The problem with this kind of argument is two-fold. In one sense, none of the first covenant laws are abrogated: they still exist to teach us principles of serving Yahuah (the LORD), and to point us to Yahusha Ha Mashyach (Jesus Christ) (this I say in opposition to those who claim we are abrogating the first covenant law if we say that we do not follow the first covenant laws in the same way today).

They are still written down in the first covenant. 

Not one of those words will pass away, not a jot, nor a tittle. 

However, that does not mean, in and of itself, that the observation and application of those commandments can never change.

They can if Yahuah (the LORD) says they do. But can Yahuah (the LORD) do that? If Yahuah (the LORD) doesn't change, then can His laws change?

Well, let’s look at some examples of Yahuah (the LORD) giving a commandment for a certain time and place that would not have universal applicability.

Yahuah (the LORD) told Isaiah to walk around naked (Isaiah 20). That is a direct commandment from Yahuah (the LORD) that had an equally direct (and merciful!) expiration date of three years.

This, of course, does not prove (in itself) that any of the Law had an expiration date. But it does prove that Yahuah (the LORD) can give a command that does not last forever.

Yahuah (the LORD) also told Hosea to take an adulterous wife. Now, scholars debate whether she was unfaithful before or only after marrying Hosea, but it doesn't really matter. Hosea still knew that her character was an unfaithful character when he married her.

This was a very specific commandment given in a particular time and place. Surely, we would not want to say that all prophets of Yahuah (the LORD) should marry wives of unfaithful character!

There was a specific purpose in what Yahuah (the LORD) was doing with that commandment.

Again, this does not prove that any particular commandment in the Law of Moses is expired, but it does prove that Yahuah (the LORD) can give a commandment that has an expiration date on it. Yahuah (the LORD) has given commands in the past that have limited applicability.

Now the question is this: are there any limitations on the commandments given in the Law of Moses?

The Ten Commandments are universally binding moral law. This is the same law that will be written on the human heart by Yahuah (the LORD). But the Ten Commandments are universally binding for all people everywhere (not just for Israel).

As that particular point is not really in dispute between the believers that keep the Law of Moses, I will move on to other areas of laws.

There do appear to be limitations set on other areas of commandments. Deuteronomy 4 is vitally important here. The redemptive-historical situation is that Moses is giving his last will and testament, if you will, to the Israelites before they enter the Promised Land.

In the course of this, he makes a distinction between the Ten Commandments, on the one hand (4:13), and the “statues and ordinances” in 4:14, which are tied to the land: “At that time Yahuah (the LORD) commanded me to teach you statutes and ordinances for you to follow in the land you are about to cross into and possess” (emphasis added).

The order of Ten Commandments first, followed by statutes and ordinances is then immediately followed in chapter 5 (the second giving of the Ten Commandments and its summary in chapter 6) and the statutes and ordinances that follow. It is revealing that only after the Ten Commandments are given does Moses give specific instructions concerning the set apart warfare that is to come (chapter 7).

This separation of the statutes and ordinances from the Ten Commandments by the commands concerning set apart warfare underscore again the connection of the ordinances that follow with the ownership of the land, as well as the distinction within first covenant law between the moral, civil and ceremonial aspects of the law.

Now, it is not quite as simple as this, since there are reiterations of the moral law scattered throughout Deuteronomy. This does not negate the point of the literary separation between the Ten Commandments and the civil and ceremonial law as a whole.

Now to the feasts in particular.

Three feasts are limited to the place that Yahuah (the LORD) shall choose: the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Weeks, and the Festival of Booths. Deuteronomy 16:16 is quite clear on this point: “All your males are to appear three times a year before Yahuah (the LORD) your Aluhym (God) in the place He chooses: at the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Weeks, and the Festival of Booths” (emphasis added).

That place that Yahuah (the LORD) would choose is, of course, Jerusalem. 

In other words, these feasts cannot be celebrated outside of Jerusalem. They must be celebrated in the place that Yahuah (the LORD) chose. There is no commandment later on telling the people that they can celebrate it anywhere else.

Please read Deuteronomy 16:2-6.

There is no biblical example of the people of Israel celebrating those feasts anywhere other than Jerusalem. In fact, we have the exact opposite example in the case of the Exile.

During the Exile, the people of Yahuah (the LORD) celebrated no feasts of Yahuah (the LORD) at all. Why? 

Because they were exiled from their land. There is no reproach laid on them for not celebrating the feasts while they were in exile.

Those feasts are tied to the land of Israel, and in particular, Jerusalem. It is arbitrary to claim that we can celebrate them anywhere else, as long as we follow the specific instructions.

Let us not forget either that these three Feasts required gifts to be given to Yahuah (the LORD) (Deuteronomy 16:17). We can conclude from this that these feasts had limitations of space set on them, at the very least.

From Isaiah, we learn that Yahuah (the LORD) gave a commandment bounded by time limitations. From our examination of Deuteronomy 16, we find that Yahuah (the LORD) can give a command that has a limitation of space put on it. Therefore, we can conclude from this that a law that is not of the moral law can have a built-in expiration date attached to it.

This is not abrogation, as the believers that keep the Law of Moses argue. Even the most die-hard dispensationalist could still agree that there is a relevance of even the most dated commands for Yahuah’s (the LORD's) people.

It is in that sense that not a jot or tittle shall pass away from the Law until all is fulfilled.