An Overview of the Tribulation.

[EarlyActs]

I haven't made a study of that Greek word yet, but yes, I agree: the money-changers in Christ's days were most definitely "mercenaries" on behalf of their masters, the high priests, who were having them collect those fees when exchanging any foreign currency for the "mark of the Beast". This "mark" was the required Tyrian shekel that the high priesthood insisted everyone use for buying and selling sacrificial items in the Temple.

In a very real sense, yes, the money-changers were "money-laundering" all the foreign currency in exchange for the required "mark of the Beast" Tyrian shekel coins.

What year did the Tyrian shekel requirement start?

 

[3 Resurrections]

What year did the Tyrian shekel requirement start?

That was in 19 BC. The mint at Tyre had shut down, and cheaper-produced, degraded currency from the east was beginning to circulate. The high priests didn't like that the coinage was not as pure as it used to be, so they asked Rome if they could produce some coinage themselves for use in the temple in Israel that did have that famous, purer silver content that the Tyrian shekel had been known for.

Rome agreed to this unusual request, but as I wrote before, that concession was only on the condition that the Israelites keep producing their own coins with the same profane inscriptions and idolatrous images on them that the original Tyrian shekels had. This was in clear violation of God's ancient command to NOT take the abominable silver or gold of graven images of idols unto themselves or into their houses, since it was an "accursed thing" (Deut. 7:25-26). If you have ever studied the Tyrian shekel coin copy, you would understand just why the images and inscriptions on that coin were such an abominable affront to a righteous God.

Not only did the high priests disregard this original command from God, they then required that this abominable Tyrian shekel be the only coin accepted in the temple for transactions of selling or buying sacrificial items for worship - no exceptions for anyone, bond or free, rich or poor, small or great. All foreign currency had to be exchanged for the Tyrian shekel with an onerous fee demanded for each transaction.

I find it rather significant that this year of 19 BC aligns perfectly with the start of Herod's plans for renovating the temple. The high priests were worried that Herod would not finish those renovations, and would leave the Temple in a state of mid-renovation without completing them. So they needed Herod to prove up front that he had the funds and the materials to proceed with his plans. Surprise, surprise. Here comes a continuous, ready stream of revenue via the Tyrian shekel requirement exchange fees in 19 BC that could be used for funding those expensive renovations in that year. And it didn't cost Herod one thin dime...errr, denarius.

 

[EarlyActs]

That was in 19 BC. The mint at Tyre had shut down, and cheaper-produced, degraded currency from the east was beginning to circulate. The high priests didn't like that the coinage was not as pure as it used to be, so they asked Rome if they could produce some coinage themselves for use in the temple in Israel that did have that famous, purer silver content that the Tyrian shekel had been known for.

Rome agreed to this unusual request, but as I wrote before, that concession was only on the condition that the Israelites keep producing their own coins with the same profane inscriptions and idolatrous images on them that the original Tyrian shekels had. This was in clear violation of God's ancient command to NOT take the abominable silver or gold of graven images of idols unto themselves or into their houses, since it was an "accursed thing" (Deut. 7:25-26). If you have ever studied the Tyrian shekel coin copy, you would understand just why the images and inscriptions on that coin were such an abominable affront to a righteous God.

Not only did the high priests disregard this original command from God, they then required that this abominable Tyrian shekel be the only coin accepted in the temple for transactions of selling or buying sacrificial items for worship - no exceptions for anyone, bond or free, rich or poor, small or great. All foreign currency had to be exchanged for the Tyrian shekel with an onerous fee demanded for each transaction.

I find it rather significant that this year of 19 BC aligns perfectly with the start of Herod's plans for renovating the temple. The high priests were worried that Herod would not finish those renovations, and would leave the Temple in a state of mid-renovation without completing them. So they needed Herod to prove up front that he had the funds and the materials to proceed with his plans. Surprise, surprise. Here comes a continuous, ready stream of revenue via the Tyrian shekel requirement exchange fees in 19 BC that could be used for funding those expensive renovations in that year. And it didn't cost Herod one thin dime...errr, denarius.

references?

 

[Marilyn C]

It has always been an inference that Jesus comes to earth during the millennium, something certain eschatologies infer and not something scripture actually states.

Nowhere does the book of Revelation state Jesus physically comes to earth until the new city descends.

