it doesn't say all Israel though, it says "one from a city and two from a family".
It says in the time when there was no ark of the covenant, which allows us
to understand that this is the second temple period.
If you read Ezra and Nehemiah, it is clear that they had to clean up their act
and become fully law observant, which they did.
But to one of your original points; if we're saying a remnant of Israel returned to the land, then THEY were the obedient/remarried ones (not the ones who didn't return). OK, so then if this is true let's assume the 2nd temple period remnant cleaned up their act per Ezra and Nehemiah and became fully law observant...the portion in Jeremiah says "
no more will they" (those who return to the land) "be stubborn and follow their evil hearts" once there. So when descendants of those same people rejected the Messiah that act contradicted the Almighty's prophecy here.
Also, portion in the prophecy says "all the nations will flow to Jerusalem to honor the name of the LORD" at that time. This part of the prophecy is also contradicted by the events of the 1st century as no nations gathered to honor the Almighty or the Messiah.
The "there was no ark of the covenant" portion is true of the remnant of the 2nd temple period...but so would it be true for Israel that returns to Jerusalem when the Messiah comes
in the future.
-----
Those who returned during the 2nd temple period simply don't fit Jeremiah's prophecy.
I think the throne of David was eternal from when David reigned though Yahshua.
When we come to the last King Of Judea, who Nebuchadnezzar finally removes, we see
Nebuchadnezzar then operates in the function of the throne of David, as he is the King of Kings, (Daniel 2).
Hmm...
I'm sorry sir Sage, but I just can't agree with this for the following reason:
If we say David's throne became eternal through Messiah then that means BEFORE Messiah it wasn't eternal...and if not eternal, then - again - how can the kingdom of Israel exist
prior to Messiah?
If we're saying that Neb began operating in the function of David's throne after the captivity (again
before the Messiah), then the promise that DAVID would always have a heir - his seed - on the throne is now contradicted also. If we try to force-fit Neb then we can make a case for ANYONE fulfilling the promise made to David such as the Medo-Persian rulers who conquered Babylon...to Alexander from Macedonia who conquered them...down to the Caesars of Rome. See what I mean?
[In fact, that's what all of the Merovingian and other European monarchs of medieval times attempted to argue; that they were descendants of King David also. Even today's Queen Elizabeth tries to make this argument by tracing her throne back to David's.]
No, it must be David's seed...from his loins...on Israel's throne.
This is why it only seems reasonable to say (as a fulfillment of Almighty's promise) that "
as long as the throne of Israel exists, David's seed will sit on it. That is, as long as the throne exists." It's not reasonable to say "
David's throne of Israel, and thus Israel, has always existed through other kings not from David".