4:4. Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.—In verses 4 to 6 Israel and Judah are included in the same picture, and signify Papacy and established, corrupted Protestantism. The left side was a sign of less favor. Romanism kept on in sin and kept adding, multiplying evil deeds, until iniquity should come to the full (Gen. 15:16). A day in prophecy signifies a year in fulfillment. (Num. 14:34.) Ezekiel here represents the reformer class which had to endure the iniquities of Papacy, both by persecution and by the shame of seeing professed Christians believing grossest error. The iniquity of Papacy, the house of Israel, lay in the fact that the Reformers had shown them insistent proofs of their wrong course, and yet they continued in their own way, heedless of the Divine warnings. Hence less favor has been felt by Jehovah toward them than toward Protestantism.
4:5. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days; so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.—Upon the reform element was laid the burden of seeing the dupes of Papal priestcraft continually learning and living error. This was a burden upon conscience, and was repugnant to the enlightened mind of the reform element, known for centuries, in name at least, as Protestant. Priestcraft of the larger division of Christendom was to be under attack for 390 years, during which time the besieging element, the reformers, were to be protected from Papacy by the “iron wall” of the civil powers. This began in 1528 and ends in 1918. The year 1528 is one of the turning points of history. Protestantism in England and in Germany was in the balance. The sudden rise of Charles V of Germany to great power had [pg 394] emboldened Pope Clement to side with Charles. He induced the Emperor to support a measure designed to limit the spread of Protestantism, to be followed by its utter destruction. Under the proposed law no Protestant was to convert a Romanist to the reformed faith, nor would it be allowable for Protestantism to spread to other countries. It meant for all Protestants an end such as the Huguenots came to in France, the suppression of the Renaissance with its “increase of knowledge” (Dan. 12:4), and the end of the prosperous and comparatively enlightened civilization of modern times. The future of the whole world, and of the Divine Plan, was at stake! A general war was barely avoided to destroy Lutheranism. Philip Landgrave of Saxony discovered the plot, took arms, and in 1528 forced indemnity from a Catholic bishop. Other princes of Germany stood with Philip.
To quote from Dr. Peter Bayne, LL. D., the historian (“Martin Luther”), page 486: “These (the princes of the reformed faith) were inflexibly determined that the decree of the majority should not be assented to. Philip of Hesse, John of Saxony, Markgraf George the Pious of Brandenburg-Anspach, the Dukes of Lunenburg and Brunswick, the Prince of Anhalt, and the representatives of Strasburg, Nurnberg and twelve other free cities, entered a solemn protest against the prospective revolution. They were called Protestants! All, to this hour, who claim that Truth shall be unveiled, and that no Pope, or Kaiser, shall congeal the ever-advancing stream of progress and improvement, may take an honorable pride in tracing their spiritual descent to the intrepid Philip and the magnanimous and simple-hearted John.” (p. 481): “How thoroughly is the whole pageant of that war, 1528, erased from the memory of the present generation! And yet the effect of those events is not yet exhausted; nor would it be possible for any one without forming some comprehension of them, to understand how link added itself to link in the evolutionary chain of modern history.”
Thus Germany set up the iron wall of civic defense between the besieging Protestants and beleaguered Papacy. In England, too, the other great empire which has stood as an iron wall between the reform element and Papacy, the break with Rome began to take form in 1528. This was the year when Pope Clement appointed his legates, Correggio and Wolsey, to conduct the divorce trial of Queen Katherine of Aragon, at the behest of Henry VIII. (Rev. 8:8, 9.) As God raised up a willful, stubborn Pharaoh when He purposed to deliver the Hebrews from Egypt, so He raised up the lustful Henry VIII as the agent [pg 395] through whom the break should come between England and Rome. “The natural result” [of Henry's divorce proceedings], says A. F. Pollard, the historian, in his “Henry VIII,” “was the separation of England from Rome.” Thus did Divine wisdom use “the wrath of man to praise Him” and cause the “iron wall” of the civil, military and naval powers of the British Empire, Germany, and of the United States, to stand an impregnable barrier against the persecuting power of Great Babylon. Safe behind the iron wall, the reform element was able to live and grow in its camp and to keep up its siege of Roman Catholic priestcraft.
