Can there be apostles today, and have their been throughout church history?

If the author is referring to past apostles and prophets, referring to the past does not mean that he is making commentary about the present or the future. The ministry of apostles and prophets was an ongoing thing when he wrote this. There were also historical prophets and some commentators think this might refer to the Biblical prophets, others his contemporaries. But saying the church has been built on apostles and prophets is not a commentary on whether God would continue to place these roles in the church. Reading such an idea into the text there is eisegesis.

Consider this passage
Ephesians 4
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

The gifts were given at the ascension, but people started operating them, in some cases, later. It took some time before Philip the evangelist went down to Samaria to preach. Paul's conversion and sending as an apostle was not instant at the ascension of Christ. Most Christians would acknowledge some ministry in the list. For example, most Christians--- or leaders from their churches--- would acknowledge that there are still pastors and teachers. Many Christians acknowledge the role of evangelists.

Individual Christians are not allowed to create a doctrine that these gifts of Christ will not manifest in the church. It is not up to us to declare what Christ does or does not decide. We can hope, through discernment, wisdom, and through the Holy Spirit to perceive what the Spirit is doing. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem were able to agree on what 'seemed good to the Holy Spirit.'

The prophets and teachers in Antioch were able to perceive the Spirit speaking to them to separate Barnabas and Saul to the work to which he had called them in Acts 13. They went forth, being sent by the Spirit. After this, Acts calls both Barnabas and Saul "apostles" for the very first time. Compare this to Christ sending forth the twelve apostles. Their being named 'apostles' comes before their being sent on a journey in which they were to heal, cleanse lepers, and raise the dead and preach in one Gospel, and another Gospel calls them 'apostles' for the first time after they returned.

Acts 14:4 and 4:14 call Barnabas and Saul (a.k.a. Paul) 'apostles'). Paul mentions Barnabas again in I Corinthians 9 in the discussion of his own right as an apostle to live of the Gospel, which makes sense in the light of Barnabas being an apostle also. I Thessalonians 1:1 shows the epistle is written by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. In 2:6-7 we see them using the term 'apostles of Christ' to describe themselves. Paul seems to include Apollos also in his discussion of 'we apostles' in I Corinthians 3.

Saying that God will not send an apostle today is tantamount to saying how God will run His church. When He has not revealed something, we should not decree what He will and will not do. But through God's grace, the saints can be enabled to discern the working and will of the Spirit.

Historically, there have been many individuals the Christian community has recognized as apostles, at least looking back on them in history. The term is used of men who did missions work, especially if they were influential in introducing the Gospel to a people-group or converting many of them. As Roman Catholicism does today, there was a bit of a trend to associate apostolic authority with bishops or with roles up the RCC hierarchy. and some of the men labeled 'apostles' were ordained as bishops.

Examples of men historically called apostles include Patrick of Ireland. There are also writings about the 'twelve apostles of Ireland' but I think it was unlikely that all were bishops. Columba had that title, and he was known for reaching the Picts in Scotland. There is Oscar/Angsar 'apostle of the north.' Cyril and Methodius were two brothers who are known as the 'Apostles to the Slavs' and Bulgars-- actually to a long list of groups.

In Protestantism, John Elliot is known as 'Apostle to the Indians' in colonial America. I saw a Congregational hymn about workers, probably missionaries, that says, "Make them apostles..." The concept does exist in Protestant tradition. I also recollect that one of Calvin's commentaries also leaves it open for God to send apostles and prophets to the church, and he may have believed there were some in his own time.

I take issue with some of the NAR views of apostleship-- the idea that it is a hierarchical role that is supposed to be set above local church eldership. Paul's and his co-workers measure of rule extended to the areas where they had brought the Gospel of Christ. Paul accepted James and the elder's advice when he went to Jerusalem. There is no hint that he tried to pull 'apostolic rank' over the elders. I once emailed Peter Wagner an article on this topic, but he responded asking not to receive any further emails of this kind. I did not know him, so that was also understandable.

