the New Testament are elder and deacon (1 Timothy 3). However, in 1 Cor 12 and Eph 4) we are looking at spiritual gifts.
   In practice today some of these gifts have an 'office' or 'position' of the same name. Someone may have the title and position of 'teacher' or 'pastor' or 'evangelist' in the church. The designation of these as 'offices' or positions within the church may or may not be appropriate, I won't get into that here. But in any case, being able to distinguish the concepts in our mind IS important. Someone called a 'teacher' doesn't necessarily have the gift of teaching, and someone with the gift of teaching doesn't necessarily hold a position of 'teacher.'

2) The "twelve apostles" are not the only ones called apostles in the New Testament. Paul is the best known exception. He states his apostleship in the opening to most of his letters, and sometimes strives at length to defend it (2 Cor 11-12). Also familiar to most believers is that Matthias replaced Judas among the 12 (Acts 1:26). In addition:
   Barnabas is called an apostle in Acts 14:14.
   James, the brother of Jesus (not James son of Zebedee) is regarded as an apostle in Galatians 1:19.
   In 1 Cor 15 Paul is talking about Jesus' resurrection. He says Jesus, "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, ... to more than five hundred brethren, ... then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and ... He appears to me also." (vs 5-7) So it seems that Paul has a group of apostles in mind beyond himself, the twelve, and James.
   Beyond this, some cases are less clear:
   Paul speaks of two brethren as "apostolos" of the churches in 2 Cor 8:23 (see vs. 16-23 for the context). The Greek word has to do with being sent forth, "apostolos" has to do with being a sent one, an ambassador. Thus it seems many translators of 2 Cor 8:23 have preferred to take the general meaning of the word and call these (two) brethren, in English translation, "messengers" or "represtatives" of the churches.
   Paul may be considering Apollos as an apostle when he speaks of "us apostles" in 1 Cor 4:9 (see verses 6-9). Also, in 1 Cor 3 Paul speaks of Apollos' ministry in the same context as his own and Cephas' (Peter's) apostolic ministries.
   1 Thes 2:6 says, "as apostles of Christ we might have...", in other words he refers to "we" apostles. The letter is from Paul and Silvanus and Timothy (vs 1:1). Thus the latter two may possibly have been apostles as well as Paul.
   (Credit to David Cannistraci, in his book "Apostles and the emerging apostolic movement", for pointing out several of these examples to me. I don't agree with a lot of the book, but there are definitely some insights on the study of apostles.)

3) Scripture DOES speak of the gift of apostleship, and yet I see no explicit teaching in Scripture of the cessation of this gift (or any of the other spiritual gifts). This gift is listed right along with other gifts that we consider to be continuing today. Some would call this an "argument from silence", but even if this was my only argument I would consider it a very powerful one. The way this gift is listed, with no qualifications attached, amongst other gifts that we accept today, I definitely think the burden of proof should rest upon showing from Scripture that the gift has ceased.
   Moreover, if Paul was the last apostle ever, and the apostles before him knew they were apostles, it seems suspicious that he would talk about the gift of apostleship in the context of the ongoing use of spiritual gifts as in 1 Cor 12.
   Moreover (I saved the strongest argument for last) I think Scripture actually DOES put a time limit on the gift of apostle (along with other gifts). Ephesians 4:11-13, "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ." God gives these gifts, for the equipping of the saints, UNTIL we all attain to the unity of the faith. It seems to me that these gifts will continue for the duration of the "church age" until Christ returns.

4) Scripture speaks of "pseudo-apostles." (2 Cor 11:13) Paul goes to extended lengths to defend his true apostleship (1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 11-12; Galatians 1:11-2:10 especially vs 2:8). The church in Ephesus is commended for distinguishing those who are false. They "put them to the test." (Rev 2:2) It seems to me that the reason for all of this is that the task of distinguishing a true apostle was not completely straightforward and easy. And I think these sections are written for our benefit, for we have the same task to distinguish between true and false today.

