No. Just because something is good and righteous does not mean it cannot come to an end. And more specifically, just because God is holy and righteous does not mean the Law of Moses - which God indeed instituted - cannot come to an end.
Holiness, righteousness, and goodness do not exist externally to God so that God is subservient to some standard of conduct outside of Him. In other words, God did not command something because it is good and something is not good because God commanded it, but rather Good is good and goodness is based off of who He is, so what is good can not change unless God changes, and the same goes for righteousness and holiness. We are told to do what is holy because God is holy, so the way to do what is holy can not change unless God's holiness changes, which means that anyone who wants to know how to do what is holy and act in line with God's holiness can look up God's instructions for how to do that in the law He gave to Moses, starting with where 1 Peter 1:16 is quoting from.
If I undergo surgery is the doctor doing something righteous to fix me up? Of course. Does that mean the surgery will have to last forever or we could not call the surgery a good and righteous thing? Of course not.
You're equivocating here. Saying that the results of a righteous action can come to an end is not the same thing as saying that the is is possible that a righteous action might no longer be a righteous action in the future. So there might be some time in the future where helping to heal people is no longer a righteous action.
The Law of Moses is part of an evolving redemption narrative. It played its role, and now it is set aside. Paul is crystal clear about this in several places:
But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
In all candor, how could Paul not be more clear - the Law is no longer needed, just as a graduating student no longer needs the tutor.
When you study under a tutor, the point where they are no longer needed is when you have taken their lessons to heart and act according to them. However, if after the tutor leaves you disregard everything they taught you about what to do, then then you would be missing the point of a tutor and and be showing that you need to go back under their tutelage. In other words, you can't move on to algebra by disregarding everything you were taught about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, but rather you must incorporate what you have learned in order to build upon that. The law taught us how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, but we can now depend on the Spirit to teach us how to act in line with God's character instead of what was written, but that is still in accordance with what was written because God's character and the law that is based off of His character did not change between covenants. The same law is incorporated into the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33). Nothing in Scripture talks about the law having an evolving role, but rather it very consistently says that God's law it is eternal. All of the prophets had the message for people to repent and turn back to obedience to the law, and Jesus was no different, and God has done nothing that He has not first revealed to the prophets (Amos 3:7).
Not if we respect Biblical precedent about such "end of the world" language gets used.
There is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul so forcefully argues (e.g. Eph 2:15): In Hebrew culture, “end of the world” language was commonly used metaphorically to invest commonplace events with theological significance.
There is a theme in the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so you should be more careful not to interpret something that was against obeying man as being against obeying God. In 2 Timothy 3:16, it says that all OT Scriptures (which primarily includes God's law) are God-breathed and profitable for equipping us to do every good work, so does it make sense to you that Ephesians 2:10 says that we are made new creations is Messiah for the purpose of doing good works, and then just a few verses later that Messiah did away with his instructions for how to do good works? Rather, Ephesians 2:15 refers to man-made laws, such as mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, which were contrary to Scripture (Leviticus 19:34).
This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:
10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light
What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of use of “end of the world” imagery to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.
So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor?
It is Jesus’ death on the Cross where He proclaims “It is accomplished”. Note how this dovetails perfectly with the 5:18 declaration that the Law would remain until all is accomplished. Seeing things this way allows us to honour the established tradition of metaphorical end-of-the-world imagery and to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.
When Jesus said "it is accomplished" he was referring to his redemptive work, which is a redemption from lawlessness, not a redemption from the law. The main problem your interpretation is that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in contrast with abolishing it, but you've interpreted that to mean essentially the same thing as abolishing it. Rather, to fulfill the law means to fill it with meaning or to demonstrate a full understanding of how to obey it through words or actions. After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, he then proceeded to do so six times by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it. He likewise fulfilled the law by demonstrate a perfect example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the law, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 1:21-22) and to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:4-6). Jesus said summarized the law as being about how to love God and how to love you neighbor and in Galatians 5:14, love fulfills the entire law because that is demonstrating what the law is essentially about. Furthermore, everyone since Moses who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled entire the law, so that was not something unique that Jesus did to do away with it.
While it is possible that Jesus was using hyperbolic language, he doesn't say anything else to give the impression that God's law would shortly be done away with. Warning that those who relaxed the least of the laws or taught others to do the same would be called least in the kingdom doesn't seem appropriate if he was about to relax the entire law and teaching other to relax the law was about to become the right thing to do. Furthermore, this interact with the problem where there are numerous in instances where the law is described as eternal.
According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, and according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, the way to tell that someone was a false prophet, even if they perform signs and wonders, is if they taught them against obeying what God had commanded, so if Jesus had been suggesting that, then it would have been a major doctrinal issue and it seems he would have provoked at least some sort of reaction to such a radical statement. While Jesus certainly accomplished much on the cross, there is still the second coming, so not all has been accomplished. I think it far is more likely that he was about to teach against what the teachers or the law were saying, so he prefaced it by saying that he was not going to undermine the law.
No one is denying that Gentiles should not be "lawless". But they never were, and are still not, under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses.
The law is what gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), without the law we wouldn't even know what sin is (Romans 7:7), and sin is defined as the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so because Gentiles are not permitted to sin (Romans 6:15), then Gentiles are not permitted to do what the law says is sin. You can't have it both ways where Gentiles are free from obeying the law but are not free to do what the law says is sin. If Gentiles were never under the jurisdiction of God's law, then they would be free to do all of the things the law says is sin, they wouldn't need a redeemer to save them from their sins, and they certainly wouldn't need Jesus to die set them free from a law that they were never under in the first place. Rather, we have not been redeemed from the law, but from lawlessness (Titus 2:4). If God had to send Jesus to die to redeem us from the law, then it would have been better if He had never commanded it in the first place. Rather, what was nailed to crosses was the crimes or transgressions of the law that they had committed, not the law itself, so they didn't have to legislate new laws every time someone was crucified, which fits perfectly with Jesus dying for the penalty of our sins in our place. We shouldn't even want to be redeemed from something that is holy, righteous, good (Romans 7:12), but rather, we should seek to delight in obeying God's law by faith as David and Paul did (Psalms 1:1-2, Romans 7:22).
