The kitchen table

Another euthus- and immediately- at once, as they left the synagogue they entered the house of ...
The house of Simon and Andrew, with james and john- is this something these boys had been doing most their life- growing up in the same town- over at each other's houses? There's no reminisces from the gospel writers about a typical scene in Simon and Andrews house- there was a medium sized room which we cleared out whatever was normally in the middle – or brought a table from the other room into the middle- and crowded around – dinner was always jovial- but it was afther dinner we used to really look forward to- Jesus would always thank Mildred after finishing eating for the fine meal then began to talk to us- the flickering glow of the lamp.. how different to the time 15 years early when the four of us were forced to sit there... or whatever.
There is no meal here- they've just come back from the Synagogue and Simon's mother in law sick- and Mark shows little inclination to indulge in such diversions with his events tumbling on events style. - Still there is very little of that sort of reminiscing type of thing in the gospels. Perhaps a few things- perhaps it is indulgent- a Max Lucado sort of indulgent- (not that I've read one of his books for a very long time) – indicative of our society where we all think the world revolves around us- worship songs full of I and my. Somehow this was a bigger thing than just one or four men's stories- though it doesn't seem like it would particularly be something they would have thought of putting in anyway- they are limited to John using the phrase 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' , perhaps Mark's naked running man, John's relaying a conversation Jesus had with Peter when he was following to clear up a misunderstanding about whether he was going to die or not, Matthew's use of Matthew contrasting with the other accounts use of Levi- and then the incidental things that you might expect to see in an eyewitness account- there was a lot of grass in that place- sitting down on the green grass so they looked like vegetables in a vegetable patch.
The fact that it was written as a public account though the editors and authors did exercise discretion about what they left in and out.
That it wasn't written by people kicking up their heals with the luxury of unharried remembrances- the kingdom of God had come- they were in motion, servants with jobs to do- and the writing got done in the midst of this.
Probably have to be a bit careful there- John's gospel has the feel of something that has perculated in someone's head for awhile- profound and succint usually has a fair bit behind it (In my vast experience).
Anyway- there is a sense in which it would be great to have a record of that sort of interaction between the disciples- they get together and catch up after a few years of not seeing each other- do you remember when- but another mark of authenticity – not written long enough after the event to get a 400 year legend feel that accounts of Buddha might have (do they?) and the way the disciples viewed and experienced the events precluded this as well. - all too real and everyday to make it anything else, honesty prevented it- they came to the knowledge of his divinity through living with him as a man- and it wasn't a 'from afar knowledge'. There were around three years (with some time taken out at appropriate seasons) where they lived with each other- camped out at night because they were too much of an item to camp in the towns, stayed in Bethany- stayed all over the place- travelled on the road- went on preaching tours together- When Jesus chose the 12 so that they might be with him- it was in the deepest sense- they did get to knock about with him – rub shoulders- share life- all sorts of moments; it was so they would know him (and keep on knowing him when he was 'gone' and keep on being 'with' him)- given a job and the knowledge of his person absolutely crucial to this. It is not second generation veneration.