5) [My view on studying "theology" is this. Of course Scripture is the ultimate authority, not the words of uninspired man. Writers of commentaries and theological books, preachers and teachers, etc., are all fallible in their interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand, let us not overlook, just as they are fallible so are we, so am I. We must test what other people teach, no matter how apparently "wise" they are. On the other hand we must realize that it is incomplete to say, "I trust Scripture rather than what theologians say." My reading and understanding of Scripture is imperfect biased just as their's is. I have no reason to trust some theologian or preacher more than Scripture, but I also have no reason to trust myself more than another believer. So I take historical theology very, very seriously because I take my own fallibility very, very seriously. I don't take my beliefs directly from historical theology. But I do let it hold me accountable, and I do let it point me to the Scriptures to see things I may have missed.]
   The idea that the existence of apostles ceased with the first generation of the church seems to be a common idea in theology (although I admit I haven't studied it closely). However, John Calvin is at least one example of an extremely well studied theologian allowing for the existence of modern apostles. This quote includes both some things I agree and disagree with. "Those who preside over the government of the Church, according to the institution of Christ, are named by Paul, first, Apostles; secondly, Prophets; thirdly, Evangelists; fourthly, Pastors; and, lastly, Teachers (Eph. iv. 11). Of these, only the two last have an ordinary office in the Church. The Lord raised up the other three at the beginning of his kingdom, and still occasionally raises them up when the necessiry of the time requires." (Institutes of the Christan Religion, Book 4, Chap. 3, Section 4) Calvin's view is that at certain times God again raises up apostles (along with prophets and evangelists). Apparently he doesn't see in this any contradiction with Scripture.

Question: What then makes an apostle? What are the qualifications? How do you know who is one?
My answer: There are several places to look in Scripture in answer to this. The original 12 apostles were called and designated as such directly by Jesus (Luke 6:13).
   After Judas betrayed Jesus and went on to commit suicide, Peter interpreted from the Scripture that Judas should be replaced. The qualification he put forth was someone who "accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us." Those gathered "put forward" two men, prayed, and cast lots. The lot fell to Matthias. (Acts 1:15-26)
   Then you can look at the various ways Paul defends his own apostleship. He speaks of himself being "called" as an apostle by the will of God. (Rom 1:1, 1 Cor 1:1) We know Paul's "calling" from God was a clear, direct, unmistakable calling. (I don't ever see Scripture speaking of God "calling someone to do something" by a feeling or set of circumstances.) Interestingly, Paul did not completely fulfill the qualification that Matthias fulfilled. Paul did not accompany the apostles during the life of Jesus from His baptism by John through His resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). However, the resurrected Jesus did appear to Paul, and so Paul did fulfill the more general qualification mentioned by Peter, "one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:22) Thus Paul says in 1 Cor 9:1, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"
   While speaking of his own apostleship in the context of 2 Cor 11 (see esp. vs. 5 and 13) Paul emphasizes his role in founding churches (vs 10:14-16) with the true gospel of Christ (vs 11:3-4; also 1 Cor 9:2). His most explicit statement of apostlic verification is 2 Cor 12:12, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles."

Objection: There cannot be apostles today because a qualification for an apostle - someone who accompanied Jesus' ministry (Acts 1:21-22) - cannot be satisfied today. Paul should be considered an exception. He even speaks of himself as "last of all" and as "one untimely born." (1 Cor 15:8)
My answer: First of all we should note that 1 Cor 15:9 is at least a partial commentary on verse 8. That is, Paul considered himself "least of the apostles", not merely because he became an apostle later than the Twelve, but because he had actually been a persecutor of the Church of Christ. Was it Paul's point to say that God's "window" of time for appointing apostles had come to a close, and that he had just barely got in? I don't think that is his point in this context. Rather I think his point is a humble expression of his awareness of his unworthiness and God's mercy. He knew that at the time these other apostles were following and proclaming the risen Lord, Paul was busy fighting against Him. Paul at times showed special respect to those who were in Christ before him (Rom 16:7). In that sense Paul was "last" and "untimely born" amongst the apostles. I don't think this necessarily means he was the last person ever with the gift of apostleship.
   Further, if we are talking about the spiritual gift of apostleship, it is not certain that Acts 1:21-22 always applies. Peter was speaking there specifically about someone to replace Judas. Perhaps "the Twelve" were indeed an "office" (see Acts 1:20 in NASB), but beyond that office is a broader spiritual gift. According to this view, Matthias fulfilled the qualification to replace Judas' office. This was necessary according to prophecy. (Acts 1:16-20) Beyond this fulfillment of prophecy that Peter spoke of, there is no Scriptural reason to keep the office of "the Tweleve" going. Thus they ceased with the death of those who held them. Paul, Barnabs, James the brother of Jesus, and others (see point 2 above) had the gift of apostleship but not the office of the Twelve.
   Yet even Paul, though not one of the Tweleve, linked his apostleship with his having seen the Lord Jesus (1 Cor 9:1), and having been directly called (1 Cor 1:1). So I would not be surprised if indeed seeing the resurrected Jesus IS a common experience amongst all apostles. Certainly this is a rare experience, but I also expect the gift of apostleship to be a rare gift.

