John is the gospel of believing in Jesus, the Synoptics are the gospel of actually hitting the road with him

While the concepts of a personal call to "believe in me" and to "follow me" both appear in the Fourth Gospel, the Synoptics do not feature a Jesus who comes up to you and says "believe in me" like John does. In John the disciple is now one who believes, because Jesus in his resurrected glory is no longer possible to follow in the Synoptic sense.

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 

-- John 14:1

Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.

-- John 13:36

The Fourth Gospel in fact is replete with phrases involving personal "belief" in Jesus whereas the Synoptics contain relatively few involving belief, let alone commands by Jesus to "believe" in him. And we do not have in the Fourth Gospel either what could be called a robust memory of the tradition involving "following". This is because the eschatological urgency involved in the command to follow has disappeared for the Fourth Gospel. 

It is the Synoptics which feature a Jesus who calls people to come with him on the road as the distinctive feature of discipleship. The old world is imminently passing away in judgment. The few who answer his call to follow will be saved. But in John discipleship is now open to the many, to anyone in fact who reads the book and believes, which is the new meaning of following.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. 

-- John 20:31 

 

Actual forgiveness of sins, without a bloody sacrifice, without resurrection from the dead

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. -- Matthew 6:14

And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. -- Matthew 9:2

When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. -- Mark 2:5

And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. -- Mark 11:25

And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. -- Luke 5:20

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. -- Luke 6:37

And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. -- Luke 7:48

Judas had the bag: How poor were Jesus and the Twelve?

 

 

 The Fourth Gospel is the only evidence we have that Jesus and the Twelve had a common kitty.

This "bag" was presumably the equivalent of the small box such as might store and protect the reeds/mouthpieces used by musicians in their wind instruments.

This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

 

-- John 12:6

For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.

 

-- John 13:29

Otherwise in the Synoptics we have references to the personal belt, which was hollow and could store money (Mt. 10:9, Mk. 6:8), personal money bags for coins (Lk. 10:4, 12:33ff.) and provision sacks in which to carry a variety of travel supplies, generally understood, analogous to backpacks or saddlebags (Mt. 10:10, Mk. 6:8, Lk. 9:3, 10:4, 22:35f.). All these feature in Jesus' missionary instructions to his disciples where we learn that they are to carry no money and no supplies whatsoever. This is in keeping generally with the call to discipleship in the first place, to say goodbye to one's possessions (Luke 14:33) and follow Jesus.

Presumably, however, Jesus and the Twelve, being thus poor and preaching poverty, were recipients of charity, and it had to be someone's job to thus be the banker. But such money as there was can't have gone very far and did not amount to very much.

The story of the miraculous feeding of the 5,000 provides a ceiling limit for what Jesus and the Twelve might have imagined to be a lot of money. In it the disciples express incredulity at Jesus' expectation that they come up with the cash to feed so many, knowing as he must have that coming up with such a sum was pure fantasy.

He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?

 

-- Mark 6:37

The penny here is the denarius, in Matthew 20 famously considered fair pay for a full day's labor or for even much less than a day's labor, which seems rather over generous (see below).

The parallel in John 6:7 indicates that 200 denarii would allow 5,000 to eat only a little and not be satisfied:

Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

It should be stated that not even a Roman soldier would have this kind of walking around money.

At the time of Jesus, a Roman legionary received base pay of about 0.6 denarius per day (10 asses), from which the soldier had to provide for his own arms and food. That's 224 denarii per year, from the time of Julius Caesar. So try to imagine that sum in the bag Judas had, and it is not at all credible.

A soldier received other intermittent pay, boosting the base pay on average to as much as 1 denarius a day, and of course out on the perimeters of the Empire he had a reputation for intimidating the locals for additional gain, which would make sense in Palestine given the poor agricultural conditions which drove up the price of daily bread.

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him [John the Baptist], saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

 

-- Luke 3:14

Content with your wages.

 

Theoretically, the cost of a one pound to one and half pound loaf of bread at this time could be as high as 2 asses or as little as 1, but double this on the poor soil of Palestine. So 200 denarii would feed at the outside 1,600, or as few as 800, with say 1,400 calories each. The conundrum with even 200 denarii means the 5,000 would have to get by on 224 to 448 calories each. While the problem in the story sounds about correctly imagined, the prospect of the availability for purchase of such a great quantity of bread as well as of solving the logistical and distributional problems implied seems as utterly fanciful as the notion that they might have had the means to purchase so much bread in the first place.     

On the other end of the scale it makes sense that the bag which Judas had could often be quite empty, necessitating scrounging operations on the part of Jesus and the Twelve themselves just to survive.

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

 

-- Matthew 12:1

And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

 

-- Mark 2:23

And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

 

-- Luke 6:1

The needs of Jesus and the Twelve at a minimum subsistence level of 1,400 calories daily would mean in the hardest of times requiring as much as 3.25 denarii a day (4 asses for one loaf of bread X 13 = 52 / 16). Charity must have played an outsized role in the ministry of Jesus and his disciples.

Hence the centrality of daily bread to the Lord's Prayer, and the fame and survival of the bread sayings generally throughout the Gospels.

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

 

-- Matthew 6:25

Jesus forgave sins quite apart from the shedding of blood, his own or that of others, and taught it

Thy sins be forgiven thee.

