13<\/strong>. And when they were come in<\/em> ] i.e. into the city, from the open country where the Ascension had taken place.<\/p>\n they went up into an<\/em> [ the<\/strong> ] upper room<\/em> ] Probably the upper room which has been mentioned before (Mar 14:15<\/span>; Luk 22:12<\/span>) as used by our Lord and His disciples for the passover feast. The Greek word in the Gospels is not the same as here, but in both cases it is evident that it was some room which could be spared by the occupiers and which was let or lent to the Galilan band and their followers. The next words indicate die temporary occupancy, and would be better rendered where they were abiding, namely Peter<\/em>, &c. The eleven were the tenants of the upper room, to which the other disciples resorted for conference and communion.<\/p>\n Peter<\/em>, &c.] The names of the Apostles are again given, though they had been recorded for Theophilus in “the former treatise” (Luk 6:14-16<\/span>), perhaps because it seemed fitting that the names of those who are now to be the leaders of the new teaching should be recited at the outset, that each one may be known to have taken his share in the labour, though it will not fall within the plan of the writer to give a notice of their several works; and secondly, as all the twelve had fled before the Crucifixion, this enumeration of them as again at their post, may shew that there had been in all of them, except Judas, only weakness of the flesh, and not unwillingness of the spirit.<\/p>\n It may be noticed that, whereas in the list of Apostles given in St Luke’s Gospel the name of Andrew stands second in the first group of four and next after Peter, in this repeated list Andrew is placed fourth. The history gives no reason for this change, but we see in the Gospels, when important events occurred in Christ’s ministry, such as the raising of the daughter of Jarus, the Transfiguration, and the Agony in Gethsemane, that the three disciples chosen to be present with Jesus are Peter, James and John, but not Andrew. Whatever may have been the reason for such an omission, the fact may in some degree explain the altered position of Andrew’s name in the list of the twelve. It appears no more in Holy Writ.<\/p>\n The order of the next group of four differs from their arrangement in the Gospel, but as none of them are mentioned after this verse there is nothing to explain the variation in order. In the next group the A. V. is inconsistent in rendering James the son<\/em> of Alphus, and afterwards a like construction by Judas the brother<\/em> of James. It is more common to find this dependent genitive in descriptions of a son, though the relationship of brother to brother is found so indicated. Judas is called the brother<\/em> of James here because it is assumed that he is the same person as the author of the Epistle of St Jude, who (Judges 1<\/span>) calls himself brother of James. But as it is not certain that the writer of that Epistle was one of the twelve, it is better to render the two identical constructions standing so close together in the same way, and so to read Judas<\/em> the son<\/strong> of James<\/em>. James in that case would be the name of some otherwise unknown person, but it was a very common name among the Jews.<\/p>\n Simon Zelotes<\/em> ] called Simon the Canaanite<\/em> (Mat 10:4<\/span>; Mar 3:18<\/span>). The last-named title is a corruption of an Aramaic word of like meaning with the Greek Zelotes<\/em>, and signifying Zealot, a name applied in our Lord’s time to those Jews who were most strict in their observance of the Mosaic ritual. Of this Simon we have no further mention in Scripture history.<\/p>\n Were come in – <\/B>To Jerusalem.<\/P> They went up into an upper room – <\/B>The word <\/SPAN><\/span> huperoon, here translated upper room, occurs only four times in the New Testament: Act 9:37<\/span>, She (Dorcas) was sick and died; whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber (see also Act 9:39<\/span>); Act 20:8<\/span>, And there were many lights in the upper chamber where they were gathered together. The room so designated was an upper chamber used for devotion, or as a place where to lay the dead before burial, or occasionally for conversation, etc. Here it evidently means the place where they were assembled for devotion. Luk 24:53<\/span> says they were continually in the temple praising and blessing God; and some have supposed that the upper room here designated was one of the rooms in the temple. But there is no evidence of that, and it is not very probable. Such a room as that here referred to was a part of every house, especially in Jerusalem; and the disciples probably selected one where they might be together, and yet so retired that they might be safe from the Jews. The expression used in Luk 24:53<\/span>, They were continually – <\/SPAN><\/span> diapantos – in the temple, signifies no more than that this was a frequent or customary resort; they were always in the temple at the usual seasons of devotion, or they were in the constant habit of resorting thither. Even DeWette allows that there is no discrepancy.