Law and Disorder

Seeing the term “antinomian” mentioned a few posts back in the comments section led me diving into on-line search engines.
Anti = against (Greek)
Nomos = Law (Greek)
I learned that, basically, antinomianism is lawlessness - the opposite of legalism.
Interestingly, as of late I have heard more than a few Christian friends proclaiming with great glee their “freedom in Christ." Two of these friends recently agreed to end their marriage. I fear that “free in Christ” is coming to mean whatever suits the flesh.
As I was reading but a speck of the history of antinomianism on-line, it got me to wondering - Why aren’t the Gentiles to keep the Law as per the Jews’ adherence?
I have messianic Jewish friends who, although they outwardly keep (some of) the Law, they do so not for sanctification, but for the sake of being a closer witness to their Jewish family and friends. In their case, it makes sense to me. They would alienate their families and friends by proclaiming “freedom” from the Law, yet they share common ground with their unsaved brethren in their respect of the Law and keeping some traditions.
As I see it, the Law truly served to point to Christ. He is the goal – not the end – of the Law. I thought it to be aptly put on wikipedia as follows:
“Romans 10:4 is also sometimes cited: “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” [NIV] The key word here is ‘telos,’ see also Strong's G5056. Robert Badenas in Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective, 1985, ISBN 0905774930, argues that ‘telos’ is correctly translated as ‘goal,’ not ‘end,’ so that Christ is the goal of the Law.”
(Interestingly, studies with my aforementioned messianic Jewish friends led me to learn that the word ‘Torah’ in Hebrew is similarly translated. ‘Torah’ – which refers to Moses’ first five books of the Bible – literally means ‘target’ or ‘aim.’)
Is this why the Gentiles are not obliged to “keep” the Law – because its aim is Christ? Of course, we keep some Laws (10 commandments and others), but not all. I’ve heard the Laws distinguished between ceremonial, civil, and moral, of course, but I’m not sure that these distinctions neatly describe why we keep some and not others.
I suppose that messianic Jews are not required to “keep” the Law for the same reasons that Gentiles are not required, but I wonder if it’s not a bad thing if messianic Jews observe the Law (if only partially) anyway. Of course, we’re united in Christ, but the wikipedia article on antinomianism has me wondering about distinctions.
“The Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers notes: "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after [the Council of Jerusalem] circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.).”
Why the distinction: “as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles…”?
Not that Paul is our example as is Christ, but I find this passage interesting when contemplating distinctions among peoples – such as Jews and Gentiles.
I guess what I’m trying (albeit poorly and with half a brain) to say is that I’m not yet sure that the Law is so tidily wrapped up with Gentile dismissal saying “Christ set us free from all that.” I really wonder if there’s more of a place for it in our lives and is due greater consideration - well, greater than I’ve given it.
I think I’m just very frustrated by hearing “freedom in Christ” bandied about for fleshly justification of desires, and I’m bucking all of that to think with greater intention exactly what said “freedom” means in light of the Law – or what the “Law” means in light of freedom. Christ said He didn’t come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, so I wonder about the place of the Law in all of our lives.