The word "apostle" has been replaced by "missionary". I don't why, perhaps to avoid confusion over the founding 12. Apostles should be founding churches in places where there are no Christians. Such churches should become self sufficient. It is fine for the apostle to encourage, teach, exhort and even correct the new believers. What the apostle may not do is govern. He should appoint elders for that task.

Lord Jesus appoints all leadership positions. Self appointed leaders will no doubt produce a lot of works. If they do not originate in Christ, such works are dead. Lord Jesus looks at far more than natural talent. Sometimes those talents will get in the way. A talented person is more inclined to depend on their own abilities, which is contrary to life in the Spirit.

If we look at the original 12, it was a list of "least likely to succeed." Modern Christianity is inclined to promote those with natural abilities and with the "right" education. That this does not work is obvious from the condition of the Church, at least in the Western world.

At the same time, natural ability is usable, as long as it has been to the cross. For example, I love to teach. For many years, God weakened my natural strength and self dependence. I did very little teaching of any kind during my post military life. Once I retired, some opportunities arose and I ran a bible course for a couple of years. What comes next? I do not know. My life is In the hands of the Lord Jesus. I'm willing and available.

As far as I am aware, the Bible doesn't explicitly state what the criteria is for being an apostle. The apostles were diverse and it isn't clear if all of them even witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus. I guess the common denominator among those who the Bible calls apostles is that they were either appointed by God or appointed by other apostles. There are no self-appointed apostles; if you're called to be an apostle you'll know because God will tell you.

Regarding the question in the OP Title:

WHY NOT?

The word "apostle" is recorded 19 times in 19 KJV verses, with its plural appearing an additional 60 times in 59 verses. It is derived from the Greek apostolos (Strong's Concordance #G652) which means someone who is a delegate or messenger, one who is sent forth, or someone who is an ambassador of the Gospel.

Good point.
----
There are many 'unknown' Christian leaders.. who are involved in 'Apostolic Mission/Pioneering' work.
- in 'unreached regions & restricted countries'..around the world.
They are not concerned much/do not care much..about the 'titles, recognition & status.'
---
I have been working with those Christian leaders/apostles.
- For many years.

Another thought it that we know who the apostles were because there’s the Bible that is world-renowned and recognized by hundreds of millions, if not more, people as truth.

When Joe Schmoe comes along and says “I’m an apostle” then no one knows who he is or if he can be trusted. Now we’re back 2,000 years ago when Jesus and His 12 had to prove themselves inch by inch to the world who they were. It’s no different for the modern apostle and prophet.

Like the Pharisees in the days of Jesus, the modern church continues to reject prophets and apostles, but at least that’s an improvement; the Pharisees murdered them.

I think there is a general 'gist' we can get as to what apostles are.

Jesus sent 12. He spoke to them personally and sent them. In Matthew 9, He says to pray for the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into His harvest. Have you ever had a plan to pray for something and asked others to do the same? Well, the Lord Jesus goes up on a mountain and prays all night, and then He comes down and appoints 12, and tells them to heal, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out devils and gives them a message to preach and instructions for conduct and how they will be provided for on their preaching journey.

Acts 13 shows that the Spirit spoke to prophets and teachers in Antioch, and sent out two men. Acts calls them 'apostles.' One of them was Saul/Paul, and later in Galatians we can kind of infer that he considered himself an apostle before that if we go with the south Galatia interpretation (which makes more sense). But I believe it is significant that Acts' language includes him as an apostle after the Spirit sent him out.

Paul takes Silvanus and Timothy as co-laborers, but they write an epistle in which they describe themselves as 'apostles of Christ'. So how did the other two get to be apostles of Christ? Acts doesn't tell us specifically.

But in the case of Timothy, we can see that he got a gift imparted to him through the gift of prophecy, accompanied by the laying on of hands of the elders. Acts shows some examples of the apostles laying hands on individuals who then operated in a spiritual gift. Of course, there are examples in Acts of this happening where it is extremely unlikely the apostles were laying hands on anyone. But I Timothy 4:14 indicates a spiritual gift can be imparted through a prophecy. This was accompanied by the laying on of hands of the elders.