<\/P> Where abode – <\/B>Where were remaining. This does not mean that this was their permanent habitation; but they remained there waiting for the descent of the Holy Spirit.<\/P> Peter … – <\/B>All the apostles were there which Jesus had at first chosen except Judas, Luk 6:13-16<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 13<\/span>. They went up into an upper room<\/B><\/I>] This was either a room in the temple<\/I>, or in the house of one of the disciples, where this holy company was accustomed to meet. In Lu 24:53<\/span>, it is said that, after their return from Mount Olivet, they were continually<\/I> in the temple, praising and blessing God<\/I>: it is probable, therefore, that the upper room<\/I> mentioned in this verse is that apartment of the temple mentioned above. But still it is not certain that this place should be so understood; as we have the fullest proofs that the upper rooms<\/I> in private houses were used for the purpose of reading the law, and conferring together on religious matters. See several proofs in Lightfoot<\/I>. Add to this, that the room here mentioned seems to have been the place where all the apostles lodged, , and therefore most probably a private house<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n And when they were come in<\/B>, to the city, and to the house, <\/P> they went up into an upper room; <\/B>the same probably where they had kept the passover, and partook of the Lords supper; howsoever, for its largeness capable to receive so many. <\/P> Peter, <\/B>as elder, and first called to the apostleship, is generally first named; and here especially his name is put first, and their names are repeated, to show, that though they fell in forsaking of Christ, they did rise again in professing of him; and that, notwithstanding their apostasy, they were continued after their recovery in their former office and dignity. <\/P> <\/p>\n 13. went up into an upperroom<\/B>perhaps the same “large upper room” where withtheir Lord they had celebrated the last Passover and the first Supper(Lu 22:12<\/span>). <\/P> where abode<\/B>not lodged,but had for their place of rendezvous. <\/P> Peter,<\/B> &c.(See onMt 10:2-4<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n Ver. 13 And when they were come in<\/strong>,…. “Into it”, as the Arabic version reads; that is, into the city of Jerusalem, and into some house in that city; but what house it was is needless to inquire, since it cannot be known. Some think it was the house of John the Evangelist, whither he had taken Mary the mother of our Lord, Joh 19:27<\/span> which is not improbable: others, that it was the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where the disciples met for prayer when Peter was put into prison, Ac 12:12<\/span> others, that it was the house of Simon the leper; but his house was not at Jerusalem, but in Bethany, Mt 26:6<\/span>. Some have thought it was the house of Nicodemus, or of Joseph of Arimathea; but after all it seems most likely, that it was not any private house, but the temple into which the disciples immediately went, and where they continued; see<\/p>\n Lu 24:52<\/span> and Ac 2:46<\/span>.<\/p>\n they went up into an upper room<\/strong>; which, if in a private house, they might choose for retirement and secrecy; and might be the same in which they had eaten the passover; and so a Syriac scholiast, in manuscript, on the place, says it was the same. It was usual to meet in upper rooms for devotion and religious conversation;<\/p>\n [See comments on Mr 2:4]<\/span> though this upper room might be one of the chambers in the temple; for not only from the scriptural account of the temple, there were chambers round about it, and upper chambers; see 1Ki 6:5<\/span> and one of these is called the chamber of Gemariah, in which Baruch read the prophecies of Jeremiah, Jer 36:10<\/span> but also from the Jewish writings, in which frequent mention is made of the chamber Palhedrin, where the high priest was brought seven days before the day of atonement c; and the chamber of the counsellors d; and the chamber Gazith, where the sanhedrim sat; and the chamber of the house of Abtines e; and the chamber of wood; and the chamber of the lepers; and the chamber of the house of oil f; and the chamber of salt; and the chamber of Parvah; and the chamber of them that wash, besides others g. And into a chamber, or upper room in the temple they might be let by Joses Barnabas, a Levite, one of their own company, Ac 4:36<\/span> who might have the care of it, for they are said to be continually in the temple, Lu 24:53<\/span>.<\/p>\n Where abode both Peter, and James, and John<\/strong>. The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, “Peter, and John, and James”; and so the Alexandrian copy. These were the three favourite disciples of Christ, and are often mentioned together, as here first;<\/p>\n and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew<\/strong>. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions put Matthew before Bartholomew.