Acts 6:5

Acts 6:5. They chose Stephen, a man fall of faith. ‘See,' says Chrysostom, writing of St. Stephen, ‘a certain one even among the seven was foremost, and gained the chief prize; for although all shared in the ordination alike, yet this one drew upon himself greater grace (than the others).' St. Stephen, who has won for himself in the annals of the Church of Christ the proud title of the first martyr, was chosen first by the assembly. He is especially mentioned as ‘full of faith.' The faith alluded to is that intense loving trust in Jesus as the Redeemer which is the root of all Christian virtues; for this faith, in addition to his other high qualities, Stephen, even in that age of exalted devotion, was conspicuous.

And Philip. Well known afterwards as the ‘apostle' of Samaria (see Acts 8). It was this Philip who converted the minister of the Ethiopian Queen Candace; he is mentioned again in the twenty-first chapter of the book as dwelling at Cæsarea with his four prophet-daughters; he seems to have been generally known as the ‘evangelist.'

Prochorus, etc. This and the next three names never occur again in the New Testament. Nothing is known respecting the history of these four persons.

Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch. This last-named of the seven must have been originally a Gentile, who bad accepted Judaism and submitted to the rite of circumcision. From the special mention of his being a proselyte, it would seem that the other six were Jews by birth. The names of all the seven are Greek; but we cannot positively conclude from this circumstance that they were all Hellenists or Greek Jews, for it was not unusual for a pure Hebrew to possess a Greek name, as in the case of the apostles Andrew and Philip for instance. Upon the memory of Nicolas rests an unfortunate tradition related by Iremeus, Epiphanius, and others, which asserts that this Nicolas was the founder of the sect of Nicolaitanes mentioned with such stern severity in Revelation 2:6; Revelation 2:15. Perhaps the true version of this story is the relation of Clement of Alexandria, who says that Nicolas himself was famous for the purity of his conduct, but that he was the innocent cause of the heresy which bears his name, which arose from a perversion of some words he once uttered (see Eusebius, H. E. iii. 29).