Yes, it means all. But, which Israel is Paul talking about there? He had previously referenced two different Israels.
Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.
I have already given my understanding of this passage multiple times. Did you see that? Also, covenantee showed the difference between the two Israels in post #172. So, in which Israel (national Israel or spiritual Israel) are all saved?
Have you read all of Romans 9-11 to see the context of what Paul was talking about? Have you read this:
Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
Would you agree that Paul was referring to the ones who were broken off here? He indicated that they stumbled, but did not fall beyond recovery. And he said he had "the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them". So, you think that shortly after saying he hoped to help save SOME (not ALL) of them that he said they would ALL be saved? Please tell me how that makes any sense. That would mean he contradicted himself.
The branch cut off is no longer Israel. It is not an Israel to itself without the tree. To have 2 Israel's, you are making the cut off branch an Israel.
But then you call the original one spiritual, and the cut off branch the physical Israel. You are replacing the original Israel with the branch that was cut off.
There is only one Israel since Jacob was a twin in the womb. Jacob was both physical and spiritual Israel, especially after he wrestled with God, and God called him Israel, given him the spiritual title.
"And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
The point is that the severed branch is no longer Israel period. Still only one Israel, and now we see the majority as no longer Israel, even if they claim to be a descendant of Jacob. Then Paul compared Isaac to Ishmael. Not all of Abraham's seed would be considered the promise, only Isaac. We also see that God loved Jacob but despised Esau. So not even all the seed of the promise, Isaac, would be considered in God's perspective. The Edomites would be just as foreign to God as Ishmael, and all those cut off from the promises given.
Paul was not even claiming that all of Israel was cut off at that point. Technically Israel had been cut off even before the Babylonian captivity. Certainly Judah was not the sole representative of Israel, and now nothing of Israel was left at that point. But what Paul is saying in that All of Israel is not Israel, is that the branches had been severed, and were no longer a part of Israel. Paul was not saying that now 2 Israels existed, one physical and one spiritual. That is not "cut off", that would be a split tree now growing as two trees.
You have replaced the physical Israel with a spiritual Israel. The point is that Israel was always the spiritual Israel. Jacob was always the physical part of spiritual Israel. That was not a change at the Cross. That was an ongoing reality since Jacob was conceived in the womb.
The promise of Isaac was intertwined into the promise of Christ Himself. That is why Isaac is not named in the verse, but Paul is hinting at Jesus coming through Isaac.
When Israel is restored, it will not be the dead from all of Israel's past failures. That is the point of contention being made. Only while they lived was Paul hoping they would repent and be back into the position of being Israel. Repentance of those in Paul's day is not the contention being made. I accept that Paul wanted them all restored back while they still had an opportunity.
The point of contention is that many here cannot see God restoring people who never repented of their sins. Many here don't even see Jacob as having legitimate physical descendants left to restore. There is no application for these verses or any in Scripture to a future restoration in your eschatology. Your only restoration was dashed to pieces by 70AD when most were physically dead, and past a point of restoration.
Nor do you leave time for a physical restoration, but only a spiritual one as in the church body, and not physical Jacob. You have essentially replaced the physical restoration with spiritual restoration, and will not allow the physical restoration promised at the Second Coming. Only in the sense that those physically dead will be physically restored, which was not the point at all. Placing the branch back into the tree is not about restoring the past. It is about restoring those physically alive in Adam's dead corruptible flesh, at the Second Coming. Amil cannot allow that as they have determined all humans will be destroyed, not allowing any to be restored. Certainly not those who never repented prior to the Second Coming.
That is the point of Matthew 25:31-46. You have replaced this judgment the same way you have replaced Jacob with the church. You call these sheep the church, and the goats the lost. That is wrong.
Matthew 25 is the restoration of Jacob back into Israel. They are those from all nations being put back into the tree, and not by their choice of Repentance, but because God chose to redeem them, Himself. The metric provided being so simple, they will not even realize they are doing something worthy of redemption in life just prior to the Second Coming. But redemption is still not solely on their works, but still as the Lamb who they will then realize was their living sacrifice. But that is clearly not how you interpret that passage.
What Paul was wanting will be for those generations alive at the Second Coming. Interesting that Amil see Paul's desire way back 1900 years ago, but don't see God literally putting Israel of today back together again outside the workings of "spiritual Israel". It will be the angels gathering all these living humans back to Israel, not a local church bus ministry. Even post trib claimers fail to see that point. And pre-trib proclaimers fail to place Jesus as King on the earth at the 6th Seal. That is what the Second Coming is for: to restore Israel. Not just remove the church, and kill every one left on the earth.
