My good friend MaÃ«l, from “The Adventures of MaÃ«l & Cindy“, has written an excellent series concerning the so-called tripartite (three part) division of the law. The final post in the series is called “Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Some final thoughts)“. At the end of that post, you will find links to the other posts in this series.
In his conclusion, MaÃ«l says:
The early writers seem to have been driven by a theological motivation, versus the clear commands of Scripture, to use a tripartite division of the law, whereas the latter writers seem to rely on the early writer’s arguments. Since several convincing Scriptural arguments have been offered for the unity of the law, it makes more sense to keep the law as one.
I have found this to be very common when dealing with ecclesiology. Someone comes to a conclusion based on their theological leanings or based on a perceived heresy. Others then follow that person, without examining those conclusions from Scripture. But, when we start with Scripture… well, that’s often a different story.