The manslayer laws are extremely useful in demonstrating the principles upon which the finite Torah argument is based. In order for the manslayer laws to be functionally valid, the context in which they exist must allow for two types of death:
- Accidental death of one man caused by another
- Natural death of the high priest.
In other words, the validity of the manslayer laws is directly related to death being a logical possibility.
We have already discussed that when the Messianic Age is completely established, death will be abolished. The abolition of death means the abolition of accidental homicide as well as the abolition of a naturally caused death of the high priest. Therefore, the abolition of death means the abolition of the manslayer laws, because in the absence of death they are functionally invalid and serve no purpose.
It is at this point, where those who want to support an eternal Torah against all odds, will make this declaration:
A law is a law even when it ceases to be a law.
Once someone who believes in an eternal Torah has been presented with clear and unambiguous data demonstrating the Torah of Moses to be finite, and they refuse to accept what Tanakh says, the only remaining recourse is for them to declare that irrelevant laws are still laws. By classifying irrelevant laws as laws, they are able to keep the Torah eternal.
But we know that to keep the Torah eternal in this way is an act of obfuscation. Since the Torah of Moses was given as a body of law to be followed by the people of Israel in a specific context, a context where each and every law had relevance and application, to impose that same body of law on a different age with a different context defies logic and is not supported by Tanakh.
The choices seem clear. If you believe in context, you will believe in a finite Law of Moses. If you disregard context, you will believe the Law of Moses is eternal. Which choice, do you think, is consistent with Tanakh and honors the G-d who gave Moses the Law?