I have never said that Jesus will be on the earth in the millennium for that is not what I believe. Jesus` seat of power and authority is in the third heaven.

So, I ask you where does it state in God`s word that Jesus comes physically to the earth when the New Jerusalem descends?

 

[Josheb]

I have never said that Jesus will be on the earth in the millennium for that is not what I believe.

I know. I was just covering the base.

Jesus` seat of power and authority is in the third heaven.

Well, it's in heaven. Let's stick to the specific verses cited and not digress again. Psalm 110 explicitly states he'll be enthroned at God's right hand until the LORD defeats all his enemies. If that is true and correct, then ALL premillennial eschatologies are wrong. He returns AFTER all the enemies are defeated. Not before and not during. That uniformly reconciles with Revelation because Revelation does not have him coming back until the end (when the new city descends). That is one of the "bookends" to the tribulation's timeframe (which is the specific subject being discussed ).

So, I ask you where does it state in God`s word that Jesus comes physically to the earth when the New Jerusalem descends?

He is the tree in the midst of the city from which the river flows. Whether literal or allegorical the fact remain is he does not come to earth until that point in Revelation, not before.

My original comments were about the verses used in Post #4. The claims made in that post do not reconcile with the verses cited and I showed that in Posts 116 and 117. I appreciate the well-mannered exchange, but I'd like to make sure the original matter has been addressed: Post 4 is incorrect. I'll gladly move on to other content in this thread once the matter of Post 4 is resolved. I'll even let you ask me any op-relevant question you like, just to show parity .

 

[Marilyn C]

He is the tree in the midst of the city from which the river flows. Whether literal or allegorical the fact remain is he does not come to earth until that point in Revelation, not before.

Mmmmm.....remember you seem to like to have the actual word in the context. Also see that the city comes down out of heaven FROM GOD.

`Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven FROM GOD,....` (Rev. 21: 2)

 

[Josheb]

Mmmmm.....remember you seem to like to have the actual word in the context. Also see that the city comes down out of heaven FROM GOD.

`Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven FROM GOD,....` (Rev. 21: 2)

Yep.


Posts 4, 116 and 117, please. No more red herrings.

 

[Marilyn C]

Yep.


Posts 4, 116 and 117, please. No more red herrings.

Just before I answer to posts 4, 116 & 117 we need to always have more than one scripture for a fuller picture of what God`s word is saying.

So... we both agree that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father -

`Far above principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come...` (Eph. 1: 21)

This clearly tells us that the Lord Jesus Christ will be ruling `far above all` `....not only in this age but in the one to come..` Jesus will rule from His seat of power and authority throughout all of God`s great kingdom. He will not be physically ruling from the earth or the New Jerusalem.

 

[3 Resurrections]

references?

I should probably provide these in a separate post, since it was not part of the Great Tribulation period which is the subject of this post. The Tyrian shekel requirement ended when the Great Tribulation broke out in AD66.

 

[Josheb]

Just before I answer to posts 4, 116 & 117 we need to always have more than one scripture for a fuller picture of what God`s word is saying.

No.

Post 4 states what it states. What it states does NOT reconcile with what the verses cited state. That alone is a very plain, simple, and blunt matter. It does not matter what other verses state (or what they are made to say). What matters is the very plain, objectively observable fact Post 4's statements are not what the four scriptures cited themselves state.

And once this is brought to a person's attention the correct answer should be an immediate and unequivocal, "I made a mistake."

It should not take three or four pages of posts and multiple exchanges. The question then becomes "Why?" Was it an "honest mistake," a mistake made unwittingly, and one easily addressed by stating the factual truths of what is stated in scripture? Or was the mistake deliberate, a willful effort to misrepresent scripture and thereby guide others into error? Or was this mistake a result of placing trusting the teachings of others who were the original mistake-makers only to now realize their misuse of scripture should have been checked and verified before posting it?

I suspect it was lessons learned from others, but you have gone on the record stating the graphic was your own work. I am willing to accept Post 4 is an honest mistake easily corrected but the repeated efforts to avoid a frank, forthcoming, direct acknowledgment the verses themselves and Post 4 do not match undermines that premise.

So... we both agree that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father -

Yes.