<\/p>\n James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas, the brother of James<\/strong>; all the Oriental versions read, “Judas the son of James”: of the names of the apostles, [See comments on Mt 10:2]<\/span>,<\/p>\n [See comments on Mt 10:3]<\/span>,<\/p>\n [See comments on Mt 10:4]<\/span>. They are all here mentioned but Judas the betrayer, who was dead, to show, that though one had disbelieved the resurrection of Christ, another had denied him, and all of them had forsook him, and fled; yet they were got together again, and were firm and steadfast in the faith of Christ, waiting for the pouring forth of the Spirit.<\/p>\n c Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 1. d T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 8. 2. e Ib. fol. 19. 1. f Misn. Middot, c. 2. sect. 5. g Ib. c. 5. sect. 2, 3.<\/p>\n Into the upper chamber <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The upstairs or upper room (<\/SPAN><\/span> is upper or over, the adjective <\/SPAN><\/span>), the room upstairs where the women staid in Homer, then a room up under the flat roof for retirement or prayer (Acts 9:37<\/span>; Acts 9:39<\/span>), sometimes a large third story room suitable for gatherings (Ac 20:9<\/span>). It is possible, even probable, that this is the “large upper room” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) of Mark 14:15<\/span>; Luke 22:12<\/span>. The Vulgate has coenaculum<\/I> for both words. The word is used in the N.T. only in Acts. It was in a private house as in Lu 22:11<\/span> and not in the temple as Lu 24:53<\/span> might imply, “continually” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) these words probably meaning on proper occasions.<\/P> They were abiding <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Periphrastic imperfect active. Perfective use of <\/SPAN><\/span>, to abide permanently. It is possible that this is the house of Mary the mother of John Mark where the disciples later met for prayer (Ac 12:12<\/span>). Here alone in the N.T., though old compound. Some MSS. here read <\/SPAN><\/span>. This could mean constant residence, but most likely frequent resort for prayer during these days, some being on hand all the time as they came and went.<\/P> Simon the Zealot <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Called Simon the Cananaean ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) in Matt 10:4<\/span>; Mark 3:18<\/span>, but Zealot in Lu 6:16<\/span> as here giving the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic word because Luke has Gentiles in mind. The epithet (member of the party of Zealots) clung to him after he became an apostle and distinguishes him from Simon Peter. See Vol. I on the Gospel of Matthew for discussion of the four lists of the apostles.<\/P> Judas the son of James <\/B> (J <\/SPAN><\/span>). Literally, Judas of James, whether son or brother (cf. Jude 1:1<\/span>) we do not really know. “Of James” is added to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot (Joh 14:22<\/span>). However we take it, he must be identified with the Thaddaeus (=Lebbaeus) of Mark and Matthew to make the list in the third group identical. No name appears in Acts for that of Judas Iscariot. <\/P><\/p>\n An upper room [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. With the article, denoting some well – known place of resort. It was the name given to the room directly under the flat roof. Such rooms were often set apart as halls for meetings. In such an apartment Paul delivered his farewell address at Troas (Act 20:8<\/span>), and the body of Dorcas was laid (Act 9:37<\/span>). Used by Luke only. Abode [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The participle and finite verb, denoting continuance or habitual residence. Hence more correctly, as Rev., “where they were abiding.”<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And when they were come in,<\/strong>” (kai hote eiselthon) “And when they entered,” were come into Jerusalem, of their own accord, their own volition, upon returning from the ascension scene. They returned to the city of peace, Jerusalem, where they were to tarry, Luk 24:49<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “They went up into an upper room,”<\/strong> (eisto huperoon anebesan) “They went up (up stairs) into an upper room, a room above the ground floor of the building,” well known to the apostles, perhaps the home of John Mark’s mother, Mar 14:15<\/span>; Luk 22:8<\/span>; Luk 22:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew,”<\/strong> (hou esan katamenontes) “Where (there) they were in waiting, tarrying, for the coming of the Holy Ghost,” (ho te petros kai loannes kai lakobos kai andreas) “both (couples) Peter and Andrew, James and John,” couples who were brothers, Luk 6:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew,”<\/strong> (Philippos kai Thomas Bartholomaios kai Matthaios) “Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, Luk 6:14-15<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5) “James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes,”<\/strong> (lakobos alphaiou kai Simon ho zelotes) “James who was a son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot,” Luk 6:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n 6) “And Judas the brother of James,”<\/strong> (kai loudas lakobou) “And Judas who was a brother of James.” Both writers of the New Testament books bearing their names, Luk 6:16<\/span>. This Judas was the brother of James the son of Alphaeus.