"I adjure Thee" was the usual formula of the incantation, when the court demanded that the accused answer the question of the accusers and answer the truth, calling God as a witness. To such a direct question, and even under a curse, the Lord could not but answer, especially since He no longer had any need to conceal His Messianic Divine dignity, but on the contrary had to solemnly testify to it. And He answers, "Thou hast said," that is, "Yes, it is true, I am the Christ," and to this He adds, "From henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." This, of course, is a reference to Psalm 109:1, which depicts the Messiah as sitting at the right hand of God, as well as to the prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14 about the Messiah as the "Son of Man" coming on the clouds of heaven. By this the Lord wanted to say that all these impious judges of Him would soon see in many signs and wonders the manifestation of His Divine power as the son of God. "Then the high priest tore his garments and said, 'He blasphemes!'" – tearing the garments among the Jews was a common expression of sorrow and lamentation.

The high priest was forbidden to tear his clothes (Lev. 10:6; 21:10), and thus, by tearing his clothes, Caiaphas wanted to express his special sorrow, which even made him forget this prohibition. Of course, it was only hypocrisy on his part to declare the Lord's recognition of Himself as the Messiah – blasphemy. "What do you think?" – What is your opinion about this? Caiaphas asks those present, and receives the desired answer: "Guilty of death." As if they were already a condemned criminal, they began to abuse and mock Christ: they spat in His face, as a sign of extreme contempt and humiliation, they struck Him, beat Him on the head, on the cheeks, and, mocking, asked: "Prophesy to us, Christ, who struck You?" The latter shows that the whole trial was only a crude act, under which bloodthirsty bestial malice was hidden. They were not judges, but beasts who could not hide their fury.

Peter's Denial

(Matt. 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:55-62; John 18:16-18, 25-27).

The denial of Peter is narrated by all four Evangelists, although in their narrations a certain difference is immediately striking. However, this difference does not in the least concern the essence of the matter: the Evangelists only supplement and explain each other, so that from the comparison of all their testimonies an accurate and complete history of this incident is composed.

Peter was at the time of the trial of the Lord, first with Annas, and then with Caiaphas, in the same courtyard of the high priest's house, where he was led by the doorkeeper at the request of St. John, an acquaintance of the high priest. The fact that it was one and the same courtyard of the common high priestly house, in different sections of which the two high priests Annas and Caiaphas lived, removes the seeming contradiction between the narratives of the Evangelist John, on the one hand, and the other three Evangelists, on the other hand. St. John presents the denials as beginning in the court of Annas and ending there, and the other three Evangelists, who make no mention of the Lord's interrogation by Annas, present the matter as if all three denials took place in the court of the high priest Caiaphas. It is clear that it was the same common courtyard. When, with the assistance of John, who was known to the high priest, Peter entered the courtyard of the high priest, the doorkeeper who was leading him in, according to St. John, said to him: "And you are not one of the disciples of this man?"

However, the maidservant did not leave him alone and, according to St. Mark (14:67), gazing into his face illuminated by fire, affirmatively said: "And you were with Jesus of Nazareth," and also said to others: "This is one of them" (Luke 22:36). Then Peter continued the same denial, saying: "I do not know Him" (Luke 22:57), "I do not know and do not understand what you say" (Mark 14:68 and Matt. 26:70). Thus was accomplished the first renunciation, which began at the gate and ended at the fire. As St. Mark testifies, Peter, apparently wishing to get rid of the intractable doorkeeper, went away from the fire to the front of the courtyard, on the vestibule, to the gate, in order to flee in case of need. So a lot of time passed. Seeing him again, the same maidservant (Mark 14:69) began to say to those standing there: "This is one of them." She was joined by another maidservant (Matthew 26:71), who also said, "This one was with Jesus of Nazareth." Someone else said to Peter: "And you are one of them" (Luke 22:58). Peter again changed his place and again stood by the fire, but even then some (John 18:25) began to say: "Are you not also one of His disciples?" About an hour passed after the second renunciation (Luke 22:59).