I would even add more to that but the other relevant verses are NOT relevant to the fact claims made about Psalm 2 and 110, Zech 6 and Dan. 7 are incorrect.

I will not digress into discussing what follows with you until the errors in Post for are corrected but here is a good faith example of how "we always need to have more than one scripture. The phrase "right hand" need not be about physical location or geography. For example, Exodus 15:6 states, "Your right hand, O LORD, is majestic in power, Your right hand, O LORD, shatters the enemy." Is this an indication God's own right hand shatters enemies, or is this an indication the person sitting at his right hand does the shattering? Or are the two indicative of one another? Jesus is the power of God according to 1 Cor. 1:24. Many verses throughout scripture talk about the being seated at right hand of God's power, such as Mark 14:62's, "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Jesus being the power of God here on earth clearly occurs when he was not physically seated at the right hand of God's throne. There are 127 mentions of "right hand" in the Bible and many of them are not about physical location or geography. Culturally speaking, the "right hand" or "right arm" was a person delegated with the authority or power of his superior. A king's "right hand" or "right arm" might be anywhere in the king's kingdom serving as the king's right hand but not physically being geographically immediately next to the king at his right hand. Nowadays we say, "He's my right hand man." The phrase is used metaphorically in places like Psalm 16:8 where it is stated God is continually before the person at his right hand. Physically speaking both cannot be true at the same time and since the word "continually" is used we know the LORD cannot be at a person's physical right hand if He is continually before that person. Lastly, Psalm 110 states the Lord is seated at the LORD's right hand, but Revelation states Jesus is seated ON his Father's throne (see chapter 4). Revelation also states God is on the throne and the lamb is seated at His right hand (see chapter 5). When all these verses are compiled Jesus is said to is on a throne at God's right hand on God's throne as God's right hand.

So 1) I completely understand proof-texting is to be avoided because truth is best garnered by the use of whole scripture, and 2) I do not make claims about scripture apart from what it states but Post 4 did. I try as often as possible to stick to what is stated," and when I interpret scripture I acknowledge doing so and provide an exegetical basis for it.

I am asking you to do likewise.

The problem is Post #4 takes four scriptures and renders all of them incorrectly in Post 4. I am not interested in more of the same (which is what I received in later posts). I would like to clear up the problem in Post #4 before moving on to anything else. Can you, will you do that with me?

..we need to always have more than one scripture for a fuller picture of what God`s word is saying.

Yep. Which is exactly what I did with "footstool," and what Post 4 failed to do.

When other uses of "footstool" in scripture are examined, we find a much different understanding of Psalm 110's footstool is necessary, not just possible. We also find that the making of enemies into footstools may not be about judgment because there are other possibilities and regardless which possibility proves true when it comes to the tribulation time frame there is a judgment that comes after the tribulation.

The same sort of errors occurred with the misused of Zech. 6:5. Four spirits are sent out. That part is correct. But Zech 6:5 does NOT state they are sent out for judgment. The word "judgment" does not appear anywhere in that entire chapter! In fact, the words "judge, "judged," "judging," and/or "judgment" are used only ONCE in the entire book of Zechariah!!! If we leap ahead to the four angels (or spirits) sent out in Revelation we, again, find the words "judge," etc., etc. are absent. They are simply NOT there. In fact, prior to chapter 14, there are only two mentions of any judgment and the first one, found in chapter 6, asks why judgment is being delayed!!!

Therefore, Post 4 erred. Zech 6:5 does NOT stated four spirits are sent out into the world to bring judgment.

Lastly, Daniel 7 doesn't give a description of four great kingdoms and they are not said to be judged. There are five kingdoms and the first four are used to bring about the fifth when all of scripture is considered and Daniel 7 is viewed ecclesiologically and soteriologically instead of only eschatologically. I was endeavoring to be more succinct in Post 117 but since it has taken so long to address what, imo, could have been resolved in an exchange or two I will shed greater light on the problem (and hopefully its solution.

we need to always have more than one scripture for a fuller picture of what God`s word is saying.

Yes! Aside from making claims about fours scriptures that are not supported by what those scripture explicitly state, another problem is Post 4 failed to do "have more than one scripture" correctly, and many of the subsequent posts repeat the same error, and the most recent ones avoid the problems in Post 4. Let's wrap up the corrections needed in Post 4 and then move on to other matters related to the overview of the tribulation and its time frame. As I have already said, I'll even let you ask me an op-relevant question. I'll provide some parity because I don't want to be the only one asking questions.

