Imma Salom was the wife of the Rabbi Eliezer, the sister of Rabban Gamaliel. Among his acquaintances was a “philosopher” who had the reputation of being incorruptible. They wished to make him ridiculous. Therefore she [Imma] brought to him a golden candlestick, and said: “I desire a part of the family property.” He answered them: “Divide it.” Then he [B. Gamaliel] said: “It is written for us [Numbers 27:8] that, where there is a son, the daughter inherits nothing.”. He answered: “Since ye were driven from your land the law of Moses is abolished, and there is Avon-gillajon [Evangelium = the Gospel], in which it is written, ‘Son and daughter shall inherit together’.” On the following day he [E. Gamaliel] on his own part brought him a Libyan ass. Then he replied: “I have searched further in the Avon-gillajon, and it is written therein: ‘I, Avon-gillajon, have not come to do away with the Thora, but to add to the Thora of Moses have I come.’ And it is further written therein: ‘Where there is a son, the daughter shall not inherit’.” Then she said: “Thy light shineth like a candle.” And E. Gamaliel said: “The ass has come, and has attached the candle”It's possible that by The Gospel the entire New Testament was meant, and the basis for this Christian's argument was where Paul said There is neither Mal nor Female. So remember, every time you see a Hebrew Roots person using this part of Matthew with the intent of undermining the clear teaching that some things are different under The New Testament, that is an argument that originated with a Rabbi whom Rabbinic Judaism reveres to this day.
The context of what Jesus said here is clear. Matthew 5:17-20.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."The set up for the Sermon on the Mount is about the impossibility of living by the Law. All who try to be justified by it will fail. Except for Jesus who was without Sin, He fulfilled The Law by living a perfectly Torah observant life for us, and then taking our punishment for us.
And also, that not one Yot or Tittle will pass away shows that God's Word will exist, will be preserved, as it has been in the Masoretic and Textus Receptus texts.
These individuals like to emphasize verses that use the word Amonia, commonly translated Iniquity in the KJV but more accurately should be Lawlessness. But they want to treat it like it means Atimonia, against the Law.
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."The people accused of Iniquity were those doing good works, they were doing the main good work Jesus commanded his Disciples to do, casting out Demons. People want to to go to completely different books of The Bible to decide what the "Will of The Father" means here. Many things are His will, we're told it's His will that none should Perish. But His will here is perfectly explained in it's own context, we are to know Jesus, to have a personal relationship with Him.
What we see here is consistent with Matthew 5, the main people Jesus condemns for Lawlessness are those who are trying to justify themselves by The Law. This is repeated in Matthew 23:28 "Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.". And this is Paul's Point in Romans 2 an 3, rebuking those who agree with the rhetorical rant that ended Romans 1.
And yes, I think that applies even to Paul in II Thessalonians 2 saying the Son of Perdition will work Iniquity. There is plenty of evidence that the Antichrist will actually create a Torah based system, as I talked about in The Antichrist may not be as Popular as we assume, and in one of my Babylon posts.
Some people will translate 2 Peter 3:17 in a way to make it seem like it uses the word Amonia or Lawless. But this is a completely different word that I feel the KJV was correct in rendering Wickedness. So no, it doesn't help us determine what he meant by Paul being misunderstood in the prior verses.
Now again, I view keeping The Law as good. What I am against is trying to make other Christians feel obligated. We are to be lead by The Holy Spirit, not by Ink and Paper.