The morning dawn was approaching, and with it the usual "Singing" (Mark 13:35). The trial of the Lord ended with the high priest Caiaphas. Then one of the servants, a relative of Malchus, whose ear Peter had cut off, said to Peter, "Did I not see you with him in the garden?" (John 18:26), and another added: "And this one was with Him, for there is a Galilean, (Luke 1:26). 22:59), and then many began to say, "Surely you are one of them; for thou art a Galilean, and thy tongue is alike" (Mark 14:70), "And thy speech convicts thee" (Matt. 73). Fear came upon Peter, and he began to "worship and swear that he did not know this man. Then the rooster crowed a second time," as St. Mark testifies, undoubtedly from the words of Peter himself (Mark 14:71-72). The first time the crowed, according to St. Mark, after the first renunciation (v. 68). "Then the Lord turned and looked at Peter: and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, and went out, weeping bitterly" (Luke 22:61-62). Thus the third renunciation was performed, which, apparently, coincided with the moment when the Lord, already condemned and subjected to mockery and beatings, was taken out of the house of Caiaphas into the courtyard, where He was to await the morning (Luke 63-65) and a new, already official session of the Sanhedrin, at which the formal sentence was pronounced. From the crowing of the rooster and the glance cast at him by the Lord, a burning, bitter repentance arose in Peter's soul: he flees from the place of his fall and bitterly mourns it.

Good Friday

The sentence of the Sanhedrin

(Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1 and Luke 22:66-71)

This second, already official meeting of the Sanhedrin, is mentioned only briefly in one verse by the Evangelists Matthew and Mark; St. Luke speaks of him in more detail. This assembly was convened only for the purpose of observing the outward legality of the death sentence pronounced on Jesus at the night session. In the Talmud, where all the ancient Jewish laws are collected, it is said that in criminal cases the final pronouncement of the sentence should follow no earlier than the day after the beginning of the trial. But neither Caiaphas nor the Sanhedrin, of course, wanted to postpone the final condemnation of Jesus until after the feast of the Passover. Therefore, they were in a hurry to observe at least the form of a second trial. And the Sanhedrin met early at dawn, this time in a still greater number (joined by the scribes, as St. Luke 22:66 says), and this time not in the house of Caiaphas, but in the premises of the Sanhedrin, where Jesus was led, who had spent all the time until dawn in the high priestly court, mocked by the guards and the high priestly servants.

The Lord was brought into the session of the Sanhedrin and again asked: "Are you the Christ?", partly because there were new members who were not present at the night gathering, partly, perhaps, because they hoped to hear something new from the Lord. Before directly answering this question, the Lord rebukes them, showing that He, as the Knower of the Heart, knows their thoughts. The judgment was called only for the sake of form: the Lord's fate was already sealed anyway, no matter what He said. Therefore, the Lord answered: "If I tell you, you will not believe; but if I ask you, you will not answer Me and will not let Me go," that is, it is useless for Me to say: if I were to ask you what could lead to an explanation of My messianic dignity and to an explanation of your blindness, you would still not answer Me and would not give Me the opportunity to justify myself before you and be set free: but know this, that after all that is due to your wickedness, ye shall not see me except in the glory of my Father: "From henceforth the Son of Man shall sit at the right hand of the power of God."

"And so you are the Son of God?" they asked again insistently, and the Lord formally confirms this, answering: "You say that I am!" "I am the Son of God." Pleased that Jesus had openly declared Himself to be the Son of God and thus gave them the right to accuse Him of blasphemy, the members of the Sanhedrin declared it unnecessary to investigate the matter further and pronounced a death sentence on him. In practice, however, they did not dare to put anyone to death. Therefore, in order to confirm the death sentence, they had to obtain the consent of the Roman governor Pilate of Pontus.