Ramblings on the Law as both good and bad

How can 'the law [be] holy, and the commandment [be] holy and righteous and good' (Rom 7:12) when it is 'not of faith' (Gal 3:12)?

Two answers come to the top of my head.

1. The law is good but partial and outdated in the light of our faith. This answer recognises that 'faith' is not abstract but must be faith in someone, namely Christ who had not been revealed in the law.
2. The law was right in theory when it offered life through obedience, but it was a hypothetical promise as no one could meet its holy standard. Despite the pedigree of this answer to the question, I think it is flawed in many, many ways (although it still has some truth to it.

A third way in which you can get round the seemingly conflicting statements in Paul is to argue that Paul when criticising the Law is actually attacking a perversion of the Law and not the Law rightly understood. This makes sense of many Pauline passages and helps in embracing all of God's word wholeheartedly. However, as Seifrid taught me, it is difficult to square this perspective with the fact that Paul always seems to be criticising the law itself, and not some perversion of it.

However, having thought about that I tried to think of other instances where the bible criticises something and yet actually holds it to be good. The most obvious example to me is Kingship. In Judges (except in the final section) and Samuel it is portrayed as a bad thing, with no indication that it may be good. Abimelech is surely a clear example of why raising up a king is bad (Judg 9), and Saul is an even clearer example despite being anointed by God. And yet despite the first half of Judges and Samuel in the second parts of the two books kingship is shown as a positive and God-ordained institution. And yet like Paul with the Law, when the bible is criticising kingship it seems for all the world that it is criticising kingship itself, and not a perversion of it.

Well my thoughts are not fully formed but I think there is something to be said for the 'perversion of the law' argument but care is probably required in using it.