<\/p>\n 13. Where they abode Some translate it, where they did abide; as though they did use to dwell there. But I am of that opinion, that they did then first of all use that hired room to dwell together in, until such time as the Holy Spirit was come upon them. Too, too ridiculous are the Papists, which go about to prove Peter his supremacy (50) hereby, because he is reckoned up first of all the apostles. Although we do grant that he was the chiefest of the apostles, yet it doth not follow hereupon that he was the chiefest ruler of all the world. But if he be, therefore, the chief of all the apostles, because his name is first in the catalogue of the apostles’ names, I will again conclude, that the mother of Christ was inferior unto all the rest of the women, because she is [here] reckoned the last; which they will in no case admit, as indeed it were a thing too absurd. Wherefore, unless they will set their Papacy to be laughed at of all men, as hitherto they have done, they must leave off to adorn it with such foolish toys. But what is their intent? Forsooth, they will prove out of the Scriptures that there was a secondary head of the Church, inferior to Christ; whereas there is no syllable in the Scripture which is consenting unto this their foolish invention. No marvel is it, therefore, if they do snatch here and there certain places, which, although no man smite them out of their hands, they will let fall of their own accord. But omitting them, let us mark what is Luke’s purpose in this place. Because the disciples had fallen away, and filthily fled from their Master Christ, every man whither fear did drive him, (Mat 26:56<\/span>,) they did deserve, like forsakers of their masters, or run-agates, to be deprived of honor. Therefore, that we may know that by the appointment of the Lord they were gathered together again, and restored to their former degree, Luke reckoneth up all their names. <\/p>\n (50) “ Primatum,” primacy. <\/p>\n (13) They went up into an upper room, where abode . . .<\/strong>Better, into the upper room, where they<\/em> were abiding.<\/em> The Greek noun has the article. The room may have been the same as that in which the Paschal Supper had been eaten (Mar. 14:15<\/span>). On the other hand, that room seems to have been different from that in which the disciples had lodged during the Paschal week, and to have been chosen specially for the occasion (Luk. 22:8<\/span>). The word used is also different in form. So far as we are able to distinguish between the two words, the room of the Paschal Supper was on the first floor, the guest-chamber, used for meals; that in which the disciples now met, on the second floor, or loft, which was used for retirement and prayer. It would seem from Luk. 24:53<\/span>, that they spent the greater part of each day in the Temple, and met together in the evening. The better MSS. give prayer only, without supplication. The prayer thus offered may be thought of as specially directed to the promise of the Father. Whether it was spoken or silent, unpremeditated or in some set form of words, like the Lords Prayer, we have no data<\/em> to determine.<\/p>\n Peter, and James.<\/strong>On the lists of the Twelve Apostles see Notes on Mat. 10:2-4<\/span>. The points to be noticed are(1) that Andrew stands last in the group of the first four, divided from his brother, thus agreeing with the list in St. Mark (Mar. 3:17<\/span>); (2) that Philip is in like manner divided from Bartholomew, and Thomas from Matthew; (3) that Zelotes appears here, as in Luk. 6:15<\/span>, instead of the Cananan.<\/p>\n 13<\/strong>. <\/strong> Come in<\/strong> To the city. <\/p>\n Upper room<\/strong>. Probably the same as the room of the Pentecost. Not, as some have supposed, in the temple, for the Jewish authorities would not have permitted so bold proceedings on the part of the disciples of the lately crucified Jesus. (See note, Act 2:1<\/span>.)<\/p>\n It accords with ecclesiastical tradition, and seems in itself probable, that it was the same room where the Passover was celebrated, where Matthias was elected, where the Pentecostal effusion was bestowed, where the seven deacons were appointed, and where the first council of Jerusalem was held. <\/p>\n Abode<\/strong> Rather, were abiding. <\/em> That is, were customarily staying there as their special place of prayer. This no way contradicts Luk 24:53<\/span>, which simply asserts that they also constantly frequented the temple.<\/p>\n On the catalogue of apostles which follows, compare Mat 10:2-4<\/span> and Luk 6:13-16<\/span>.<\/p>\n ‘And when they were come in, they went up into the upper chamber, where they were abiding; both Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.’