4:6. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.—The right side signifies less disfavor than to Papacy. The house of Judah represents Protestantism, the Protestant churches. Until 1878, when cast off by the returned and present Messiah, Protestantism enjoyed Divine favor, just as the two tribes, collectively called Judah, did as compared with the idolatrous ten tribes of Israel. After 1874 the Present Truth took the form of a general overhauling of creeds and the announcement of Christ's Second Presence. This was unanimously rejected by the Protestant churches; and organized Protestant ecclesiasticism from 1878 on for forty years became the Judah of this type, besieged on every side by the reform element, under the leadership of the steward of Divine Truth, Pastor Russell. Until 1918, Hebrew reckoning, beginning in the fall of 1917, the civil powers continue as a “wall of iron,” protecting the Lord's people in their witness against error.—Rev. 3:14; B. 66, 91.
4:7. Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it.—The Ezekiel class, the true Protestant reform class, during the 390 and the 40 years set themselves to the attack upon priestcraft. Pastor Russell seldom spoke without some words of objection to or warning about ecclesiasticism. The arm symbolizes power (E. 50, 47) and the uncovering of the arm is as when a man takes off his coat in attacking a task. The siege was to be carried on with energy. The reform element was to preach continually, not condoning or excusing priestcraft, but directly and pointedly attacking it.
4:8. And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.—God bound His true people to this work. The reform element were not to change their attitude, but continually to keep at the attack upon [pg 396] ecclesiastical corruption until the siege should end in 1918. The Hebrew year 1918, begins in October, 1917.
4:9. Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side; three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.—These grains represent different grades of spiritual food, each kind of food to be eaten by the kind of Christian represented by the food. Wheat represents the true Gospel of the Kingdom, as in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1-30), and is the food of the Little Flock. Barley among the Hebrews was little esteemed, for it was the price of an adulteress. (Hos. 3:2.) It signifies the spiritual food of a class guilty of spiritual adultery, unhallowed alliance with the world in the bringing forth of “strange” children. (Hos. 5:7.) Beans, lentiles, millet and fitches represent grades of food inferior to wheat (which contains every element to support life) and inferior even to barley. Their continued use as foods, causes physical deficiencies, weaknesses and disease. Lentiles are usually cultivated for fodder. Millet is still inferior. Symbolically it represents Christians who “have no depth of earth.” (Matt. 13:5.) Vetches, sometimes called “tares” or “prickly spelt,” are a very poor food. Their prickly nature suggests a type of hard-to-get-along-with Christians, and the kind of mental, moral and spiritual food that produces them. In with some of the true wheat, in established churchianity, as shown by verse 16, were to be gathered Christians of various degrees of development, each eating the kind of food corresponding to his Christian development, the wheat class assimilating the best of the Divine Word, and so on down to those who absorbed the poorest grade of spiritual provender, some of it food usually regarded as fit only for animals. This was the food the various classes should subsist on, each according to his capacity, from 1528 to 1918, and from 1878 to 1918.
4:10, 11. And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of a hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.—A shekel was half an ounce; twenty shekels were ten ounces. A hin was a gallon and a half. The sixth part of a hin was one quart. This was the daily ration, a starvation allowance. They were not to feed on it continuously, but on Sundays, or two or three times a week—“from time to time.” The people would, as a class, have a scanty spiritual subsistence during the siege period.
4:12. And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.—Cakes, made of this mixture, were used by the very poor in times of scarcity, depicting the scarcity of spiritual food among the followers of ecclesiasticism. The poor, not having stones or ovens, baked their bread or cakes on heated stones or in the fire, or roasted them by placing them between layers of dung, which burns slowly. Only the dung of animals was used ordinarily. No insult or defilement was greater than to turn a man's house into a receptacle for human excrement. (Deut. 23:12-14.) Our Lord associated human dung with “that which defileth a man.” (Matt. 15:11.) Luther spoke of the “dunghill of Roman decretals.” The human dung signifies human traditions, clerical additions to the Word of God.