Debate: Church/Israel

[steve]

Whenever people claim that amillennialism was a product of mixing Greek philosophy with Christianity, I have to scratch my head. My amillennialism arose from no other source than the plainest statements of the apostles, taken in their most literal form possible. I have never studied Greek philosophy, and I began with a premillennarian bias. My views were not influenced by any amillennial teachers (because I didn't know of any). I will be an amillennialist until someone can show me why I should not

1) allow Jesus and the inspired apostles to interpret Old Testament prophecy for me; and

2) take the literal statements of the apostles in a literal fashion, and allow them to inform my interpretation of the symbolic visions in Revelation.

These were the only considerations that led to my becoming an amillennialist. Therefore, I consider it to be disingenuous and naive to suggest that amillennialism arises because of the influence Greek philosophy. After all, some of the early premillennial fathers were Greek philosophers (e.g. Justin). Perhaps it is Greek philosophy that informed premillennialism?

[postpre]

Steve, I wonder what your take would be on the following:

"Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever."

Notice that Isaiah 9:7 is saying that Jesus will forever reign over David's Kingdom, which implies that the "throne of David" is not in heaven. Then, in Mark 11:

And many spread their clothes on the road, and others cut down leafy branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 Then those who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: "Hosanna! 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!' 10 Blessed is the kingdom of our father David That comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!"

Notice that David's kingdom was not yet present, which Jesus would one day rule over. And just in case we assume that the people got it wrong, Jesus' reaction (in Luke's parallel account in Luke 19) to the Pharisees is telling (who asked Jesus to rebuke them):

"I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out."

Brian

[steve]

Hi Brian,

You wrote:

Steve, I wonder what your take would be on the following:

"Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever."

Notice that Isaiah 9:7 is saying that Jesus will forever reign over David's Kingdom, which implies that the "throne of David" is not in heaven.

Why do you say that? I see nothing in the passage that says that the throne is not in heaven. Since the New Testament tells us repeatedly that Jesus is enthroned in heaven, I don't see how you can deny this.

I know! I know! Premillenialists usually insist that Messiah must sit on David's literal throne, in Jerusalem. However, this is an arbitrary requirement. The decorated seat that David sat upon has not existed for centuries. No one will be sitting on it. Solomon replaced it with one more suited to his tastes, but the fact that Solomon sat on a different chair than did David does not mean that we cannot say that Solomon sat on "the throne of David." It is just as if we were to say that Nebuchadnezzar sat on the throne of Nimrod. This would be true no matter how many gilded chairs of state had been introduced and retired over the centuries. It is not the physical chair itself, but the position, that is referred to as "the throne."

David ruled over Israel in his own day. Christ assumed the rule over Israel in his present session, and has reigned in that capacity since His ascension. Thus, Jesus is David's successor to the position of King over Israel. Israel, though, as the New Testament writers affirm, is the church, and Christ reigns over the true church as a head rules a body. To insist that He must someday leave His present position of "all authority in heaven and on earth" in order to be reduced to David's status and to rule over the tawdry realm of David is insulting to the dignity which the Father has vested in Him.

I understand the fulfillment of the davidic promises the same way that the angel of the annunciation, the inspired Zacharias, and the apostles, Peter and Paul, all took it. I would say that this line-up would trump Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

The angel told Mary:

“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” (Luke 1:30-33)

Dispensationalists can assert that the angel did not technically say that Jesus would sit on the throne of David anytime soon. However, since this is the announcement of His birth (not His second coming), we might expect the angel to say something remotely relevant. Why not mention the cross, or the establishment of the church, if these things were to be the only accomplishments of His first coming, and the kingdom of David was to be postponed for two millennia? However we may take it, Mary certainly would have understood this to be an announcement that the fulfillment of the davidic promises was commencing and near at hand. Even if she had not seen it that way, it is clear that Zacharias, when filled with the Spirit, prophesied to that effect:

“Blessed is the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited and redeemed His people,
And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
In the house of His servant David,
As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets" (Luke 1:68-70)

