The house that welcomed the disciples in Jerusalem after the ascension raises an interesting question, because Luke deliberately gives no detail that would allow it to be identified with certainty. Several hypotheses have been proposed, but none can be proven.
The testimony of Acts
After their return from the , Luke writes:
“When they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying” (Acts 1.13).
The Greek expression refers to a room on the upper floor of a relatively large house. This place seems to have been their usual meeting place, which suggests that they were already staying there before the ascension.
A few weeks earlier, Jesus had celebrated his last meal with his disciples in a “large furnished upper room” (Mark 14.15 ; Luke 22.12). Many commentators have therefore considered that it may have been the same building.
The hypothesis of the house of Mary, mother of John Mark
The most widespread hypothesis is that of the house of Mary, mother of John, who was also called Mark.
Later, when Peter is miraculously delivered from prison, he goes immediately:
“to the house of Mary, the mother of John, whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together praying” (Acts 12.12).
This text reveals several things:
- this dwelling was large enough to receive a numerous group;
- it had a courtyard with an outer gate (Acts 12.13-14);
- it was already a recognized meeting place for the Christians of Jerusalem;
- John Mark was close to Peter, whose recollections he would later gather, and these would serve in the writing of the second Gospel (1 Peter 5.13).
These clues make this hypothesis plausible, though without allowing it to be established with certainty.
The house where the last Passover was celebrated?
Some exegetes identify this dwelling with the one where Jesus had celebrated his last meal with the Twelve (Matthew 26.18-19 ; Mark 14.12-16 ; Luke 22.7-13).
This theory has several advantages:
- the disciples already knew the place;
- the upper room was large enough;
- Jesus had appeared there on the evening of the resurrection (John 20.19);
- Thomas found the other disciples there eight days later (John 20.26).
It is therefore possible that it was the same building as the one mentioned in Acts 1.13.
The hypothesis of the house of Joseph of Arimathea
A few authors have suggested the house of Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27.57). This hypothesis rests on the fact that he was a rich man and a disciple of Jesus (John 19.38).
However, no biblical text supports this proposal. Moreover, after the burial of the Lord, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (John 19.39) were probably especially exposed to the surveillance of the religious authorities, which would have made clandestine meetings more difficult.
A certain deliberate discretion
It is also possible that Luke deliberately withheld the owner's name in order to protect the people concerned. The book of Acts shows that the believers in Jerusalem had quickly become the target of persecution (Acts 4.1-3 ; Acts 5.17-18).
This discretion recalls that of the Gospels, which often omit certain details that could identify people who were still living at the time of writing.
A temporary communal life?
It is likely that a number of Galilean disciples were living together in this house or nearby. Jesus had commanded them not to leave Jerusalem until they had received the promise of the Father (Acts 1.4). They continued “with one accord in prayer” (Acts 1.14).
After Pentecost, this communal life would take on even greater proportions, the believers sharing their possessions and remaining constantly together (Acts 2.42-47 ; Acts 4.32-35).
Conclusion
Scripture does not allow us to identify with certainty the house that welcomed the disciples after the ascension. The most likely hypothesis remains that of the house of Mary, mother of John Mark, which later appears as a favored meeting place of the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 12.12). It is also possible that it corresponds to the house where Jesus celebrated the last Passover with his disciples and where he appeared to them after his resurrection (Luke 22.12 ; John 20.19). However, the silence of the texts calls for caution and does not allow us to go beyond the realm of hypotheses.