I have suggested a very simple solution: Replace "judgment" with "wrath." It's not a perfect solution because there is only one place in Revelation where the spirits/angels/seals are explicitly associated with wrath during tribulation (Rev. 6:16-17).

I do not know why that was not immediately and succinctly addressed. Should take a single exchange of posts to resolve that matter even if you have a better alternative than mine.


Post 4, please. One succinct post if you're amenable.

 

[Josheb]

references?

I should probably provide these in a separate post, since it was not part of the Great Tribulation period which is the subject of this post. The Tyrian shekel requirement ended when the Great Tribulation broke out in AD66.

I've been lurking that set of exchanges. I'd like to see the source materials for that line of evidence, too. So please do post the references or resources.

 

[EarlyActs]

I should probably provide these in a separate post, since it was not part of the Great Tribulation period which is the subject of this post. The Tyrian shekel requirement ended when the Great Tribulation broke out in AD66.

That's not too removed.

 

[Marilyn C]

No.

Post 4 states what it states. What it states does NOT reconcile with what the verses cited state. That alone is a very plain, simple, and blunt matter. It does not matter what other verses state (or what they are made to say). What matters is the very plain, objectively observable fact Post 4's statements are not what the four scriptures cited themselves state.

And once this is brought to a person's attention the correct answer should be an immediate and unequivocal, "I made a mistake."

It should not take three or four pages of posts and multiple exchanges. The question then becomes "Why?" Was it an "honest mistake," a mistake made unwittingly, and one easily addressed by stating the factual truths of what is stated in scripture? Or was the mistake deliberate, a willful effort to misrepresent scripture and thereby guide others into error? Or was this mistake a result of placing trusting the teachings of others who were the original mistake-makers only to now realize their misuse of scripture should have been checked and verified before posting it?

I suspect it was lessons learned from others, but you have gone on the record stating the graphic was your own work. I am willing to accept Post 4 is an honest mistake easily corrected but the repeated efforts to avoid a frank, forthcoming, direct acknowledgment the verses themselves and Post 4 do not match undermines that premise.

Yes.

I would even add more to that but the other relevant verses are NOT relevant to the fact claims made about Psalm 2 and 110, Zech 6 and Dan. 7 are incorrect.

I will not digress into discussing what follows with you until the errors in Post for are corrected but here is a good faith example of how "we always need to have more than one scripture. The phrase "right hand" need not be about physical location or geography. For example, Exodus 15:6 states, "Your right hand, O LORD, is majestic in power, Your right hand, O LORD, shatters the enemy." Is this an indication God's own right hand shatters enemies, or is this an indication the person sitting at his right hand does the shattering? Or are the two indicative of one another? Jesus is the power of God according to 1 Cor. 1:24. Many verses throughout scripture talk about the being seated at right hand of God's power, such as Mark 14:62's, "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Jesus being the power of God here on earth clearly occurs when he was not physically seated at the right hand of God's throne. There are 127 mentions of "right hand" in the Bible and many of them are not about physical location or geography. Culturally speaking, the "right hand" or "right arm" was a person delegated with the authority or power of his superior. A king's "right hand" or "right arm" might be anywhere in the king's kingdom serving as the king's right hand but not physically being geographically immediately next to the king at his right hand. Nowadays we say, "He's my right hand man." The phrase is used metaphorically in places like Psalm 16:8 where it is stated God is continually before the person at his right hand. Physically speaking both cannot be true at the same time and since the word "continually" is used we know the LORD cannot be at a person's physical right hand if He is continually before that person. Lastly, Psalm 110 states the Lord is seated at the LORD's right hand, but Revelation states Jesus is seated ON his Father's throne (see chapter 4). Revelation also states God is on the throne and the lamb is seated at His right hand (see chapter 5). When all these verses are compiled Jesus is said to is on a throne at God's right hand on God's throne as God's right hand.

So 1) I completely understand proof-texting is to be avoided because truth is best garnered by the use of whole scripture, and 2) I do not make claims about scripture apart from what it states but Post 4 did. I try as often as possible to stick to what is stated," and when I interpret scripture I acknowledge doing so and provide an exegetical basis for it.

