JETS 61.4 (2018): 805–23 RELATION OF THE TRIPARTITE DIVISION OF THE LAW AND THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE DISTINCTION: EXAMINING THE STREAMS OF THOUGHT BEHIND THEM RONALD M. ROTHENBERG* Abstract: Whether one endorses or dismisses the biblical consistency of the tripartite division of the law, this long held tradition has been interconnected with the public/private distinction in both secular and Christian streams of thought. The historical evidence indicates that the tri- partite division of the law has been constructed in such a manner as to reflect or perhaps even presuppose the public/private distinction. Consequently, the histories of the tripartite division of the law and the public/private distinction are intertwined. Furthermore, the evidence in this study suggests several aspects of research into the tripartite division which may need to be ex- panded or in some cases perhaps reconsidered. Since the tripartite division has been a long and widely held construction in the Christian tradition and it implies the public/private distinction, then despite the current trend to dismiss the distinction, evangelicals have good cause to retain this heuristic and hermeneutic device that is necessary for biblical interpretation and unavoida- ble in ethical reflection. Key words: theology, Reformed theology, ethics, applied ethics, tripartite division of the law, public/private distinction, contemporary issues, hermeneutics In the present time in church history, magisterial works treating the history of doctrine itself (Harnack, History of Dogma) and individual doctrines (McGrath, Iust- itia Dei) have been produced to the great benefit of the church.1 Such works treat- ing the histories of various doctrines are invaluable not only as contributions to historical theology, but also for a systematic understanding of why evangelicals believe what they do now and in some cases pointing to what they should or should not believe are Scriptural teachings. While some major doctrines have been treated with a panoramic historic overview, others such as sanctification and the tripartite division of the law have been largely neglected. With regard to the tripar- tite division of the law, Ross’s From the Finger of God (2010) currently stands as the definitive contemporary work on the tripartite division in terms of its scope and * Ronald Rothenberg is an independent researcher residing at 123 Dewey Ave., Unit G, San Gabriel, CA 91776. He may be contacted at [email protected]. 1 Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma (7 vols.; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1997); Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (3rd ed.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Among others, one might also think of Fortman’s or de Margerie’s histories of the Trinity and certainly there are other histories of individual doctrines (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity [Theological Resources; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972]; Bertrand de Margerie, The Christian Trinity in History [trans. Edmund J. Fortman; Studies in Historical Theology 1; Still River, MA: St. Bede’s, 1982]). 806 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY comprehensiveness.2 Ross’s concern is “to investigate the biblical and theological grounds for the threefold division” in order to defend the doctrine “as an a posteriori framework derived from the patterns that Scripture as a whole establishes” rather than an a priori “impersonal, self-constructed framework” that is imposed on the Bible.3 The historical section of his larger study supports this agenda by arguing that the history “reflects its [the tripartite division’s] status as the ‘orthodox posi- tion.’”4 Ross carefully qualifies that the historic section of his biblically and theolog- ically focused study is “not an exhaustive account,” but his brief and excellent overview is possibly the most complete history of the tripartite division to date.5 Furthermore, Ross helpfully suggests three directions for future research into the tripartite division: (1) detailed investigation of individual church Fathers and expan- sion of the doctrinal development from (2) the Fathers to Aquinas and (3) from Aquinas to the Westminster Confession.6 This article loosely follows Ross’s second suggestion by modestly expanding his history of the tripartite division in the time period from the late centuries BC to the Reformation, including Ross himself. There are four reasons for making this expansion modest and selecting this particular time period. First and in addition to the space constraints of an article, this work continues my past investigation of the relationship between the tripartite division and the public/private distinction, which makes the figures presented selective. Second and with respect to the time period, for the relationship of the tripartite division and the public/private distinc- tion, it is more helpful to begin earlier than Ross has suggested and to end in the Reformation, but also to include Ross. Third, this period is important for investi- gating the origin of the tripartite