Peter never imagined that he was capable of denying Christ. Humanly speaking, Peter behaved honorably and bravely - after all, by following the Teacher to the high priest's house, he took a risk. And as for his denying that he knew Him, that was an ordinary security tactic, one for which no one can be condemned... It is hard to object to such coherent reasoning, especially since, in times of persecution, many people have had to act exactly this way more than once. But then we read that Peter, feeling guilty, wept bitterly, and that means that something in his behavior did not fit within the acceptable rules of caution. We cannot condemn those who feel fear before persecutors; Jesus Himself did not condemn His secret disciples for not coming forward openly. But there is a time for everything, just as there is a time to gather stones and a time to throw them away. There are moments when every fear must be cast aside and we must bear witness to the One we know.

The trial of the Sanhedrin is preceded by mockery and beatings - in essence, it begins with them. The judges are not going to search for the truth: the verdict is already prepared. But the way the trial unfolds visibly shows us how the choice happens: Christ's testimony about Himself can either be accepted or rejected. Each person decides for himself, but those who reject Christ are troubled by His presence - they would like Him simply not to exist. Therefore rejection gives birth to the desire to destroy, to drag Him through the mud, to refuse to acknowledge the very reality of His existence. The desire to kill Christ did not arise on that day, but long before the trial, and it has not ended to this day. But until the end of time it will remain doomed to fail.

What happened was what had to happen, as Jesus had repeatedly foretold to His disciples. The world under the power of Satan could not endure its meeting with the Righteous One. It had either to die to sin itself, to change radically, to be reborn, or to pass a death sentence on this Man.

Having become disciples of Jesus, we must not forget this incompatibility of Christ and sin, not only in Him Himself, not only in our hearts, but also in the world. If we have truly found faith in Christ, then the choice inevitably stands before us: to die to ourselves and live with Him, or to join those who condemned Him to death two thousand years ago. Peter's denial shows that this choice does not change a person automatically, that his fears, weakness, and cowardice remain with him. Yet there is still an enormous difference between Peter, who wept bitterly over his denial, and the members of the Sanhedrin.

Everything was going so well. The court had gathered, and the verdict was ready... After all, everything was clear to everyone: this Son of Man had no place on earth. They had found a good charge (the way Al Capone would later be jailed for tax evasion!), and witnesses had been found, but no, it was not working; the accusation was falling apart, and everything was turning out awkwardly. Well then, all in: "Are You the Son of God?" Either He breaks and denies it, or He says "yes," and we declare that blasphemy.

Jesus' answer is admirable. On the one hand, it is a polite form of an affirmative answer, but on the other, as always with Him, it returns the question to the one asking it: "Think for yourself and make a responsible decision." What the "judges" say shows that they heard, but this does not affect the decision made in advance.

It is interesting that when our "unbelievers" doubt who Jesus is, they nevertheless call Him Christ, that is, God's Anointed One. So He answers them, as it were, silently: "You are saying who I am." And He leaves them the freedom to decide.