None can take these words seriously without seeing in them a recognition that the expected seed of David had now arrived to fulfill all that the prophets said about Him. But, if we wished to find a refuge in the claim that Mary and Zacharias were mistaken, because they did not know that the cross was coming, which would interrupt and postpone the enthronement, we would be stopped dead in our tracks by the apostles. They spoke after the cross, the resurrection and the ascension of Christ. Far from seeing these things as an interruption in the fulfillment of the davidic promises, they saw these events as the very fulfillment itself. So spoke Peter:

“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses...Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:29-36)

Note the points in Peter's theology here:

1) David was dead, fulfilling the precondition for God's setting one of David's sons on his throne, as mentioned in 2 Samuel 7:12;
2) David knew that God would raise up one of his son's to sit on his throne, and Jesus has in fact been raised up for that purpose;
3) This is not some future thing to look forward to: "God has made this Jesus...both Lord and Christ.” To make either the word "Lord" or the word "Christ" distinct in meaning from "the King of davidic ancestry" is to miss Peter's point so inexcusably as to seem almost deliberate.

Paul preached the same Gospel as did Peter. It was the Gospel (Good Tidings) of the Kingdom:

"And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.’" (Acts 13:24)

The quote is from Isaiah 55:3. It is clearly a reference to God fulfilling the merciful promises that He had made to David. Paul said that this fulfillment occurred as a result of Jesus' resurrection from the dead.

There is no New Testament statement that says that Jesus will assume the throne of David at His second coming—but all of the relevant passages associate this fulfillment with His first coming and His exaltation to the right hand of God. This should not be surprising. There are two factors in the promise made to David that preclude the identification of its fulfillment with a future millennium at the second coming of Christ. Look at the wording of the actual promise made to David about this:

“When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." (2 Samuel 7:12-13)

1) The time of the fulfillment will be "When...you [David] rest with you fathers [that is, in the tomb]," so the fulfillment could take place anytime after David's death and before David's resurrection. As Peter pointed out, David was still dead and buried in his time, meeting the conditions for fulfillment. Additionally, Peter mentions that the fulfillment took place in Christ's ascension, while David was still dead. On your scheme, the fulfillment will come after Jesus returns and raises the dead. This means David will not be dead and resting with his fathers—and this one thing precludes the fulfillment occurring at or after the second coming.

2) The reign of the Messiah on David's throne is not to last 1000 years. Every prophecy that speaks of its duration makes it an endless reign, not a thousand-year reign: "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." This is even true of the verse you asked me about, in Isaiah 9:6-7. A thousand years is much too short for this to be fulfilled.

It becomes clear then that Jesus is the Son of David, who, in fulfillment of God's promises to David, has assumed, at the time of His ascension into heaven, the throne of David, and has begun (about 2000 years ago) His eternal reign. This was the message that the apostles preached.

You wrote:

Then, in Mark 11:

And many spread their clothes on the road, and others cut down leafy branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 Then those who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: "Hosanna! 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!' 10 Blessed is the kingdom of our father David That comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!"

Notice that David's kingdom was not yet present, which Jesus would one day rule over. And just in case we assume that the people got it wrong, Jesus' reaction (in Luke's parallel account in Luke 19) to the Pharisees is telling (who asked Jesus to rebuke them):

"I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out."

I can't see how this quote helps your position. It supports the New Testament position completely. The people were rightly seeing the kingdom of David as in the process of coming, right before their eyes, and proclaimed its arrival in no uncertain terms. The King had arrived, and they were celebrating His coronation. They may well have expected the coronation to take place without the cross intervening, and if so, they were in for a surprise, but their declaration that the kingdom of David was then coming was quite correct—so correct, in fact, that the stones would have proclaimed it, had the people fallen silent.

Yet you anticipate the establishment of David's kingdom yet in the future! Why would the stones, two-thousand years ago, shout out that the kingdom was coming, if it was still two millennia away into the future? Couldn't they wait for a more timely occasion to make such an announcement? This passage definitely supports the apostolic view—and contradicts the premillennial view.

[postpre]

Steve,

it's too late for me tonight to deal with all of the points you brought up in your last post. I will gladly do so when I am more refreshed.

21 "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

28 So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31 " When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.

5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.