-- Matthew 9:2

Thy sins be forgiven thee.

-- Mark 2:5

Thy sins are forgiven thee.

-- Luke 5:20

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

-- Matthew 6:14

And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

-- Mark 11:25

Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

-- Luke 6:37

Her sins, which are many, are forgiven. ... And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

-- Luke 7:47, 48

And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.

-- Luke 11:4

Jesus ate with just about every member of his community, but not so Paul with every member of his

So says the triple tradition about Jesus (Matthew 9:10ff., Mark 2:15ff. and Luke 5:27ff.):

And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. And he left all, rose up, and followed him. And Levi made him a great feast in his own house [a going away party?]: and there was a great company of publicans [tax collectors] and of others that sat down with them. But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 7: 33ff. adds that he ate also with Simon the Pharisee, the setting for the absolution of the harlot who washed Jesus' feet with her tears:

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children. And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.

And Luke 14:1ff. puts Jesus in the house of another Pharisee to eat, the setting for his remarkable teaching about divestiture to the poor:

And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. ... 

So Jesus eats with just about everybody, except perhaps Sadducees.

But here in 1 Corinthians 5:9ff. Paul tells Gentile believers not to eat with fellow believers who openly sin, nor to keep company with them, but to put them out of the Christian community:

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Bart Ehrman Is Mistaken To Think Jesus Thought The Son Of Man Was Someone Other Than Himself

Here is Bart Ehrman most recently on this subject:

And [Jesus] talked about someone else, rather than himself, as the coming Son of Man. ... His message is about the coming kingdom to be brought by the Son of Man. He always keeps himself out of it. ... I have already argued that he did not consider himself to be the Son of Man, and so he did not consider himself to be the heavenly angelic being who would be the judge of the earth. 

Against this Mark 2:10f is plain enough:

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

Of course, Ehrman evidently discounts the authenticity of this and similar sayings on the grounds of their character as miracle stories, but as Albert Schweitzer taught us long ago, the thorough-going eschatological interpretation means that we can accept the presentations of both Matthew and Mark pretty much as they are without doing serious violence to them.

 

Of course, there are other self-referential examples which are not miracle stories.

 

And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. 

 

-- Luke 9:57f.

To be clear, Ehrman is right to stress that it was God who would initiate the events of the heavenly appearance of the Son of Man to execute judgment on the world, not Jesus. Indeed, Jesus is completely passive in this regard throughout the Gospels (which incidentally completely nullifies the zealot hypothesis), and even right up to the bitter end, only giving up it seems on the cross: "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46/Mark 15:34). The problem of how Jesus still imagined himself in this role of Son of Man even as he tells the high priest at his trial that the high priest would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds remains nearly insoluble, not to mention that the subsequent Johannine interpretation and the presentation of the exalted Jesus in Acts performing the comparatively most trivial, even superstitious, divine interventions completely reject it. But the value of Schweitzer's original conceptualization is that Jesus thought this way at several points during his ministry but remained undeterred by events which showed him that he was mistaken, especially early on in Matthew 10 when he thought the end would come before the disciples had finished going throughout Israel on their mission trip (an expectation by the way which is completely incompatible with a suffering servant of the later passion narrative and for that reason absolutely remarkable for its survival as witness to Jesus' original self-conception). And then it seems Jesus expected it again on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, only to be disappointed again, and then in the Garden of Gethsemane when he boasts that he could call down the heavenly legions, and then finally at his trial. But in all instances Jesus holds himself back as it were, dare we say it, the way only a crazed fanatic does when faced with the immediate improbability of his own false expectation.

There is more than a hint of mental illness in all of this, which many people suffering from bipolar disorder will instantly recognize. And we can see Jesus' progeny in the many end-time enthusiasts of our own time, whose message often attracts a certain sort of personality.

It is not meant as an insult to someone worshipped as a god, nor to his worshippers.

Desperate times produce extremes of their own, for which we should above all show compassionate understanding. 

The Son of Man

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you.

-- John 6:27

This line from today's Gospel lesson about Jesus the Bread of Life is noteworthy for its use of the title "Son of man."

In the Synoptic tradition the use of this title bristles with notions of the imminent end of the world, but that conception is wholly lacking in John's gospel. In the former it is thought to refer to a figure spoken of in the Book of Daniel:

And, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

-- Daniel 7:13-14

Consider Mark's gospel in particular.

In it Jesus introduces his ministry, saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel" (1:15). In chapter 2, Jesus identifies himself as this Son of man, who has the power to forgive sins (vs. 10), and is Lord even of the Sabbath (vs. 28). Later in Mark 8:38 and 9:1 Jesus explicitly uses the Son of man imagery from Daniel of himself:

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. . . Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

The consummation of all things is so close in the imagination of Jesus in Mark that even at his trial he can say to the high priest, an unbeliever, that the high priest himself "shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (14:62).

In John, by contrast, what is imminent is the Son of man's return to heaven.

In future believers such as Nathanael "shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man" (1:51). This same Son of man says, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world" (6:51). The prospect of it is a point of contention even among Jesus' closest followers: "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (6:61 f.). It is from this heavenly vantage point, he says, that "I will draw all men unto me" (12:32).

Some believe the latter conception is a rationalization in the wake of the failure of the former, and the doctrine of the Sacrament of the Altar a rationalization of that.

At least I do.