division and for supporting the argument for the continued use of the public/private distinction. Furthermore, rather than rigidly focusing on a particular period, this slice of history suggests four non-Christian streams of thought (Greek philosophical, Roman legal, Gnostic, and Jewish theo- logical) that have some relation to the Christian construction of the tripartite divi- sion. Finally, and in contrast to a purely historical study of the tripartite division alone, these first three considerations and particularly the focus on streams of thought create a study that points to areas in which research regarding the tripartite division may need to be expanded or perhaps in some cases reconsidered. The thesis of this article is that the histories of the tripartite division of the law and the public/private distinction are intertwined. As a result of the historical conjunction of these two biblical hermeneutic tools, the long and widely held tradi- tion of the tripartite division of the law has set not only a conceptual precedent for but also a sometimes-unconscious presupposition of the public/private distinction in the evangelical mind. This thesis is defended in five parts. First, the terms tripar- 2 Philip S. Ross, From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2010). 3 Ross, Finger of God, 18, 351. 4 Ibid., 352 (emphasis added). 5 Ibid., 32. 6 Ibid., 352. RELATION OF THE TRIPARTITE DIVISION OF THE LAW 807 tite division and public/private distinction are briefly introduced and defined. Sec- ond, some of the primary biblical evidence for these ideas is presented. Third, a historical overview of the tripartite division from the late centuries BC to the Reformation is presented. Fourth and fifth, the historical overview is divided into various non-Christian and Christian streams of thought for presentation and analy- sis. I. BRIEF INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION OF TERMS The tripartite division of the law as historically constructed and interpreted by its proponents has been understood in a manner that implies, reflects, or perhaps even presupposes the idea of the public/private distinction. Although defined with some variation, the tripartite division of the law may be understood as a view of the biblical law: (1) as unified, but with distinct and overlapping civil, ceremonial, and moral aspects and (2) in which the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ, the civil law expired with the state of national Israel, and only the moral aspect continues to be in force for believers.7 In recent scholarship, the tripartite division of the law has primarily been discussed in debates about the nature of law (some in relation to the law itself and others with respect to New Perspective on Paul), the doctrine of sanctification, the field of ethics, and the relationship between the OT and the NT with respect to eschatology (traditional Reformed versus dispensational and more recently progressive covenantalism versus progressive dispensationalism).8 While the tripartite division is most likely associated with the Reformed tradi- tion in the minds of American evangelicals through its expression in The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, The Canons of Dort, and perhaps most notably The Westminster Confession, historically broad sectors of the Christian tradition such as Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican have also held to the tripartite division of the law rather than the historically recent dispensationalist view of the law as a monolithic indivisible whole.9 Even though dispensationalists may theolog- ically reject the tripartite division, they should also be able to appreciate the historic argument along with other evangelicals that the long-held tradition or systematic 7 Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (rev. and enl. ed.; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 254–55; Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (rev. and exp. ed.; Chicago: Moody, 2014), 751; Joe M. Sprinkle, “Law,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (ed. Walter A. Elwell; Baker Reference Library; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 469. 8 E.g. see Stanley N. Gundry, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel (Zondervan Counterpoints Collection; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 30–31, 36–37, 103–8, 188–89, 195–97, 231, 261, 336, 378– 79; Stanley N. Gundry, ed., Five Views on Sanctification (Zondervan Counterpoints Collection; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 25–27, 85–88, 101; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 44–48; Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker, Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 5–6, 71– 73, 87–88, 216–18, 221, 226. 9 The Catechism of the Council of Trent, (trans. Theodore Alois Buckley; London: George Routledge & Co., 1852), s.v. “3.1.1–3; 3.4.4; 3.4.6; 3.4.8”; A. P. Forbes, An Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, (2nd ed.; London: James Parker & Co., 1871), 113, 121–22; Seraphim Slobodskoi, The Law of God: For Study at Home and School (trans.