If Ez.39:22 happened in the time of the second temple restoration you have your answer already, because that was a time of spiritual revival for Israel, which we should not underestimate.
That would mean that the remnant just grew a whole lot bigger.
You could be unsatisfied with that explanation because times of falling away also followed for Israel, but that is not the desire for Israel that God expressed in 39:22, and I can not offer you a better one.
If you wish to resolve that dissatisfaction by placing the entire controversy of Ez. 38 and 39 into a future event on the basis of that one verse, you have yourself a long list of problems, Heuston.
I am not among those that expect there to come a future event where all you need to do to be saved is be Jewish, because I think it would take a person other than Jesus to do the saving on that basis.
Jesus has rather fixed ideas on what who He considers to be children of Abraham and who he does not (John 8:33-44).
If you ask me about Romans 11:26 I would tell you that the day that all Israel will be saved is the same day that the last Gentile repents and believes.
Don't worry though, because that guy could possibly be an Israeli, because I consider them Gentiles too, even if they are half Jewish.
"Gentiles" means "nations" remember, and it defines people who are outside the commonwealth of old covenant Israel.
I don't think that resolves the textual problem.
You're suggesting Ezekiel 39 was fulfilled in the second-temple restoration because there was a significant spiritual revival.
I agree there was a revival under Ezra and Nehemiah.
The question is whether it matches the actual language of Ezekiel 39:22-29.
Ezekiel does not merely say that many Israelites will return to covenant faithfulness.
He says, "the house of Israel shall know that I am the LORD their God from that day and forward."
The passage goes on to say God will leave none of them scattered among the nations, will no longer hide His face from them, and will pour out His Spirit upon the house of Israel.
If the second-temple period fulfilled that prophecy, how do you account for the fact that Israel later fell into the very unbelief that led to the rejection of her Messiah?
The restoration described by Ezekiel appears permanent: "from that day and forward."
The post-exilic revival was real, but it was not permanent.
I also think you're responding to an argument I did not make. I do not believe Romans 11 teaches that people are saved merely by being Jewish.
Paul has already spent eleven chapters arguing the exact opposite.
Salvation is through Christ, not ethnicity.
The question is whether Romans 11:26 describes a future large-scale turning of Israel to Christ.
Paul distinguishes between the present remnant in verse 5 and "all Israel" in verse 26.
If "all Israel" simply means the remnant, then Paul's contrast loses much of its force because the remnant already existed when he wrote the letter.
As for defining modern Israelis as Gentiles, I don't think that's how Paul uses the terms in Romans 11.
Throughout the chapter he distinguishes Israel from the Gentiles.
The argument depends on that distinction.
Whatever "all Israel" means, it is difficult to see how it can simply be collapsed into "the last Gentile who believes."
So the issue isn't dissatisfaction with the remnant theme.
The issue is whether the language of Ezekiel 39 and Romans 11 is adequately explained by the post-exilic revival and the continuing remnant, or whether both passages point to a larger future restoration.
That's the point that still seems unresolved.