I am asking you to do likewise.

The problem is Post #4 takes four scriptures and renders all of them incorrectly in Post 4. I am not interested in more of the same (which is what I received in later posts). I would like to clear up the problem in Post #4 before moving on to anything else. Can you, will you do that with me?

Yep. Which is exactly what I did with "footstool," and what Post 4 failed to do.

When other uses of "footstool" in scripture are examined, we find a much different understanding of Psalm 110's footstool is necessary, not just possible. We also find that the making of enemies into footstools may not be about judgment because there are other possibilities and regardless which possibility proves true when it comes to the tribulation time frame there is a judgment that comes after the tribulation.

The same sort of errors occurred with the misused of Zech. 6:5. Four spirits are sent out. That part is correct. But Zech 6:5 does NOT state they are sent out for judgment. The word "judgment" does not appear anywhere in that entire chapter! In fact, the words "judge, "judged," "judging," and/or "judgment" are used only ONCE in the entire book of Zechariah!!! If we leap ahead to the four angels (or spirits) sent out in Revelation we, again, find the words "judge," etc., etc. are absent. They are simply NOT there. In fact, prior to chapter 14, there are only two mentions of any judgment and the first one, found in chapter 6, asks why judgment is being delayed!!!

Therefore, Post 4 erred. Zech 6:5 does NOT stated four spirits are sent out into the world to bring judgment.

Lastly, Daniel 7 doesn't give a description of four great kingdoms and they are not said to be judged. There are five kingdoms and the first four are used to bring about the fifth when all of scripture is considered and Daniel 7 is viewed ecclesiologically and soteriologically instead of only eschatologically. I was endeavoring to be more succinct in Post 117 but since it has taken so long to address what, imo, could have been resolved in an exchange or two I will shed greater light on the problem (and hopefully its solution.

Yes! Aside from making claims about fours scriptures that are not supported by what those scripture explicitly state, another problem is Post 4 failed to do "have more than one scripture" correctly, and many of the subsequent posts repeat the same error, and the most recent ones avoid the problems in Post 4. Let's wrap up the corrections needed in Post 4 and then move on to other matters related to the overview of the tribulation and its time frame. As I have already said, I'll even let you ask me an op-relevant question. I'll provide some parity because I don't want to be the only one asking questions.

I have suggested a very simple solution: Replace "judgment" with "wrath." It's not a perfect solution because there is only one place in Revelation where the spirits/angels/seals are explicitly associated with wrath during tribulation (Rev. 6:16-17).

I do not know why that was not immediately and succinctly addressed. Should take a single exchange of posts to resolve that matter even if you have a better alternative than mine.


Post 4, please. One succinct post if you're amenable.

As I`ve said before you need to be patient. And thank you for more of your view, as it helps me to understand what you believe.

 

[Marilyn C]

That is not what either text states.

Psalm 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Christ's enemies are made a footstool, NOT brought to his footstool.

Psalm 2:1-3
Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!"

No mention of being brought to Jesus' footstool for judgment.


Why are the words of scripture being changed and why is scripture being made to say things it does NOT state and cannot be made to say? Please answer that question.

Hi Josheb,

Yes, I see that distinction – not `to His footstool,` but `made a footstool.` Thank you.

 

[Marilyn C]

Let's see what Zech 6:5 states.

Zechariah 6:1-8
Now I lifted up my eyes again and looked, and behold, four chariots were coming forth from between the two mountains; and the mountains were bronze mountains. With the first chariot were red horses, with the second chariot black horses, with the third chariot white horses, and with the fourth chariot strong dappled horses. Then I spoke and said to the angel who was speaking with me, "What are these, my lord?" The angel replied to me, "These are the four spirits of heaven, going forth after standing before the Lord of all the earth, with one of which the black horses are going forth to the north country; and the white ones go forth after them, while the dappled ones go forth to the south country. When the strong ones went out, they were eager to go to patrol the earth." And He said, "Go, patrol the earth." So they patrolled the earth. Then He cried out to me and spoke to me saying, "See, those who are going to the land of the north have appeased My wrath in the land of the north."

Notice the angels leave heaven. They are not bringing anyone to Jesus as a footstool for judgment. Jesus is still in heaven and the angels leave the "Lord of all the earth," who is still in heaven. Notice also that one of the angels goes to the north where the passage tells us God's wrath has been appeased.

