According to this article, https://books.openedition.org/obp/4422?lang=en#:~:text=Aquinas's%20Natural%20Law%20Theory%20contains,Human%20Law%20and%20Divine%20Law.&text=By%20%E2%80%9CEternal%20Law'%E2%80%9D%20Aquinas,%2C%20and%20will%20always%2C%20exist. there is a mistake on your interpretation of Divine Law. Divine Law is not what brings us to common good, that is rather the Eternal Law. Secondly, Divine Law comes by revelation.
Right now, I cannot confirm what this article says, by looking at Aquinas' Summa, but I am sure revelation is a crucial part of Aquinas' concept of Law. And this admentens seems to fit better into the picture.
A further question, for both interpretations, might be, about the hierarchy of these rules. It seems as if Aquinas starts with Eternal Law then Natural and then Human. I think both of your interpretations (the ones from the article writers: Mark Dimmock, Andrew Fisher and the ones as found in this article) agree on that. But what is the role then of Divine Law?
Aquinas also says in other fragments of the Summa that reason should agree with faith, and if any conflict (contradiction) might be found faith has priority. So that will fit Divine Law besides with Eternal Law, but then the question seems to be, if all laws finally come from faith and/or God, why do Aquinas insist in Universal laws or Primary precepts which are not explicit in the Bible? Maybe he claims he got from God?
Anyways, this is a problem from scholars of Aquinas. I am studying canon Law and find Aquinas' treatise enlightening. Although I wouldn't say contradictions among reason and faith should give priority to faith. (Which btw. I have heard it is kind of problematic too because Aquinas seems to presuppose the rule of non-contradiction, but also to hold the inconsistencies of the Trinity and Incarnation). Anyways, I hope this is helpful. --Josemazcorro (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)