Augustine's insights on Genesis 15 - Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness - Part 5

Since my radical reevaluation of Genesis 15 last year, which I have in my "Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness" series (Here), I have recently come across a fabulous commentary by St Augustine on this situation which I feel further vindicates my position. I truly believe this will change the way most informed folks read and comment upon Genesis 15 and Romans 4. Let's jump right into it, with this passage from St Augustine's masterpiece, City of God (Book 16; Section 26):

After these things in Gen 16, Ishmael was born of Hagar; and Abraham might think that in Ishmael was fulfilled what God had promised him in Gen 15, after Abraham originally wished to adopt his home-born servant Eliezer (Gen 15:2), to which God said "This servant shall not be your heir; but he that shall come forth from your own loins, he shall be your heir." (Gen 15:4) Therefore, lest Abraham should think that what was promised in Genesis 15:4 was fulfilled in Ishmael the handmaid's son in Genesis 16, God appeared to Abraham in Genesis 17 to promise the birth of Isaac, and said "I am God; be well-pleasing in my sight, and be without complaint, and I will make my covenant between me and you, and will fill you exceedingly."

Here in Genesis 17 there are more distinct promises about the calling of the nations in Isaac, that is, in the son of the promise, by which grace is signified, and not nature; for the son is promised from an old man and a barren old woman [Rom 4:19]. For although God effects even the natural course of procreation, yet where the agency of God is manifest, through the decay or failure of nature, grace is more plainly discerned. And because this was to be brought about, not by generation, but by regeneration, circumcision was enjoined now, when a son was promised of Sarah. For what else does circumcision signify than a nature renewed on the putting off of the old? And what else does the eighth day mean than Christ, who rose again when the week was completed, that is, after the Sabbath? The very names of the parents are changed [Gen 17:5; Rom 4:17]: all these details proclaim newness, and the new covenant is shadowed forth in the old. For what does the term old covenant imply but the concealing of the new? And what does the term new covenant imply but the revealing of the old?

Wow, if only this passage of St Augustine was more well-known, it might have changed the course of Catholic & Protestant dialog a long time ago and completely changed the way we read Romans 4. This passage confirms a lot of what my own 'regenerated' understanding of Romans 4 seems to be about as I've explained in my Revisiting series. As a summary: I do not see Romans 4 as about Abraham converting in Genesis 15, nor about him getting justified a second time after Genesis 12. I do not necessarily even see circumcision as portrayed as a "work" (more on this in an upcoming post). Rather, I think the only feasible reading of Rom 4:2 "if Abraham was justified by works" can refer to is bringing about the Promised Heir of Gen 15:4 by natural human means, namely Abraham sleeping with Hagar in Genesis 16, right after the Covenant was established in Genesis 15. It makes little to no sense contextually or logically for "works" of Abraham in Rom 4 to be sins, good deeds, or even circumcision itself, much less the ceremonial works of Moses. If you do a simple substitution of any of those meanings of "works", the train of thought for Paul makes no sense. It is possible that Paul is saying Abraham's "work" of sleeping with Hagar was a "type" for the merely natural "works of the Mosaic Law" which lacked grace. Abraham truly Believed God's promise in Genesis 12 that his offspring would be great and bless the whole world, but his natural, earthly, human "Reason" was unable to see how this was to actually be. Perhaps it was Eliezer, Abraham's distant relative would be the heir. So God showed up go clarify in Genesis 15 that it was not Eliezer, but rather someone "from his own loins" (15:4b). Perhaps then it was Ishmael, Abraham's actual biological child. So God showed up again to clarify in Genesis 17 that it wasn't Ishmael, but rather a miraculous birth, made possible by regenerative circumcision. In all this, we see types/shadows/images of the insufficiency of the Old Covenant and the need to make way for the New Covenant. Paul is far more concerned with Divine Revelation unfolding, seeing Genesis with the Glasses of Faith, that he is with some silly, shallow Protestant debate on faith "versus" deeds. 

Is it reasonable to believe Mary & Joseph had other children besides Jesus?

In nearly every discussion about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that I've come across, the debate almost always comes down to whether the "brothers and sisters" mentioned a few times in the Gospels were biological children or if this was just an ancient way of referring to cousins (which I hold to). But what if it was neither? The past few days, I got the inspiration to realize that there is indeed another possibility that Protestants don't consider: adoption! Why not? Remember that the underlying actual goal of the Protestant side is to attack Catholicism by attacking Mary, so if the "brothers and sisters" aren't biological children then their anti-Catholic mission has failed. The adoption possibility doesn't seem to be an explanation that I've ever come across, which is strange because it easily counters the Protestant when they reject the standard Catholic cousin explanation. It was actually very common in ancient times for parents to die of diseases and such, since there wasn't modern medicine or sanitation. So it was not uncommon for children of the same region, neighborhood, relatives, tribe, etc, to adopt those orphaned children. Could this be why James, the "brother" of Jesus, speaks so highly of taking care of orphans? (James 1:27) The genealogy lists that Matthew and Luke give list different forefathers at some points, but this is easily explained by the reality that some of those sons/fathers were adopted, and thus lineages crossed, but since it was all within the same Tribe of Judah, it was ultimately the same lineage. What is a Protestant really going to do if you respond by saying "yes, but these were adopted children"? The Protestant will realize that they cannot simply presume, and thus their argument is instantly deflated. Plus, we are all truly the brothers of Jesus by adoption in the spiritual sense, and would even extend that into being adopted by Mary (and Joseph), which is how many Catholic spiritual writers have understood the "rest of her children" in reference to Mary in Revelation 12:17.