2. The nature of the sop given to Judas. — Eders- heim (LT ii. 506) and others, on the ground especi- ally of the definite art. (rb \pu}tx'iov. Eder.sheim says, ' Mark the definite article — not " a -sop " '), hold that it was a specific sop, used at the Passover supper in the time of Christ, which consisted of a piece of the flesh of the Paschal lamb, a piece of unleavened broad, and some bitter herbs, all wrapped together and dipped in the haroseth — a sauce made of raisins, dates, and other fruits, mixed with vinegar — and then passed round to the company by the host. Jesus, as the host at the Last Supper, would hand this sop, first of all, to Judas, who is supposed to have occupied the place of chief honour at the table (see art. Passover [I.], p. 326^, and Upper Room). It is not enough to brush this view aside, as Meyer does, on the ground that, according to John, the Last Supper was not a Passover meal ; for, even though it was not the regular Passover of the Jews, it may have been a Supper of a similar kind (see art. Passover [II.], p. 327^). On the other hand, Edersheim's argument from the definite art. is precarious, since its use in v.'-'"' is doubtful
(see WH) ; and, in any case, the Evangelist, writing- long afterwards and with a profound sense of the momentous character of the incident, probably wrote ' the sop,' meaning thereby ' the tragic sop,' 'that f.atal sop' — whicii sealed tlie traitor's doom. It seems much more jjrobable, then, that this sop was not the specific Paschal sop jjassed round to the company by the host, but a particular sop that Jesus offered to Judas on purely personal grounds. At an Oriental feast the host sometimes presented a guest with a special tit-bit from the food on the table, as a distinguishing mark of his favour. And it was not by any accident of Judas' position at the table, but because of a deep purpose in the heart of Jesus, that this sop was given.
3. Its sigtiifcance. ^This offering of the sop to Judas, which is not mentioned by the Synoptists (though Mt. and Mk. make Jesus say that the betrayer should be the one who dipped his hand with Him in the dish [Mt 2&^, Mk W]), comes before us with a double significance. («) It was a sign given to the beloved disciple, in response to his question, ' Lord, who is it?' that Judas was the one of the company who was about to betray his Master (vv.^''- ^^). (b) But it was much more than this. Thei'e was nothing hypocritical on Christ's part in the action. He did not make a show of friendliness to Judas merely for the sake of giving John a private sign. What was commonly under- stood to be a token of hospitable goodwill Avas, without doubt, meant in this case to be the expres- sion of a feeling deeper than any ordinary human affection, and at the same time to be a last appeal to the better nature of this erring disciple, with a note of warning underlying the appeal (cf. vv.^^- ^^). A whole world of blessed possibility lay for Judas in that proffered sop ; Divine love was in it, and free forgiveness, and full restoration — if only he would rei^ent of his meditated crime. And just because of the immensity of meaning that lay in Christ's gift was the awf ulness of its result. Judas 'received the sop' (v.^"), and doubtless ate it. He understood what Jesus wished him to nnderstand — the mingled love and warning and promise and appeal that lay in His act. But at this crisis of his fate he closed his ears to Christ's offers and his heart to Christ's grace. And immediately the light that still lingered in him was turned into darkness. P^or 'after the sop, then [rdre — at that very moment] Satan entered into him.' 'The violent effort he made to close his heart to the heavenly power opened it to the powers of evil ' (Godet). Jesus knew that all was over. 'That thou doest,' He said, 'do quickly' (v.-'). And so Judas, 'having received the sop ' [note the significant repetition of the ominous word], ' went out straightway : and it was night.'
Literature. — The Lexx. s.vv. -^ufAiov, ■^u/jui? ; Hastingjs' DB, art. ' Sop ' ; the Comm. of Meyer, Godet, Westcott, Dods, in loc. ; Edersheim, LT ii. 505 £f. ; ExpT ni. [1891] 107 ; Martin, Winning
the Soul, 17. J. c. Lambert.
SORROW, MAN OF SORROWS.— We shall find in the Gospels no theoiy of sorrow, or abstract discussion of the problem of pain and suffering. The problem is taken for granted, and a solution is given. The solution is experimental, and centres round the life of Christ. If we ask why sorrow comes, the an.swer is not speculative, but practical ; we are simply pointed to His experience (He 12). Accordingly, the method of this article will be to deal first with Christ as the Man of Sorrows, and afterwards with the meaning of sorrow in human life generally, and particularly in the life of the Christian.
1. The ' Man of Sorrows.' — The phrase comes from Is 53* (n'laxpD u'h ; LXX, dvepwiros ev nXtrffi iiiv ; Vulg. viruni dolorum).