Acts 13 shows that Barnabas and Saul were sent by the Spirit. The Spirit spoke. It does not say if the speech was internal to all the prophets and teachers in that list's hearts, or if it were audible for all to hear, or a prophecy. But prophecy is more frequently mentioned in scripture. Also, the other ones who heard this message separated these two apostles by the laying on of hands. Compare to Timothy who actually received his gift through prophecy, accompanied by the laying on of hands of the elders.

What I see here is that the Spirit spoke to saints affirming a gifting or ministry or else imparting it through speaking.

The Bible gives us some patterns and teaching for how the church is to be run. We see apostles going around preaching, doing miracles, proclaiming the gospel, organizing believers into an assembly presumably, teaching and discipling these believers, but often leaving pretty quick to do the same elsewhere. They keep in contact with the new churches that form dealing with issues that arise. They return and appoint elders.

Elders are to pastor the church/flock of God according to Paul and Peter. In the examples we see, they are appointed from within the church/city in which they are to minister. The Bible does not say their job is for one of them to preach a 45 minute message every week. They are to be ensamples to the flock, correct false teaching, they are to be able to teach, and their doing preaching and teaching may be a component of their being worthy of double honor. Church tradition eventually gave them near exclusive domain in blessing the Lord's Supper, performing baptisms, and later performing weddings. Scripture does not.

Ironically, all the elders we see instructions or narrative about being appointed in New Testament scripture were either appointed by someone called an apostle or appointed under the direction of an apostle by someone who was a co-laborer with the apostles in their work.

I do not believe God that the understanding we can gain from scripture about ministry roles is limited to understanding the local pastoral overseer type ministry. The Bible also teaches us about the ministry related to 'the work'-- how the gospel is spread and new churches are formed. I do believe the Spirit can speak to the church, or to smaller groups of people within the church (prophets and teachers in Antioch, for example, or elders, for example) that He is sending out people into the harvest. So I do believe the Spirit may send out apostles to continue 'the work' and reach new souls.

I see relevance for these scriptures when it comes to getting the message out to Jews and Gentiles. Romans 10:15 ...And how shall they preach except they be sent?....

There are a couple of 'outliers', those called apostles in scripture who do not seem to fit the general mold above, but we do not know because we do not have information in scripture itself. If we read about Apollos, speaking accurately about Jesus, but only up to the baptism of John. Aquilla and Priscilla informed him further. He debated, proving from scripture that Jesus is the Messiah. They sent him across the sea to Corinth with letters. In a letter to the Corinthians, Paul said that he had preached, Apollos had watered, but God gave the increase. But he goes on to say that 'we apostles'... and decribed their difficulties compared to how well his readers had it.

Apollos might have had some 'sending experience' also. The passage doesn't say. Paul's ministry was laying new foundations. But Apollos watered what he had planted. And Paul may have recognized that Apollos was sent to do this.

Paul wrote in Galatians that he saw none of the other apostles save James the Lord's brothers. We see James working with the elders in Jerusalem. The apostles had handed over some church administration duties. They collected money, then when Barnabas and Saul bring a donation for Antioch, there are elders there to collect it. The twelve fed the widows, but it got to be a lot and there was a dispute. They needed dedicated men to handle it, so the church chose the seven based on the criteria they set forth and the apostles laid hands on them. They needed to devote themselves to being witnesses of the resurrection and to prayer. But when Paul goes to Jerusalem amidst some controversy, of course they hand the church politics over to the elders to handle-- but it is James and the elders. So James is handling this working in a group with the elders, and not doing 'the Twelve stuff'. But Paul indicates or hints that he is an apostle.

There may be a hint that James was doing some 'itinerating' ministry that we could imagine might have have falling into the category of church planting and new-church-plant-watering that Paul, Apollos, etc. were in. We read that the other apostles and the Lord's brethren had a right to travel with a sister-- a wife-- in I Corinthians 9. This is in the context of Paul discussing his right to live of the gospel. He indicates that he and Barnabas worked for a living, so apparently Barnabas took the 'tentmaker' approach to.