Objection: The apostles wrote or supervised the writing of the letters and books that became the New Testament canon. With the completion of the canon there are no more apostles.
My answer: It is true historically that apostolic writing or oversight was a qualification for books to be included in the New Testament. However, there is not a one-to-one correlation between establishment of these books and apostleship. In the case of most of the apostles (Nathaniel, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, etc.) I don't know of any indication that they were involved with canononical writings.
   I would agree that establishing these writings was an important aspect of the original group of apostles. But it doesn't define who they were and it doesn't define the gift of apostleship in general. There are some special things about "the twelve" and about church history in that period, but to me it seems an over-extension to use this as a claim for the cessation of apostleship.

Objection: As mentioned above, the word "apostle" has the general meaning of ambassador or sent one. Maybe the verses that use the word "apostle" referring to other than the original generation of apostles are speaking of this general sense. We are all apostles in that we are all sent by God.
My answer: In some sense we are all apostles, we are ambassadors for Christ "sent" into this world. However, I don't see that the context of most of the passages I have been speaking about supports such a general use of the word "apostle." "All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? "(1 Cor 12:29) There are some uses of the word (such as 2 Cor 8:23) that the general meaning of "messengers" or "representatives" could be used, but for most of the passages we have looked at here it seems to clearly be a select group amongst the Christians who possessed a certain spiritual gift.

Objections: In Eph 2:19-20 apostles and prophets are the foundation on which God's household is being built. The foundation laying aspect is done, and thus those two gifts have ceased.
My answer: This is a good verse for supporting the idea that a foundational "apostolic age" that has ended. However, I would add a couple comments.
   First, we don't take any verse in isolation. I think that Eph 4:11-13 speaks of these "foundational" gifts in a way that doesn't distinguish them with the other gifts for "the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith..."
   Second, I would question the assumption that the "foundational" dimension of apostles and prophets is something that was only done by the original apostles. You could look at this verse and say that since these gifts are foundational then they don't apply today (because the foundation is past). But you could just as well look at this verse and say that if these gifts are foundational then all the MORE reason that they continue to be necessary today; and especially in any region where the church is not already established.
   The significance of apostles in establishing the church in new territory seems quite clear to me. I'm not sure whether apostles have a role when the church is established. PERHAPS we are not (very) familiar with the gift of apostleship in Christian history because apostles are not part of the picture when the church is established. PERHAPS some of the most "effective missionaries" of church history had the gift of apostleship, and our attempts to replicate their "strategies" and "effectiveness" fall short in that it is not within our power to replicate their gift. Such spiritual gifts come from the hand of God.
   With that in mind, let me move to the final section of this letter...

Some of the significance of the study of "Apostles" for "missions" today:

   I think the process of examining important issues and questions is significant even if it doesn't change your views. I may believe the Bible is true. One day I may ask myself, "How do I know the Bible is true? Maybe it isn't God's Word." Then I may search and test my faith. And eventually I conclude that yes, indeed, I really do think the Bible is God's Word. Having questioned, I now have a firmer grasp on that truth than I did before.
   Likewise, I think looking at what makes an apostle is an very significant Biblical question. I think that it is especially significant for a theology of "missions." In the numerous mission classes and mission books I've read I think that the question of apostles is a significant oversight.Whether you conclude (as I do) that the gift of apostleship can exist today, or whether you conclude something else, whatever you conclude will factor significantly into your understanding of missions.
   The most common book for developing a theology of "missions" is the book of Acts. The people who's ministries are predominately traced in Acts are the apostles. In the first 12 chapters the twelve apostles play a predominate role, especially the apostles Peter and John. The remaining chapters largely follow the work of the apostle Paul. As we saw before, Acts 14:14 names Barnabas as an apostle so even when Paul and Barnabas seperated (Acts 15:39-40) both "teams" had at least one apostle. Some would point out that the best missionary model is not Paul, but Jesus Himself, who incarnated in the "mission field" of earth away from His true heavenly home. But Jesus likewise is called an Apostle (Heb 3:1).
   We don't find the word "missionary" or "missions" in English translations of the Bible. Those we usually call "missionaries" in Scripture, are called "apostles" by the text itself. Because the English language borrows words from multiple languages, we have allowed ourselves two different words for two different categories in our minds, which Biblical language does not give us. "Missionary" is from a Latin root meaning "sent one." Apostle is from a Greek root meaning "sent one."
   Now, when we speak of "missionaries" today I think most of us would shudder at calling them "apostles." 'Apostle' carries a connotation of significant authority that we are very hesitant (and rightly so!) to ascribe to anyone today. So the category of "missionary" in our minds is something distinct from the category of "apostle." Now this is where our thinking becomes very suspicious to me. We think that the very Biblical category of "apostle" has ceased, and yet the category of non-apostle "missionary" (which might be found in Scripture but it not nearly so delineated) has risen to become very significant. Hmm... the Biblical category is no longer valid today but this other category is very important today. Strikes me as suspicious.
   Again, we are weary of the idea of an 'apostle' today because this word carries connotations of great authority. Several writings I've run across over the years say that apostles helped found the church, especially before the New Testament was complete. Now the canon is complete and there are no more apostles. The fear, I believe, is that someone using the title "apostle" today might claim equal or greater authority in matters of doctrine than the inspired writers of Scripture. That certainly is a valid concern. So let me expand on it.
   Authority is, in several ways, a very significant aspect of apostleship (Lk 9:1, 2 Cor 10:8, 1 Thes 2:6).

   Apostles were involved in founding the church where it was previously non-existant (Rom 15:20, Eph 2:20). There are patterns of authority and submission in the church. Churches are to have elders (1 Tim 3), and we in the churches are to submit to them (1 Pet 5:5, Heb 13:17). So the authority of elders applies over all the regions of established churches. How great, then, the responsibility and authority of the apostles who appointed the original elders in new territory (Acts 14:23; also in Titus 1:5 Paul delegates this task to Titus).
   Today we send out "church-planters" to establish the church in new territory. That, frankly, concerns me. If someone claimed apostolic authority to write and validate inspired Scripture, we would all be concerned with them. Likewise, I think the claim to apostolic authority to plant churches is not something we should take lightly. Were the New Testament "church planters" those who "felt led" to do it? I don't think so. I think they had a clear, unmistakable calling and empowerment from God. (Not what we loosely call "calling" today. But that's another subject...) We need to be more careful about what authority we are taking on ourselves.
   This is not to say that only apostles brought the gospel to the "unreached." By no means. Non-apostles got scattered and evangelized wherever they went (e.g. Acts 8). But there is no indication that non-apostles took the authority of establishing churches. Paul claimed to lay the foundation of God's building "according to the grace of God which was given to me." (1 Cor 3:10) And, again, Paul's calling, empowerment, and sending were very clearly from God.
   Am I opposed to "missionary" work? No. If someone wants to go to some place in the world with an established (however small) church, and submit to the local leadership, and that leadership wants to accept that "missionary" so that his/her gifts can edify the body, I don't see any Biblical problem with that. However, if someone says, "I'm going as a church planter to unreached region X," I would hear, "I'm going as an apostle to region X," or, "I'm going to do apostolic work in region X." That would concern me. I would hope that they truly do have God's empowerment as an apostle, because we need such people. But just as a "teacher" isn't necessarily gifted to teach, someone doing apostolic ministry isn't necessarily gifted or sent by God as an apostle.
   Now, even if some rejects my view on apostles, I still say you have to take this question into consideration. Do we not draw most of our "missionary" lessons from models who were apostles? If there are no apostles today, doesn't that have to affect your interpretation of apostolic models? How far can you be justified to imitiate the model of an apostle, when you aren't one? How much of their model is unique to their apostolic gifting? Someone could say that Timothy is a non-apostle missionary model of the New Testament. I would respond that I'm not sure whether or not Timothy was an apostle (see point 2 above). But in any case, most missiology is not drawing its lessons from Timothy.
   What is the practical conclusion? My heart is for the proclamation of the gospel amongst the most unreached. To that end I pray that God would call, empower, and send apostles to establish the church in unreached regions.