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.

The Destruction of Judas

(Matthew 27:3-10).

Only the Evangelist Matthew tells us about the further fate of Judas the traitor. "When Judas saw Him, betraying Him, as you would condemn Him, he repented, return the thirty pieces of silver as a bishop and an elder" – it is possible, of course, that Judas did not expect a death sentence for Jesus, or in general, blinded by the love of money, did not think about the consequences to which his betrayal would lead. When his Master was condemned, his conscience, already satiated with the possession of silver, suddenly awoke in him: all the horror of his insane act appeared before it. He repented, but, unfortunately for him, this repentance was combined in him with despair, and not with hope for the all-forgiving mercy of God. This repentance is only an unbearable torment of conscience, without any hope of correction, which is why it is fruitless, useless, and why it drove Judas to suicide. "Returned thirty pieces of silver" — what had seemed so tempting to him a short time ago, now that his conscience had spoken, seemed disgusting to him. Such is every sin in general. He should not have thrown down the pieces of silver before the chief priests, but had himself prostrated himself before the Lord Jesus Christ, beseeching Him for the forgiveness of his sin, and then, of course, he would have been forgiven. But he thinks, without help from above, by his own efforts alone, to somehow correct what he has done: he returns the silver, bearing witness at the same time: "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." This testimony, in the words of St. Chrysostom, multiplies the guilt of both him and them, the high priests: "His because he did not repent, or repented, but it was too late, and pronounced condemnation for himself, for he himself confessed that he had betrayed the Lord in vain; multiplies their guilt because, while they could have repented and changed their thoughts, they did not repent." They treated Judas heartlessly, coldly, and mockingly: "What have we to do with that? See for yourself." This indicates their extreme moral coarseness. "And having cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, he went out: he went and hanged himself." He threw the money they had not taken from his hands in the church, thinking, perhaps, by this to calm the torments of his conscience, but in vain: these torments drove him to such despair that he went and hanged himself, after which he probably fell from the height on which he hung, since Ap. Peter in the book. Acts (1:18) testifies that "when he was cast down, his belly was split open, and all his intestines fell out."

For all their depravity, the chief priests nevertheless recognized that it was impossible to use this money for the benefit of the temple — "to invest it in the korban," that is, in the treasury of the church, since it was the "Price of Blood." However, they were probably based on Deut. 23:18, and in this case their extremely evil feeling towards the Lord Jesus Christ was revealed, as it was also revealed in the fact that they appreciated His betrayal with 30 pieces of silver. The Pharisees are strikingly characterized by this desire to fulfill a less important law while violating a more important one — not to condemn the innocent. "With them she bought a village of skudelniche" – the field of a well-known potter, good for nothing, since clay was dug there and pots were burned, "For the burial of strangers" – Jews and proselytes, who gathered in great numbers in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover and other great feasts. Then the words of Jeremiah the prophet came to pass: "And having accepted thirty pieces of silver, the price of the Precious One, the children of Israel valued it: "And they gave a potter for the land." We do not find anything similar to these words in the prophet Jeremiah: the only place in 32:7 speaks of the fact of buying a field at all. It is possible that this is an insertion by a later copyist. Similar sayings are found in another prophet, Zechariah, in 11:12-13. Chapters 18-19 of the prophet Jeremiah also speak of the potter, and it is possible that Zechariah took his image from there. In addition, in ancient times it was customary to abbreviate proper names, and it is possible that the scribe, instead of the name of Zechariah (ZRIU), mistakenly put the name of Jeremiah (IRIU). The meaning of this passage from the book of the prophet Zechariah is as follows: the prophet was appointed by God to shepherd the sheep of the house of Israel, as the representative of the Supreme Shepherd of God. The Jews did not heed the prophet, that is, they did not heed God Himself. In order to clearly show the Jews how little they value the care of the prophet and, consequently, God Himself, God commands the prophet to ask them: what payment will they give him for his pastoral labors? They gave him the price of a slave – 30 pieces of silver, that is, they valued the works of the prophet and, consequently, of God Himself for them, as insignificant, as the works of a slave. Then God said to the prophet, "Throw them into the storehouse of the church, the high (irony, of course) price they have valued Me! And I took (says the prophet) thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter (Zech. 11:11-12). This prophecy was fulfilled in the tradition of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Jews valued their Good Shepherd Jesus Christ at 30 pieces of silver — the price of a slave — and with this money they then bought a field from a potter.

At Pilate's trial

(Matt. 27:1-2, 11-32; Mark 15:1-19; Luke 23:1-25 and John 18:28-19:16).

"And having bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him up to Pontius Pilate the governor" — From the time of the subjugation of Judea to the Romans, the Sanhedrin was deprived of the right to punish criminals with death, which is also evident from John. 18:31. The stoning of Stephen was an arbitrary act. According to the law, those accused of blasphemy were stoned, but the Jews, unconsciously fulfilling the will of God, wanted to give the Lord Jesus Christ a more shameful death – crucifixion – and for this purpose, after the death sentence had been pronounced by the Sanhedrin, they took Him to the Pontius Pilate hegemon, that is, the governor.