Then there are Andronichus and Junia, of note among the apostles in Romans 16. Scripture does not tell us what they did. We could imagine the idea of a husband and wife team, for example, actually being sent through a prophetic word. But there is also ambiguity in the wording as to whether these were notable apostles, or whether they were just people the apostles considered to be of note. If Paul heard other apostles, for example the apostles in Jerusalem talking about how Christ-like Andronichus and Junia were, how they moved to Rome from Jerusalem, etc., then he could also have made this comment to describe them and great them.


Paul calls Epaphroditus 'your apostle' in Philippians 2:25. On the one hand, those who delivered money or gifts on behalf of the church could be their 'apostles' as we see in II Corinthians. On the other if Epaphras is a shortened form of Epaphroditus, Epaphroditus could also have been a man who expanded the kingdom territory and may have been what we call a 'church planter' in modern terminology. So he may have been 'your apostle' in another sense.

There are also evangelists. Philip is the one person who is not included in the 'apostles' label in scripture for which the term 'evangelist' is used. We can understand more about the evangelist ministry by looking at Philip. He preached did miracles, baptized.... and it seems like he left a lot of the 'follow up' for discipleship to the apostles. T

op: apostles TODAY?

Only IF I "see" ONE "sign of an apostle" = "RAISING the dead!" Then
would I believe? OR: Be Disobedient to God's GRACE Exhortation:

"...we walk BY FAITH; NOT by SIGHT!..." (2 Corinthians 5:7)?

GRACE And Peace...

I’m not aware of any verses that show that each apostle raised someone from the dead. Where do you see that?

I expect that some of the missionaries in unreached areas are apostles. Depending on how you interpret a verse, it could be apostles do miracles as a sign of their ministry-- or there could be another sign (e.g. bearing up under suffering) that were accompanied by signs wonders and miracles in Paul's ministry. So I have asked missionaries who have done great works if there were any miracles that took place on the frontier. Some church planters in the house church movement, for example, who, if you ask them, may tell you they believe the Lord called them as apostles, how it was confirmed through the church (e.g. through prophecy in the congregation), will say they have been used in supernatural healing ministry and things like that. I can think of a few examples. I also think God can work around church traditions that aren't open to prophecies in the congregation, or at least not if they are presented as the typical prophecies in scripture are presented.

One man I know was one of a few missionaries when a 'people movement for Christ' swept through the people-group he was ministering to. There were a couple hundred thousand of them, and in a matter of decades, it is known as a predominantly Christian people group. And then they went out and evangelized within their people group and other tribes. I asked if there were any miracles. He said he went to a village and they were hiding in the huts. He found out and they said it was because they did not want to hear about his God, that there gods were doing fine, and look at how our garden is doing as evidence. They had this lush garden by the stream. A while back, he said he got word they wanted to hear from him. There had been a mudslide that had wiped out the garden, that almost exactly included the garden and not the land around it.

He was one of these guys who if you asked him how many thousands he baptized or discipled or whatever, he would talk like he almost wasn't even there. He didn't take credit. When he preached, I did not hear him talk about how great he was or even the great things God did through him-- which could be a justifiable thing to speak on that gives glory to God.

I realize not every missionary whose work bears fruit is from a church background that is open to all the Biblical operations of the Spirit in an open and direct way. The Spirit spoke and Barnabas and Saul were sent out. Timothy received a gift through prophecy. But some of the missionaries that aren't P/C or in continuationist churches may tell you they sensed a 'call' or that the Lord told them or put it on their heart to do missions work. Then the confirmation through others, if it comes, may come in the form of brethren affirming that they perceive, hear, etc. that God has called them to do it. It could be church leaders or some kind of ministry school leaders, or missions agency people they spend some time with as they pursue their ministry. I am open to the idea of God working around the restraints of a lack of Biblical doctrine, practice, Biblical commandments on church meetings, even a little bit of a lack of faith in churches.

