From Darius the Mede to the persecution of UOC: Lessons of the lions' den
Another story from the Book of Daniel helps us understand why Daniel ended up in the lions' den, and the UOC – in the crucible of persecution? The reason is the same.
In the previous article on the lessons from the Book of Daniel, we analysed the of the Jewish youths in the furnace of Babylon. But the trials of the Jews captured by Nebuchadnezzar did not end there. In Chapter 5 of the Book of Daniel, it is described how one of Nebuchadnezzar's heirs, Belshazzar, became so proud that during a feast he ordered to bring in the goblets taken by Nebuchadnezzar taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, “the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them” (Dan. 5:3), thereby subjecting them to humiliation and desecration. But then something terrible happened: “Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall, near the lampstand in the royal palace. The king watched the hand as it wrote” (Dan. 5:5). The hand wrote four words: "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin." No one in the entire Persian kingdom could explain the meaning of these words, and only the prophet Daniel told the king their meaning: "Mene – God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end; Tekel – You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting; Parsin – Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians" (Dan. 5:26-28). This prophecy came true very soon: “That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom, at the age of sixty-two.” (Dan. 5:30-31)
Darius not only kept Daniel at court but elevated him even more. “It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom” (Dan. 6:1-3). In the article about the Babylonian furnace, we already mentioned the pattern that often appointed as their highest dignitaries those who came from conquered nations. By doing so, they created a power structure that minimised the possibility of conspiracy against the monarch. The officials from the titular nation would feud with the outsiders, and the monarch became the supreme judge to whom both sides would appeal to resolve conflicts, thus preventing them from uniting against him. This is exactly what happened in the Babylonian kingdom.
“At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent” (Dan. 6:4). These administrators and satraps began searching for compromising material on Daniel to discredit him before the king. But such compromising material simply did not exist. The Scripture does not tell us why the satraps wanted to kill Daniel, but we can assume that the reason was the satraps' own abuse of power. They were probably unjustly enriching themselves by abusing their positions, perhaps embezzling from the treasury (misappropriating the budget, as we would say today), and Daniel as an honest official was obstructing them. It should be noted that the goal was to destroy Daniel, and dirt on him was just a means to that end. In other words, it wasn't about the compromising material, but about the satraps' malice toward Daniel and their desire to remove him.
If we look at the situation around the UOC, we see a similar picture. All the accusations levelled against the Church are not the real reason for the persecution but merely pretexts. The real reason lies in the simple desire to destroy the UOC. There should be no Church in Ukraine. This decision was made in Bankova, in Phanar, and in some part of the American establishment. And the search for dirt began. Searches were conducted in monasteries, eparchial administrations, among individual hierarchs and Orthodox journalists. What was found did not amount to serious compromising material: old Russian magazines, messages from Patriarch Kirill, often forged, spiritual literature from Russian publishers, etc. The UOC was accused of not performing funeral services for fallen soldiers, but this is not true: we conduct funeral services for all baptized Orthodox Christians except those who joined another denomination during their lifetime. The UOC was accused of not helping the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but this is also not true: millions of hryvnias, hundreds of vehicles, tons of food and medicine were given to Ukrainian soldiers and war-affected civilians – all this refutes the accusations against the UOC. However, the enemies of the UOC did manage to find a clue. Again, it is exactly as described in the Book of Daniel.
“And these men said, 'We will not find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God'" (Dan. 6:5). The satraps went to Darius and persuaded him to issue a decree that anyone who prays to any god or human being during the next thirty days, except to the king, shall be thrown into the lions' den. It did not take long to persuade the king, as kings considered themselves gods or messengers of gods, so the obvious flattery in this case fell on fertile ground. But for Daniel, this was a trap, as he prayed to the One True God three times a day.
Similarly, in relation to the UOC, the authorities, represented by the chief religious officer V. Yelensky, made a demand to sever all ties with the ROC, fully understanding that this was uncanonical and that the UOC would not comply. The exact quote is: “The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate continues to be 'de jure' part of the Russian Church, so now is the right moment to finally leave its structure. This will greatly change the attitude of Ukrainian society towards it.” Translated into plain language, this is a demand to proclaim autocephaly, because the UOC declared its full autonomy and independence at the Council in Feofania on May 27, 2022. But this was not enough for the Ukrainian authorities; they demand that this specific word, “autocephaly”, be proclaimed.