15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

1) In Revelation 3:21, Jesus clearly distinguishes between the Father's throne (where he was currently sitting) and His throne.
2) Matthew 19:28 and 25:31 speak of a future throne upon which Jesus will sit (I'm not arguing for an actual seat, only as a king over Israel in a political sense, as it was employed in the OT).
3) Revelation 12:5 details another distinction between Jesus' position in heaven and his (future role) of ruling the nations with a rod of iron.
4) Revelation 19:15 again details Jesus' role of one day ruling the nations with a rod of iron.

More on your other points later, especially Acts 2.

Brian

[psychohmike]

Yall just need to become full preterist's...These arguments would just go away. 8)

So when you coming back down to SoCal Steve? 8)

Mike

[Sean]

One difference I see is that the fullness of the Gentiles had almost been achieved but not quite fully.

So most of the Jews still had been hardened. The elect of the Jews, the remnant, had just about fully come to salvation. So Paul's effort was to remove the boasting of Gentiles so that the rest of the election wouldn't be hindered. This may match with your evaluation though.

I'm not sure I am following you here when you say: "so the rest of the election wouldn't be hindered". I'll comment more on this below, but I want to follow along in what you are saying first:

Paul was cautious with his words here. He didn't say that any more Jews would be saved. Paul merely said that there was a path to salvation if they came to have faith. And Paul's purpose was to reach more Jews.
But only the non-elect were hardened...There is some room for the idea that this was just a general hardening from which some Jews were freed. But it seems more likely that there were individuals who were the elect. It doesn't make sense to harden someone just to next show mercy.

If I am understanding you correctly, then I have to disagree. Paul has already stated in Romans 11:

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Who were blinded? Not the elect. So what then becomes of these who are not elect and are blinded?

Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

Now why would Paul hold out hope for those whom he just said were not the elect?

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

This is very much about salvation! Paul is trying to provoke the non-elect, blinded Jews whom he loves to salvation! He then gives the illustration of the olive tree. So when you say:

Those who were broken off likely referred to Jews who hadn't accepted Christ. But Paul wasn't saying that all of these broken branches were enemies. He only was pointing to the Jews that were bothering the Roman believers. Though, the gentiles were treating the situation as if it were all Jews. (I don't know whether the detail of 'corporate election' or 'individual election' comes into play here.) So the elect probably were those Jews who weren't enemies, at least weren't hardened.
Paul definitely was one specifically chosen of God. But Paul wasn't an enemy of the gospel (as among the Roman believers) since Paul had now been a friend of the believers.

I have to respond with Paul's own words. These are Jews who are not saved, nor are they the elect. They are hardened Jews Paul is trying to save by provoking them. Paul already stated this about the Jews:

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

Romans 10-11 continue this topic. The stumbling stone was/is Christ. Isreal should have known (Rom 10). Those Jews who rejected their own Messiah when he arrived were cut off. These are the ones Paul is speaking about in Romans 11 as being the non-elect and the branches broken off because they are in unbelief of the Messiah. I don't think Paul even mentions these as bothering the Roman Christians, even though I don't doubt it was true. His concern is over their salvation. The salvation of those he has stated as being the non elect, blind and cut off. Even in this condition there is hope.

[postpre]

Steve,

31 "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 "And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end."

How would Mary, being a Jew and conversant with the OT Scriptures, have understood this proclamation? What, to her, was the throne of David (if not a political reign)? What, to her, was the house of Jacob (if not the 12 tribes)? What, to her, was the kingdom (if not the Messianic rule on this earth in Jerusalem)? If her understanding of these terms was not what the OT delineated, when was she made privy to this new information? Wouldn't these terms mean, to her, exacty as they were articulated in the OT Scriptures?

You quoted Zacharias in Luke 1, but it was rather truncated:

70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, Who have been since the world began, 71 That we should be saved from our enemies And from the hand of all who hate us, 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers And to remember His holy covenant, 73 The oath which He swore to our father Abraham: 74 To grant us that we, Being delivered from the hand of our enemies, Might serve Him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life.