I expect to see the apostolic ministry among missionary church planters a lot moreso than the NAR type individuals. I told the story about the missionary church planter who said he told the NAR movement leader about an apostle in Spain, and he said he didn't think there was an apostle in Spain except for this guy-- some guy registered with his movement that the church planter said had tried to take over a church in Spain, and as far as he knew hadn't planted any churches. So some missionary church planter types who know they are apostles, may have had it confirmed or revealed through a prophetic word, etc.-- kind of line with New Testament narrative-- might like the fact that this movement is accepting of apostles. The definition is fuzzy. Some people in the NAR are involved in church planting, doing work that seems apostolic based on the Bible, and may have sensed the Lord was calling them as apostles, had it confirmed by prophecies.

But also, if Paul desired to minister in the new areas, I cannot confine all apostles to that role. Paul said he planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Then he wrote about 'we apostles.' There may be some apostles who focus on 'watering.' Also, the twelve hung around Jerusalem a lot. Peter made trips to various places. Tradition may indicate other apostles did, but we do not get a lot of detail. Paul seemed to indicate James and the Lord's brother travelled and believers supported it in I Corinthians 9.

I do not just reject them all as false because it seems the predominant understanding of 'apostle' that I have heard from the movement is off. And there are plenty of people now in the broader Charismatic and Pentecostal movement which accept the idea of 'five-fold ministry' a term that is older than the NAR and older than the Charismatic movement in the 1960's. I have even read of 'four-fold ministry' from the 1800's, presumably considering pastors and teachers to be one category.

This reminds me of that passage about Thomas at the end of John after the resurrection. Demanding to see a specific sign to believe something? How about seeing in scripture that it may be possible, then believing that much? It's a matter of Christ retaining the rights, and 'God is God, not you."

Can you see how this quote does not fit that well with what you wrote above?

Precious friend, thanks for asking:

Mat 10:5 These Twelve JESUS Sent forth, and Commanded them, saying, Go not
into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils:
freely ye have received, freely give.
+
Act 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
Act 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Act 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
Act 20:12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

GRACE And Peace...

It does not say in scripture that Barnabas, Timothy, Silvanus ever raised the dead. They could have if God so chose. Paul and Barnabas told of the signs and wonders they worked among the Gentiles, so there were signs and wonders. We see Peter and Paul doing them in Acts with specific accounts of healings and such. But it does not say all apostles raised the dead.

The twelve had power to and were told to. Whether one could heal and another raise the dead to fulfill that collective commandment or each had to do each activity is a question we could meditate on. I suspect they did. It is interesting that Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray Him according to John 6, and in that passage, he called Judas a devil without saying who He was talking about.

Doubting that someone is an apostle because they haven’t raised someone from the dead (though the resurrection power that raised people from the dead does not originate in the apostle, but comes from God) isn’t a valid reason in my view and I’ll explain why with two verses.

The power that raised Jesus from the dead is the resurrection power from the Holy Spirit of God, this power resides in all believers, not just apostles. Therefore according to God’s will, any Holy Spirit indwelt believer can revive someone through the laying on of hands if it’s God’s will, according to Paul. Matthew 10:5-8 doesn’t set out exactly who can use resurrection power. As with all things a deeper study is required.

John 14:12 KJV
12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Romans 8:11 KJV
11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Anyone that believes in Christ can do greater works than Him.

Can there be apostles today? Yes, because the Bible says so. That ought to be the end of it.
But.....opinions prevail in the BDF.
Before you answer the question, you should look up what an apostle is. Then, strip it of all its overglorifying junk religious people add to it.
Then reread the Bible to find out if scripture says whether this ministry has ended or not.
Then the conclusion can be made, that if the Bible says it, that's the end of the matter.

Absolutely True! Just like it was revealed from Heaven to Peter that Jesus was the Son if God. God reveals who we are! after all He’s the the master and the Potter we are his clay and workmanship.

Also consider:

"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars..."

This was likely written when John was the only Apostle of Lamb still alive. Trying those who say they were "apostles" would not have been an issue. They could have simply asked "Are you John?"

