The Old Law was never revoked. It was surpassed and made obsolete by a new and better Law, which fulfills it, the right way.
This appears to be a semantics issue. "Revoked?" "Made obsolete?" What's the difference?
The point I'm making is that God had an agreement with Israel--a contract. Israel broke that agreement completely when they rejected, as a nation, their Messiah. That's why the veil was rent. It was symbolic of the destruction of temple worship, and the covenant.
God never intended to keep the Law as such, even though we read in the Law that "this is for all your generations." It was, in fact, a Law to be enforced generation after generation. But the way it was imposed on Jesus' generation was by determining that the nation had defied the contract. They destroyed the agreement. That made the contract null and void, and God acknowledged that by ripping the veil from top to bottom.
The Law was not "the wrong way!" It was the right way in a time before redemption had been fully completed. It was right as a temporary measure prior to Christian redemption. Once Christ completed redemption, there was no need for temporary redemption. The Law was gone--however you wish to put it. I say "revoked." You say "made obsolete." In my book that's the same thing.
There were 2 issues to look at.
1) Israel failed to measure up to the agreement. That caused the Law to be revoked as a covenant.
2) The Law was only ever meant to be temporary and pre-Christian in terms of justification and redemption. That caused the Law to be updated or improved upon. The Law, at any rate, had to be replaced, thus revoking the previous agreement. If you don't like the word "revoke," fine. The Law *went away.*
The new covenant is not a reprieve from the obligation to be righteous but is the means to accomplishing that very thing in us.
The old agreement fell short, and was always understood to be as such, and only temporary in purpose. As such the final solution, which was an entirely new covenant, was, in fact, a "reprieve." It was refreshing to know that the endless work of temporary justification could finally end with final Justification.
The primary difference between the old and new covenants is that, with the new, man is now with God, reconciled and united with Him.
Israel was "with God" under the OT as well. It just didn't bring final Justification, or deliverance from death.
We become His people as, by faith, we accept Him as our God, reversing the rejection of and alienation from Him that Adam initiated for humanity. That's where salvation all begins, with that union. "Apart from Me you can do nothing"-John 15:5 That's how our righteousness can surpass that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Jesus is the Way; He reveals the true God so that we may know Him. The old covenant was a stepping stone to the new in that it taught us that we cannot be who we were created to be...apart from Him. Man was made for communion with God.
Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. And he existed as the Word prior to his Incarnation.
Therefore, God's word operated through the Law, as well, and was perfectly capable of being the virtue in the works of men. They only needed final redemption. They already had a relationship with God. God already operated in them by faith. You have an errant dichotomy between the OT and the NT.
I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. Jer 31:33
That passage is a promise of fulfilling what had already been taking place without full redemption from death. While Israel remained not fully judged, sin would always creep back in and rob the nation of faith and God's presence. After judgment, Israel will be restored and finally obtain a better expression, a lasting expression, of national faith.