Was the Last Supper at John Mark’s House?

I can’t resist sharing this interesting tidbit.

When I was prepping for my Last Supper message, I encountered a theory I hadn’t heard before – some scholars believe the “Last Supper” took place in John Mark’s house.

I thought, “Really? Where would you even begin to make that case?“

It was interesting.

First, we know the Lord sends Peter and John to procure the upper room (Luke 22:8). They were to enter the city of Jerusalem (Luke 22:10). A man with a pitcher of water will “meet them.” They were to follow him to the house and talk to the Master.

We’re given a few clues about this house. Luke 22:12 tells us there will be “a large upper room furnished.” Mar 14:15 also describes it as “a large upper room furnished and prepared.” These descriptions seem to indicate this feast took place in a wealthy house, which is why traditionally many think this took place in the “upper city” of Jerusalem, which is in the mid-to-southwestern region of the city atop Zion’s hill. This was a wealthy district, part of the “upper city,” the Beverly Hills of ancient Jerusalem. There were high priests like Caiaphas living there, royal families, and wealthy aristocracy living there. Archaeology in that area (such as the Wohl Archaeological Museum) uncovered massive mansions with marble floors, colorful frescoes, and complex private ritual baths (called mikva’ot).

We typically say “upper room,” but the formal historic name is “Cenacle” (pronounced sen-uh-kuhl). “Upper room” describes the location. “Cenacle” describes the function, which is to dine in fellowship. In Roman architecture, a cenaculum referred to any room used for dining. Over time, as Roman homes evolved, the dining rooms were often moved to the second floor to get away from the street noise and the smells. A cenaculum became the standard term for an “upper-story dining room.” The disciples were in this same type of room when they were gathered in prayer before Pentecost (Acts 1:13).

Thus, the upper room was probably part of a wealthy house of someone who lived on Zion’s Hill in the upper district, the Beverly Hills of Jerusalem.

Back to John Mark.

In Acts, after Peter was released from prison, he went to John Mark’s house. Acts 12:12 says, “He came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.”

Notice that many people were there. It’s a big place.

The story also mentions a gate (or porch) and a servant girl named Rhoda (Acts 12:13). Only wealthy homes in the upper city would’ve been big enough to have a gated courtyard and a staff on hand and big enough for “many” people to be “gathered together praying.”

It would seem from these passages that John Mark’s home had to be in the upper city and his home had become a kind of established hub or headquarters for the disciples, which MAY have been established with the “Last Supper.” Then it was later used by the disciples before Pentecost in Acts 1:13 and this was the logical first place for Peter to go after being freed from prison.

Plus, I’m sure you’re probably familiar with this story in Mark 14. After the Lord’s arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Mark writes:

Mar 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: Mar 14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

That’s such an odd, random story, isn’t it? It’s only found in Mark.

I suspect most Bible students, like me, believe this young man had to be John Mark who wrote the book of Mark. So IF the last supper had taken place at his mother’s house in the upper city, a young John Mark might have been woken up by all that commotion, perhaps when Jesus and the disciples left. He then threw on a linen sheet and followed them to the Garden to see what was happening. This would explain why Mark is the only writer to include this seemingly random, embarrassing detail — it was his own “eyewitness” signature.

Whenever I read that many scholars believe something, I instantly think it has to be wrong. However, I like this theory, although I’d say this is largely circumstantial and inconclusive. There’s no direct connection in Scripture to validate this hypothesis… but it fits the facts.