There are two types of apostles: "Apostles of the Lamb": those who walked with Jesus (there is a reason the title is capitalized)
and simply "apostles"; those who are sent. Both are chosen by Christ but only the Apostles could be witnesses, according to Jewish Law, to the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

I say ---No there are no Apostles today nor can there be in my view -----I think if we research Scripture you can find some that tell you what is required to be an Apostle -----this is one such Scripture below in my view----So we see in the Scripture that it was predicted in the Old Testament that there would need to be a replacement to fulfill the prophecy made in the Old Testament ----

-it says ----in verses 21-22-----sounds like protocol to me -----

21-22 “So then, someone must join us as a witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

He must be one of the men who were in our group during the whole time that the Lord Jesus traveled about with us, beginning from the time John preached his message of baptism[a] until the day Jesus was taken up from us to heaven.”


Acts !:15-26 GNT

Judas' Successor
15 A few days later there was a meeting of the believers, about a hundred and twenty in all, and Peter stood up to speak. 16 “My friends,” he said, “the scripture had to come true in which the Holy Spirit, speaking through David, made a prediction about Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.

17 Judas was a member of our group, for he had been chosen to have a part in our work.”
(18 With the money that Judas got for his evil act he bought a field, where he fell to his death; he burst open and all his insides spilled out. 19 All the people living in Jerusalem heard about it, and so in their own language they call that field Akeldama, which means “Field of Blood.”)

20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘May his house become empty;
may no one live in it.’
It is also written,
‘May someone else take his place of service.’

21-22 “So then, someone must join us as a witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

He must be one of the men who were in our group during the whole time that the Lord Jesus traveled about with us, beginning from the time John preached his message of baptism[a] until the day Jesus was taken up from us to heaven.”

23 So they proposed two men: Joseph, who was called Barsabbas (also known as Justus), and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know the thoughts of everyone, so show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to serve as an apostle in the place of Judas, who left to go to the place where he belongs.” 26 Then they drew lots to choose between the two men, and the one chosen was Matthias, who was added to the group of eleven apostles.
Read full chapter


So here in ! Corinthians 1 ---we see that Paul even though he did not walk with Jesus Himself or see His Death or Resurrection ---He personally has an encounter with Jesus Himself on his way to Damascus and is called to a Special Service by the Will of God ----to teach the Gentiles ----


1 Corinthians 1 AMP
Appeal to Unity
1 Paul, called as an apostle (special messenger, personally chosen representative) of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and our brother [a]Sosthenes,


I say ---never heard of anyone today being personally chosen by meeting Jesus and actually seeing Him in His Glorified state being called for a Special Service as Paul was ------to be an apostle



Luke 6:12-13 AMP
Choosing the Twelve
12 Now at this time Jesus went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God.

13 When day came, He called His disciples and selected twelve of them, whom He also named [a]apostles (special messengers, personally chosen representatives):


I say ----I don't think anyone today has been personally Chosen by Jesus Himself and personally chosen to be His representative -by Himself ---so that is my view on that ----


Hebrew word for Apostle

Strong's #652: apostolos (pronounced ap-os'-tol-os)
officially a commissioner of Christ ("apostle") (with miraculous powers):--apostle, messenger, he that is sent, one sent forth with orders

This is not the requirement to 'be an apostle'. This is the requirement to replace Judas as one of the twelve apostles. There are other apostles outside of the twelve in scripture. Paul did not meet the criteria Peter listed for being one of the 12 apostles, and excludes himself from that group in I Corinthians 15:5-8. Also the phrase 'born out of due time' does not mean he came along late. It is a word for a baby born too early, not too late. It is the word for premature infants. Imagine the chances of a baby like that not making it in the ancient world.

After Christ ascended, according to Ephesians 4, He gave gifts to men (and the Psalm there could be translated 'received gifts for men' in that place). Among the gifts in the passage are apostles. Jesus received these gifts after the ascension. The original 12 were appointed before the ascension.

Later, we see Paul and Barnabas were apostles in Acts 14:4-14. We can look at the opening verses of Acts 13 to read about their being sent out.