<\/p>\n Arriving at their lodgings they went up to the guest chamber where they were staying (compare Mar 14:14<\/span>, the same word as used here is rendered ‘inn’ in Luk 2:7<\/span>). Note the detail given here by Luke. He makes clear who the eleven were, and that one of the twelve was missing. Thus does he draw out that there is a gap to be filled before their ministry can commence. The list parallels that in Luk 6:13-16<\/span>, with slight alterations in order. John now comes before James, and the two both come before Andrew, while Thomas rises in the order. This may all, however, have been partly due to the order in which Luke remembered them at the time, although certainly Peter and John will be closely linked in their activities (Act 3:1<\/span>; Act 8:14<\/span>). Perhaps he intended to bring out that at present Judas the son of James was without a partner.<\/p>\n ‘The upper chamber.’ On the ground floor of the house, which would include living accommodation, might also be kept domestic animals, and regularly there would be a manger here (thus Jesus may well have been born in such accommodation in the family house in Bethlehem because the guest room was full, and not in a stable). But the upper chamber was away from the hustle and bustle and it would often be used for gathering together, for fellowship and for prayer.<\/p>\n Simon is called ‘the Zealot’ in order to distinguish him from Simon called Peter. It may be that he had a name for being zealous (see Act 21:20<\/span>; Act 22:3<\/span>). Or he may have been previously connected with the followers of Judas the Galilean, who came at some time to be called ‘Zealots’.<\/p>\n Act 1:13-14<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>They went up into an upper room,<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> This might be rendered into the upper room. <\/em>There was in Jerusalem an upper room in which the apostles had been used to assemble with their Lord, where they had eaten the last supper with him, and where perhaps they had assembled since his resurrection, and been favoured with his company. Such a room many of the richer and more devout Jews used tohave in their houses for religious exercises. Some say, that this room where the apostles assembled, was upon mount Sion, where Epiphanius asserts there was afterwards a Christian church built: that the gospel should go out from mount Sion, was agreeable to the prophecies, Isa 2:3<\/span>. <\/span>Mic 4:2<\/span>. See also the note on Luk 24:52<\/span>. <\/p>\n Act 1:13-14<\/span> . ] not: into their place of meeting<\/em> , as Beza and others hold, but, in accordance with what immediately precedes: into the city<\/em> . The simple style of a continued narrative.<\/p>\n ] , the room directly under the flat roof, used for praying and for meetings (Hieros. Sotah, f. 24. 2). See Lightfoot, p. 11 f., and Vitringa, Synag. p. 145, and concerning the word generally, which is very common with classical writers and not a compound, see Valckenaer, Schol. p. 317 f.; Lobeck, Elem. I. p. 452 f. It is here to be conceived as in a private house, whose possessor was devoted to the gospel, and not with de Dieu, Lightfoot, Hammond, Schoettgen, and Krebs, as an upper room in the temple (on account of Luk 24:53<\/span> ; see on that passage), because, considering the hatred of the hierarchy, the temple could neither be desired by the followers of Jesus, nor permitted to them as a place for their special closed meetings. Perhaps it was the same room as in Joh 20:19<\/span> ; Joh 20:26<\/span> .<\/p>\n .] where, i.e. in which they were wont to reside, which was the place of their common abode. The following . . . is a supplementary more exact statement of the subject of . According to Acts, it is expressly the Eleven only, who were present at the ascension. In the Gospel, Luk 24:33<\/span> comp. Luk 1:36<\/span> ; Luk 1:44<\/span> ; Luk 1:50<\/span> , the disciples of Emmaus and others are not excluded; but according to Mar 16:14<\/span> , comp. Act 1:15<\/span> ; Act 1:19-20<\/span> , it is likewise only the Eleven.<\/p>\n As to the list of the apostles, comp. on Mat 10:2-4<\/span> ; Mar 3:17-18<\/span> ; Luk 6:14-16<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] the (formerly) zealot. See on Mat 10:4<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] the relationship is arbitrarily defined as: brother of the (younger) James. It is: son of (an otherwise unknown) James. See on Luk 6:15<\/span> ; Joh 14:22<\/span> ; and Huther on Jude, Introd. 1. Already the Syriac gives the correct rendering.<\/p>\n ] denotes no mere external being-together; but, as Luther correctly renders it: unanimously. Comp. Dem. Phil. 4:147: . So throughout in Acts and Rom 15:6<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] along with women; not: cum uxoribus (as Calvin holds); [101] they are partially known from the Gospels; Mat 26:56<\/span> ; Mat 26:61<\/span> ; Luk 8:2<\/span> f., Act 24:10<\/span> ; Mar 15:40<\/span> f.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> ] <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , also<\/em> , singles out, after the mention in general terms, an individual belonging to the class as worthy of special remark. See Fritzsche, ad Marc.<\/em> p. 11.<\/p>\n ] The unbelief (Joh 7:5<\/span> ) of the four brothers-german of the Lord (see on Mat 12:46<\/span> ; Mat 13:55<\/span> ; Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n