At first glance, it might seem that this could be a way out of the situation, but in reality, it is a trap. The fact is that in canon law there are no norms regulating the granting of autocephaly. Many Local Churches unilaterally proclaimed autocephaly, after which the Local Church from which they separated declared them schismatics and imposed various canonical punishments: a ban from the priesthood, defrocking, and so on. After some time, communication was restored, but the break could last a very long time; for example, the Bulgarian schism lasted over 100 years. At the same time, there is a very significant difference between these historical precedents and today's church situation in Ukraine. All the Local Churches at the time of separation and the proclamation of autocephaly were united and in communion with the entire Church. In Ukraine, however, there is the OCU, which emerged from the merger of the followers of the excommunicated Filaret Denisenko and the Autocephalous Church members, who "ordained" their first "hierarch" Vasyl Lypkivsky through the laying-on-of-hands by presbyters, and which is recognised by four of the fourteen Local Churches. And there is the UOC recognised by all but not as an autocephalous Church. Orthodoxy in Ukraine (in the sociological sense of the word, not the ontological one) is, in fact, divided. Therefore, the proclamation of autocephaly by the UOC would lead to there being two schismatic (albeit to different extents) confessions in Ukraine. Moreover, some Local Orthodox Churches would recognise one, while others would recognize the other. All this would lead to canonical chaos and the loss of spiritual guidance for believers. If now the UOC is recognised as the grace-filled Church of Christ by all without exception, then if it proclaimed autocephaly, a significant part of the Local Churches, if not all, would consider the UOC schismatic and break communion with it. Could the UOC go for this? Certainly, not. But that was exactly what the Ukrainian authorities need to accuse it of still being part of the ROC and not wanting to become independent. Something similar happened with the prophet Daniel.
“Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help. So they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: ‘Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or human being except to you, Your Majesty, would be thrown into the lions’ den? The king answered, ‘The decree stands—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.’ Then they said to the king, ‘Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, Your Majesty, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day.'” (Dan. 6:11-13)
Darius the Mede found himself a hostage to his own decrees, and no matter how hard he tried to save his wisest official, he was still forced to order him thrown into the lions' den. And when the satraps were already celebrating their victory over Daniel, something happened that they had not foreseen at all.
“At the first light of dawn, the king got up and hurried to the lions’ den. When he came near the den, he called to Daniel in an anguished voice, ‘Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to rescue you from the lions?’ Daniel answered, ‘May the king live forever! My God sent his angel, and he shut the mouths of the lions. They have not hurt me, because I was found innocent in his sight. Nor have I ever done any wrong before you, Your Majesty.’ The king was overjoyed and gave orders to lift Daniel out of the den. And when Daniel was lifted from the den, no wound was found on him, because he had trusted in his God.” (Dan. 6:19-23)
Here, just as in the situation with the youths in the fiery furnace of Babylon, we see only Daniel's patience and firm standing in faith, a readiness to suffer but not to sin before God. Daniel did not try to persuade the king to change his decision. Neither did he offer compromises, nor try to escape from the den himself. He simply stood in the midst of mortal danger and endured, relying on God's mercy. And then the king himself came to him and called him out. This is the lesson - one must endure everything that God wants to send for a trial, one must humbly wait for God's good will to end the trial, and most importantly, one must not break down.
The story doesn't end there. The Book of Daniel recounts what happened to the deceitful and envious satraps: "At the king’s command, the men who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in and thrown into the lions’ den, along with their wives and children. And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones." (Dan. 6:24)
Of course, no one wishes such a fate upon the persecutors of the UOC, especially along with their families. But history shows that persecutors of the Church, if they did not repent, often ended very poorly. The history of the Communists, who destroyed churches and executed priests, is full of such stories. Often, the punishment affected not only the direct perpetrators but also their families. This is simply a historical fact. And since this fact is very well known to the Church, the clergy and believers of the UOC are quick to beseech God not to punish their oppressors. "Forgive them, Lord, for they do not know what they are doing," is a prayer heard both at the site of the destroyed Tithe Church in Kyiv and during the brutal seizures of churches and monasteries, when believers were beaten to the bloodshed.
One day, the trials will end, and both the persecutors and the persecuted will receive what they each deserve. However, it is beneficial for both sides to learn the lessons of the Holy Scripture now.
