YAHVEH COUNSELING CAIN: GENESIS 4:1-15

Introduction

This student was called to a church leader's home in upstate New York about ten years ago.  One of this leader's co-workers was there and in crisis.  He was seriously considering murdering his wife and her new boyfriend.  He finally did make a few good choices and the murders did not occur. 

The crisis in the biblical text below had the best Counselor in the universe on the scene and at work.  However, the counselee would not listen to the truth and chose to continue with his plan to commit murder and to seek to cover it up.  Yet, his cover-up did not work.

Historical and Literary Analysis: Genesis 4:1-15

Genesis chapters three through eleven contain a number of different stories that have a singular theme:  The moral failure of mankind.[1]  After the fall of mankind recorded in Genesis chapter three, the next sub-section, chapters four through eleven, shows the continual downward spiral of mankind into sin and its consequences of even greater depravity and death. 

Indeed, the book of Genesis deals with origins, beginnings, and many first-time events.  Not only does it record God’s creative activity, but it also describes sin’s entry into the human race and man’s many reversals of God’s original order and creation.   Eve's lusts lead to her rebellion by eating the forbidden fruit, followed by her husband, who plunged the whole human race into sin.  Shortly after this event, anger lead to murder in the first family of sinners.  As the population grew, widespread depravity lead to God’s judgment in the flood and direct disobedience lead to God’s separating people groups by language at the tower of Babel.  Chapters’ 1-11 show man’s great need for salvation, and chapters 12-50 displays God’s plan of redemption of sinners being worked out in history.

Textual Analysis: Genesis 4:1-15

There is a significant textual variant in Genesis chapter four in verse eight.  The Septuagint (LXX) has the added a small discourse after the words: And Cain spoke to Abel saying, “Let us go out into the field” (see RSV).[2]  Most English versions accept and therefore translate the Hebrew text for this verse as the original rather than the LXX.  If this LXX addition is original or factual, it removes any doubt that this murder was premeditated.  However, the context and syntax of the Hebrew text seems to indicate this same idea without the adding of these additional words.  The Hebrew text makes sense without these additional words.  The other ancient translations are in support of the Hebrew text.  Thus, it is probably better to support the BHS Hebrew text as the original text in this instance.

Lexical Analysis: Genesis 4:1-15

The first key word in this Scripture section that needs further study is in verse four and is translated as: “firstborn, best, choicest, and female firstlings.”  The Hebrew term bekorah is a noun that has the nuances of firstborn or the right of the first-born.[3] The addition of this term in reference to Abel’s offering shows that it was qualitatively different than Cain’s. 

In verse five the text uses a word to describe Cain’s emotional state.  The Hebrew term charah is used, which usually means “to burn, be kindled, of anger -- (one's) anger was kindled, burned; he burned with anger.”[4]  Cain’s anger was raging like a burning fire against God and his brother Abel, and it showed on his face.

In verse seven the exegete may be concerned about three terms.  The term God uses for sin in this verse is not the term for rebellion or a high-handed sin, but the more common word for all types of infractions against God and His Law.  It is the Hebrew term chatat;, which is often translates as ‘sin’ or ‘sin-offering’ (“1. sin: a. against man. Elsewhere b. against God.”)[5]  The next term is the verb for the subject ‘sin.’ It is translated as ‘crouching, waiting, and lies.’  The Hebrew verb behind these English translations is ravats, which means “to stretch oneself out, lie down, lie stretched out.” It is used for the resting of domestic animals, and figuratively for the crouching of wild beasts and for the crouching of sin.[6]  The Hebrew term translated as ‘desire’ teshooqah,,, has the nuance of the “longing -- of woman for man; of man for woman; and of beast to devour.”[7]  Sin is pictured by these terms as a lion lying in ambush for Cain at the door of his dwelling.  Sin not only wants to eat Cain’s lunch, it desires to eat Cain for lunch.  The Devil is described in similar terms in the New Testament (1 Peter 5:8).

