But when that outside context is scripture, it is no longer eisegesis. We are supposed to use scripture to interpret scripture.It is actually 'eisegesis' to force an outside context into what is there.
Nothing is broken about Jeremiah; the new covenant is in effect in the gospels, in Hebrews, in 2 Cor 3-5. How did Paul fail to mention some future episode in such passages? How did he forget in the heat of the exchange in Acts 26? He could easily have said, 'hey guys, chill; your kingdom is coming in the distant future!' It is not there!
There is no place in the NT that I know of that a future kingdom is inserted when it would matter to the topic! Even in Rom 11, to add that feature is to miss that the Isaiah quote is historically-oriented, and that saved means justified from sins ("taken away") all through Romans. there is no reason, out of nowhere, to suddenly be obsessed with a Judaic kingdom for Israel. Nowhere else has it mattered in Romans, etc.
As for Jeremiah, I am not talking about the new covenant. There is a verse where God specifically states that He will NOT cast Israel away. Not unless we find some way to accomplish two IMPOSSIBLE tasks.
So the Millennial kingdom doesn't matter? Israel is still in sin, if you can believe it. It is not yet gone. It is not done away with until Zechariah 12-14 are completely fulfilled. There is a kingdom for a short time, in fulfilling the promises of the Old Testament, to include those made to David and Solomon. It just happens to fit in perfectly with Jesus taking His inheritance and redeeming the creation. Are you upset that God/Jesus still cares about Israel, and will save His remnant?