What, according to Zacharias, have the holy prophets perpetually spoke about since the beginning of the world? Simply that Israel, through means of the Messiah, would be saved and delivered from the hand of her enemies (has this happened?). Is this not an elaboration of what the Davidic throne entails?

69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of His servant David,

If Peter, in Acts 2, meant to convey that Jesus was now reigning over David's throne, how would the crowd (Jews from the diaspora who anticipated an earthly reign of the Messiah) have responded? It would have been quite an uproar. Peter's intention was simply to identify Jesus as "the Christ" (who rose from the dead) who will assume this (political) position in the future.

Verse 34 is telling:

34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, 35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."

Jesus would be seated at the right hand of the Father until (a waiting period) his enemies are made His footstool. When all his enemies are made his footstool, he will assume his role as King of Israel

21 "whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.

Although David was "anointed" as King of Israel by Samuel, he did not assume his ultimate role as King until some time had elapsed (fleeing Saul). Likewise, Jesus is both Lord and Christ right now (and he does rule in the hearts and lives of his followers), but He is currently waiting until His enemies are made His footstool before He assumes His role as King of Israel (and elsewhere I have argued for an influx of Jewish believers- a national repentance if you will as per Matt 23:39 and other texts- at the second coming of Christ).

Jesus was not yet bringing the Kingdom (which was "not of this world" yet, but would be later) in it entirety:

36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

I am still waiting for Jesus' correction to the apostles question:

6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Brian

[steve]

Your entire argument is that Mary, the Jews and the disciples (prior to Pentecost) would not have understood the throne of David in the way that I have shown it to be taught by the angel and the apostles. You yourself pointed out that the people on Palm Sunday were crying out (correctly) that the kingdom of David was now coming. How did they understand this? Probably not correctly. They took the prophecies naturally. Natural men cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. After Pentecost, you find no more of that mistake being made by the disciples.

[Sean]

Jesus would be seated at the right hand of the Father until (a waiting period) his enemies are made His footstool. When all his enemies are made his footstool, he will assume his role as King of Israel

Where on earth did you get this from? Please cite a scripture reference please.

This is what I can find:

Ephesians 1:20 ...which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all 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.
This seems to suggest that in the age to come (I would venture to guess you would take this to be the millennium) He will be in the same place, the hightest one.

If you are referencing 1 Cor 15, it states:

25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death...28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

No mention of ruling in Israel, nor would there be a reason. There are no more enemies. Since the last enemy is death, and death is thrown into the lake of fire after the millennium, then this would be too late for Jesus' millennial reign anyway.

[mikew]

One difference I see is that the fullness of the Gentiles had almost been achieved but not quite fully.

So most of the Jews still had been hardened. The elect of the Jews, the remnant, had just about fully come to salvation. So Paul's effort was to remove the boasting of Gentiles so that the rest of the election wouldn't be hindered. This may match with your evaluation though.

I'm not sure I am following you here when you say: "so the rest of the election wouldn't be hindered". I'll comment more on this below, but I want to follow along in what you are saying first:

Paul was cautious with his words here. He didn't say that any more Jews would be saved. Paul merely said that there was a path to salvation if they came to have faith. And Paul's purpose was to reach more Jews.
But only the non-elect were hardened...There is some room for the idea that this was just a general hardening from which some Jews were freed. But it seems more likely that there were individuals who were the elect. It doesn't make sense to harden someone just to next show mercy.

If I am understanding you correctly, then I have to disagree. Paul has already stated in Romans 11:

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Who were blinded? Not the elect. So what then becomes of these who are not elect and are blinded?

We likely are following parallel tracks here. We almost have the same solution, but the ideas don't precisely converge.
I was trying to say the same thing sort of—that the blinded were not the elect. I also see that it was impossible for the blind to be the elect. We could describe this situation as three groups: the blinded, the known elect and the hidden elect. “Israel” was used in a general sense to include both the hardened and elect – it was just impossible to ascertain who was who.
For Paul's discussion, there was a tension. There was still a desire of Paul to see more Jews saved but it was getting to the end of time.

But it wasn't the hardened saved. The hardening continued till the fullness of Gentiles. There were three reasons for the hardening: 1) keep the Jews from responding to the gospel, 2) possibly an enhancement of their attitude(them not wanting to follow Christ, now made stronger), and 3) a basis to evangelize gentiles in order to make some Jews jealous enough to react and accept the gospel.