In verse nine Cain uses the term translated into English as ‘keeper.’  In the original it is a participle form of shamar, which means to “keep, watch, preserve, and have charge of, a garden, an ark, or property in trust; to tend a flock. It is also used in contexts to denote 'to keep, guard, captives; keep watch and ward.' The participle form often is used as watch, watchman, of city.”[8]

Structural Analysis: Genesis 4:1-15

This narrative section can be outlined as follows:

   I. Adam and Eve produce children

  II. The children mature and them worship Yahveh.

      A.  Cain offers a gift from his excess.

      B.  Abel offers his best.

 III. Cain becomes jealous and angry with God and Abel.

  IV. Yahveh intervenes and warns Cain.

   V. Cain makes a plan and kills his brother Abel.

  VI. Yahveh confronts Cain with his sin.  "Where is Abel? What have you done?”

 VII. Cain tells a lie and makes excuses.

VIII. Cain receives God’s judgment and ongoing consequences for his sin.

  IX. Yahveh shows mercy to Cain in judgment.

Rhetorical Analysis: Genesis 4:1-15

This section of redemptive history is a narrative section that is interspersed with discourse conversations.  The verses in Genesis 4:1-15 that are entirely narrative are verses: 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. Likewise, the verses that are solely discourse are: 7, 11, 12, and 14.  Furthermore, the verses that contain both narrative and discourse in this section are: 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 15.  The verb forms in Hebrew clearly show the switches from narrative to discourse and there are a number of disjunctive nominal clauses that divide up this section.

Analogical Analysis: Genesis 4:1-15

The major cross references that aid in interpreting this periscope include the following:

Gen 4:25 “And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, ‘For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed’” (NKJV).

Ex 20:13 “You shall not murder” (NKJV).

Jer. 7:8-11 “Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot profit. ⁹ Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Baal, and walk after other gods whom you do not know, ¹⁰ and then come and stand before Me in this house which is called by My name, and say, 'We are delivered to do all these abominations'? ¹¹ Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of thieves in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,” says the LORD (NKJV).

Matt. 5:21-22 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' ²² But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire” (NKJV).

Grammatical and Syntactical Analysis: Genesis 4:1-15

Genesis 4:1-2 “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, ‘I have acquired a man from the LORD.’ ² Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground” (NKJV). 

The grammar and syntax of these verses show that those who have assumed that Cain and Abel were twins were wrong.  The verbs are in a narrative sequence and show that Eve conceived and gave birth, then at a latter time, she conceived and gave birth again.  The verb “know” is used for the closest personal relationships on both physical and spiritual levels between individuals that love each other.  Eve names Cain in faith, hoping he will be the “seed of the woman,” her Messiah. When Abel was born, she was more discouraged, in that she gave him a name that means “vapor, breath, and emptiness.”  The term for “keeper” in verse two is the common term for shepherd that is used for the one who feeds and protects and is a synonym for the English term pastor.

Genesis 4:3-4 "And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. ⁴ Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering," (NKJV).

After these two boys matured they began to worship Yahveh.  Cain was a farmer, Abel was shepherd.  The text does not address the issue of blood sacrifice.  Even in the Mosaic Law there was provision for grain offerings, and that type of offering is the same type and term that is used in verse three.  What the text highlights is that Cain merely brought an offering from his produce.  Abel, however, brought the best, the choicest, the first-born and the fat (the best of the best).  Thus, there was a qualitative difference in the offerings of the brothers.  The heart attitudes are displayed in this act.  Furthermore, Hebrews 11: 4 point to a difference in faith and righteousness.  “By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks” (NKJV).  Yahveh was pleased with both Abel and his offering.

Genesis 4:5-7 ^“but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. ⁶ So the LORD said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? ⁷ If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it’” (NKJV).

In these verses, Yahveh communicated in some way to Cain that his offering and heart did not please Him.  Cain responded with burning anger.  His anger showed on his face.  Yahveh confronted Cain’s unbiblical response.  God’s first question is to ask Cain why he is angry (see Jonah 4:4).  Cain’s sinful response and sour face were not justified or the proper way to solve the problem.  Yahveh instructs Cain that by doing right – according to His Word – he will have his offering accepted before God.  He warns Cain about the temptation before him (see Lexical Analysis above) and sin’s desire.  Cain needs to rule over his emotions and not surrender to sin.