In Zech. 6: 1 – 8 we read of `mountains of bronze.` That is symbolic of judgment.

In Num. 21: 9 we read of the bronze serpent, referring to the Lord taking our judgment upon the cross.

Then in Rev. 1: 15 the Lord`s feet were described as `like fine brass.` referring to the uprightness of all Christ`s dealings. He is perfectly just, never misjudges, miscalculates or misunderstands any case in question.

One of the four spirits, symbolized by the chariots, go to the north country where the Lord`s wrath is appeased. God would have made a judgment for that to come about.

 

[Marilyn C]

Aside from the fact there are four kingdoms described in Daniel 7, there is no mention of any of that in any of God judging them before "He sets up His millennial kingdom" in any of the texts cited. The facts of Daniel 7 are that there are five kingdoms mentioned, not four, and the last of the five is Christ's. Daniel 7 states,

Dan. 7 describes the 4 Gentile kingdoms that God judges. We are given a look at the High court Judge and the heavenly court, from which there is no appeal, pronounce the judgment.

`the Ancient of Days came, and a judgement was made in favour of the saints of the Most High.` (Dan. 7: 22)

 

[Josheb]

Hi Josheb,

Yes, I see that distinction – not `to His footstool,` but `made a footstool.` Thank you.

Then say it: "Post 4 is wrong."

Then......

Repost post 4 correctly. It'll end up being Post 181 (or something like that), but we can call it "Post 4B" and work from there.

 

[Josheb]

As I`ve said before you need to be patient. And thank you for more of your view, as it helps me to understand what you believe.

It is not merely what I "believe." What I posted is what scripture states. This should be helping you understand what scripture states. It does neither of us any good to understand one another if none of it reconciles with what scripture states. I can turn on Christian radio any day of the week and hear purportedly well-educated, long-practiced, professionals with letters after their name telling me what scripture "says" when it states no such thing. When asked questions we often answer, "What does scripture say?" when we should be asking, "What does scripture state?"

Start with what is stated.

If and when scripture appears to state multiple different statements, then an examination of the whole is in order and not a few verses here and a few verses there jammed together to support an already existing set of beliefs.

Psalm 110 does NOT state, "God the Father said He would bring the Lord`s enemies to His footstool, for judgment," and what Psalm 110 does state cannot and should not be made to say that, either. Neither does Psalm 2.

Post 4 is incorrect.

It has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs. Ten people can read Psalm 110 objectively and then read Post 4 objectively and objectively see the two do not match. 100 people could do the same. Ten thousand million gazillion people could read Psalm 110 and look ONLY at what is stated in that psalm and see that post 4 does not match Psalm 110. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. Please stop trying to make this about my beliefs and look only at what Psalm 110 states. It does not state God brings Jesus' enemies to his footstool. What it actually, specifically, explicitly states is He makes the enemies a footstool.

And because the earth is God's footstool (therefore Jesus already has the earth as his footstool) it become necessary to examine all that scripture states about any "footstool" so we correctly understand Psalm 110 because scripture never contradicts itself (but it does often use the same word for different conditions ).

It boils down to one single simple fact: Objectively speaking, regardless of what else anyone anywhere believes.....

Post 4 is incorrect.

It needs to be corrected if the overview and timeframe of the tribulation is also to be correct.

 

[Josheb]

Hi Josheb,

Yes, I see that distinction – not `to His footstool,` but `made a footstool.` Thank you.

Then say it: Post 4 is incorrect.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It does not state God brings Jesus' enemies to his footstool. What it actually, specifically, explicitly states is He makes the enemies a footstool.

This is an important distinction that you are highlighting. Becoming a footstool for God is a blessing. In judgment on ancient Israel connected to Jerusalem's destruction by Babylon, God said this involved His rejection of His footstool in Jerusalem. As in Lamentations 2:1, which says, "How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger!" This was the footstool which David referred to when he said, "Hear me my brethren, and my people; As for me, I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God, and had made ready for the building:"

A footstool is where a suppliant can have direct access to communication with a potentate and have their petition heard. To actually BECOME that footstool means that God has direct communication with that individual - such as having the Holy Spirit implanted within us.