Rom 11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

Now why would Paul hold out hope for those whom he just said were not the elect?

The elect were just mentioned as part of Paul's effort to show that Israel in general had stumbled but at least some had gotten back up – but only the elect got up (or yet would rise up in that time). Paul's focus wasn't upon specifying details about the elect; His focus was on stopping the gentiles' boasting.

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

This is very much about salvation! Paul is trying to provoke the non-elect, blinded Jews whom he loves to salvation! He then gives the illustration of the olive tree. So when you say:

Those who were broken off likely referred to Jews who hadn't accepted Christ. But Paul wasn't saying that all of these broken branches were enemies. He only was pointing to the Jews that were bothering the Roman believers. Though, the gentiles were treating the situation as if it were all Jews. (I don't know whether the detail of 'corporate election' or 'individual election' comes into play here.) So the elect probably were those Jews who weren't enemies, at least weren't hardened.
Paul definitely was one specifically chosen of God. But Paul wasn't an enemy of the gospel (as among the Roman believers) since Paul had now been a friend of the believers.

I have to respond with Paul's own words. These are Jews who are not saved, nor are they the elect. They are hardened Jews Paul is trying to save by provoking them. Paul already stated this about the Jews:

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

Here's the details as I see it:
1.Israel was used mostly as a general term. Sometimes it meant all Jews and sometimes just most Jews. (excluding 9:6 and 11:26 )
2.The “elect” were the remnant, the true Israel – those Jews who would respond to the gospel in that era.
3.The general ministry to the gentiles also had the purpose of making Jews jealous unto salvation, if possible
4.This may have worked some before. But now the Romans were messing it up in their boasts against Jews
5.The remnant was essentially present and intact. But Paul wanted to stop the boasting so that the image of Christianity would improve. By this, as much as man influences salvation, the hindrance to greater Jewish response to the gospel might be removed.
6.Paul was explaining that it would be more natural for Jews to return. He mentioned this in hope of changing the attitude of the Romans
7.There was no guarantee that more Jews would respond despite the Romans' better attitude

Romans 10-11 continue this topic. The stumbling stone was/is Christ. Isreal should have known (Rom 10). Those Jews who rejected their own Messiah when he arrived were cut off. These are the ones Paul is speaking about in Romans 11 as being the non-elect and the branches broken off because they are in unbelief of the Messiah. I don't think Paul even mentions these as bothering the Roman Christians, even though I don't doubt it was true. His concern is over their salvation. The salvation of those he has stated as being the non elect, blind and cut off. Even in this condition there is hope.

Regarding Paul's mention of “enemies,” it seems that Paul wouldn't have to mention about Jews being enemies of the gospel except if the Jewish behavior had bothered the Roman believers.

Regarding Paul's purpose... Paul couldn't increase the number of Jews saved. He could only try to correct the behavior of the Gentiles. He could only convince the Gentiles that it would be logical for more Jews to be saved.

So we have had many similarities in observations but there's a few differences about the details.

I see the elect as being the same as the remnant. These were essentially the Jews that were saved from the time the first apostles were selected until the end of that era. You may have a different view here.

The difference between our view may relate to the perception of the Olive Tree
Here's ways to look at the Olive Tree
1. The Gentiles may have seen all the branches torn off and replaced with wild branches
2. We can look now and say the branches were taken off when Christ walked on earth
3. We can look now and say that branches were taken off upon rejection after His resurrection

I think Paul was dealing with the first view.
Even just a logical look at the Olive Tree should say that there were only a handful of Jews living at the time of Christ's birth that could be said to be good branches. Some people would call that "the remnant" as always can be found. I would note that Paul only expressed the idea of "remnant" as having a prophetic meaning for that era (Rom 9:27-28) so that in 11:5, when Paul said that the remnant was present, he was saying also that the end of the era was at hand.

P.S.
I'm curious if there is someone's view of Rom 9 to 11 (or just 11) that you have specifically clung to. This is just for my curiosity, not for influencing the discussion here.