First off; None of either Law is the of man, not Moses or anyone on this planet. The commands were "written" by the hand of God, and God says this, my word, (whether written or stated), does not come back to me empty.
Secondly; The entire Bible from start to finish is the revelation God's word and the coming Messiah in the flesh, Christ Jesus. The Apostles did not have the "New" testament scriptures to preach or teach from. Most of the new testament hadn't even been written let alone preached. The Apostles had the old testament to preach Jesus and Him crucified from, because the old testament revealed both the old and the new in detail. The Apostles were discipled in the new testament from Old testament scriptures. GOD DID NOT ABOLISH THAT!
The Jews missed it, because that "HAD" to. God put a partial blindness on them. If He had not, and the Jews did miss Jesus as the messiah, who would have put Him to death since that is EXACTLY why God sent Him. Who would have beat him to fulfill the scriptures of His suffering and death for our sake. When Jesus said, "God forgive them for they know not what they do" God did that. Just as He did it again when Stephan ask God to forgive them for stoning him.
God does not nullify His own word because He is omnipotent. Now, having said all of that, God makes it clear in Mathew, that the only law that will be accepted when facing Jesus before entering into His kingdom is this. Were the hungry fed, were those in need of shelter and warmth provide for, were the thirsty quenched. Which one of these were abolished in the old testament law. Jesus does not let those in the new testament get away with saying but LORD, we did these tricks in your name, give us a treat. Jesus says to them, I never knew you.
"Do not think more highly of yourself than you ought" We gentiles are grafted in, we did not replace the Jews, and we did not take their place. "To the Jew first, means exactly that".
Christ literally said one of the Torah laws, keeping of vows, was "of the evil one" (Mt 5). James, likewise, prohibits making "any vow" (Ja 5).
Since you will say, "But Christ upheld the Law, He didn't come to do away with the Law": the
underlying principle of "keep your vows" was "Do not treat God or His Name with disrespect, but honor Him by keeping your vows you make", and Christ, yes, preserves that
underlying principle by calling vows "of the evil one", prohibiting taking any vow at all, because, He says, taking a vow ITSELF violates the
underlying principle, because it shows a lack of honor due to God by taking too much honor upon yourself ("lest they should boast
against Me"--boasting
of oneself is boasting
against God). "You cannot make one hair Black or White.
Who are you that you should say that you 'vow' to do this or that?"
He, likewise, defines Torah's "any-cause" divorce as "adultery" (going forward), and as a mere concession that had been given on account of the hardness of those men's hearts. Christ was upset with men for their hardness of heart, their unbelief, and Heb 3 clarifies that it is
the deceitfulness of sin that hardens hearts and causes unbelief--hardened hearts (for which many Torah Laws had been given, we are now taught) are sinful unholy godless hearts, hearts where the devil is active. They weren't born again, so they needed such concessions, but we have no excuse. We don't need, and are not given, those concessions.
The same is apparently true of vows--making and keeping of them had to have been another concession. Torah is full of such concessions. Another, I'm sure, would have to have been the Law that "You can beat your slave to death--as long as he doesn't die the same day, but survives a few days after the beating, and then dies, because he is your property". Tell me that that is something a soft-hearted son of God would do... yet God enshrined it in the "glorious eternal Torah": no, it is not as you say.
