Even if you believe that the law was “nailed to the cross”, you still must recognize that Christ explicitly affirmed every Commandment if not in word, then in deed.
For example, He said as much in Matthew 19:16-20:
(16) And behold, one came and said to Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?
(17) And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
(18) He said to Him, Which? Jesus said, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness,
(19) honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
(20) The young man said to Him, I have kept all these things from my youth up; what do I lack yet?...
It makes no sense to assert that just months before Jesus was going to nullify the Commandments at the Cross that He would say “if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
And speaking of Revelation chapter 22, up a few verses in verse 11, Our Lord dictated to John:
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
But how can we define “righteous” and “holy” in the absence of any timeless criteria? Or worse, to have one criteria for Jews and another for Gentiles despite that the Apostle Paul declared there is “neither Greek nor Jew” in Col 3:11, that in Christ all humanity is one.
And there were righteous Jews, Jesus made reference to “many prophets and righteous men” in Matthew 13:17.
If the Commandments are in fact literally done away, made moot and of no effect, then we must ignore all of Scripture and propose something that in the end is arbitrary and capricious by which God will judge a person’s life.
To be frank, theologians who assert the Commandments are totally obsolete also reject that God can be arbitrary or capricious. So they work assiduously to bring back the Commandments by citing where Paul and the Apostles uphold them, like in the entire book of James. Or 1 John 3:4 (the only passage that succinctly defines sin: “sin IS the transgression of the law”. What law?)
No, the whole exercise in rejecting the Commandments and then bringing some of them back is really to nullify the Fourth, that which commands observance of the Sabbath. Nobody is free to define their own private righteousness by which God will judge them as He promises to do for every human. He will use one and only one definition for all humanity. That definition has ten main points. Like Our Lord said, if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.