Genesis 4:8-12 “Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. ⁹ Then the LORD said to Cain, 'Where is Abel your brother?' He said, 'I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?' ¹⁰ And He said, 'What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground. ¹¹ So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. ¹² When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth'” (NKJV).

Cain did not respond to Yahveh’s warning with obedience.  He surrendered to his fallen emotions and to sin’s temptation to lash out in anger and jealousy.  Sin not dealt with over time begets more sin (Jam. 1:14-15).  So, next in the story, Cain makes a plan.  He speaks with his brother and kills him – most likely in his field. He may have used farm tools to both shed Abel’s blood and to bury him. Yahveh confronts Cain again. He asks him, “Where is Abel?” In response, Cain lies and denies knowledge of Abel’s location. Then, Cain sarcastically asks if he is responsible to guard, protect and watch out for his brother.  The original construction implies he believed the answer was “No.” Next, God asks Cain, “What have you done?  God knew where Abel’s body and soul were, as well as what Cain had done. But, He lets Cain discover that his sin has been found out as well as offering him opportunities to respond correctly.  Cain’s sin bears life-long consequences.    

Genesis 4:13-15 “And Cain said to the LORD, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear! ¹⁴ Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.’ ¹⁵ And the LORD said to him, ‘Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.’ And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him" (NKJV).

Cain has thought about the consequences of his sin a little too late.  Cain does not want justice to find him.  Yahveh responds to Cain with mercy.  The verb ‘avenge’ is a hophal imperfect, which puts it in the passive voice.[9]  Thus, God will be the one who will bring vengeance on any who successfully murder Cain.  God provided a sign to give evidence that He would protect Cain.  Bible students debate over the possibilities of a miraculous sign or a personal mark upon Cain’s body.  Regardless of what the sign was, Yahveh would keep His Word and bring a seven fold vengeance on anyone killing Cain.  There was only one family on the earth at that time – and the need was to be fruitful and multiply rather than to continue to take the lives of people made in the image of God.

Theological Analysis: Genesis 4:1-15

The proper response to the problem of God not respecting Cain’s offering would have been to get further instruction, to repent of half-heated worship, and to lovingly comply with God’s will.  Cain was not one who was given to obedience and dependence, but one deeply committed to autonomy and independence.  If Cain would have cried out to God, “I can’t do right,” God would have agreed with him and directed him to put his faith in the Messiah as Abraham would come to do (Gal. 3:6-9).  Cain was responsible for surrendering to sin in his life.  He was too proud to say, “I can’t master my emotions, and I can’t fight the temptation to sin.”  Cain needed his heart of stone removed and heart of flesh – a circumcised heart, from above – put in its place.  He needed to become a new creature with faith in God and repentance for sin.

God gave Cain a chance to repent by asking him where Abel was.  Cain responded by trying to cover up his sin with lies and excuses.  Cain was responsible to protect, guard, and watch out for his brother.  He felt it was not his responsibility, but he was very wrong.  God knows all things, and was full aware of what Cain had done.  He let Cain bear the consequences of his own sin for his entire life on the earth.  Furthermore, if Cain did not ever repent and put his faith in God, he is still paying for his sin in hell.

Conclusion

This crisis had the best Counselor available who perfectly shared the truth.  He gave Cain many opportunities to do the right thing, yet Cain continually chose to do the wrong thing instead.  If Cain would have followed God’s Word in faith and loving obedience, there would have been no crisis and the first death may have been by natural causes rather than murder.  Unfortunately, Cain was following his emotions, and they were both sinful and out of control.  Emotions are always untrustworthy for fallen sinners.  Yahveh wisely asked the right questions that provide an ongoing example for all future counselors in crisis situations.  He was not diverted by Cain’s lies or his attempts at covering up his horrendous sin.  Likewise, God’s mercy towards sinners who have really messed things up is also worthy of emulation by the Christian counselor.  Here is an example of sympathetic disagreement.

---

[1] Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 82.

[2] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 75.

[3] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The New Brown - Driver - Briggs - Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon  (New York: Christian Copyrights, Inc., 1983), 114.

[4] Ibid., 354.

[5] Ibid., 310.

[6] Ibid., 918.

[7] Ibid., 1003.

[8] Ibid., 1036.

[9] nacam verb hophal imperfect 3^rd person masculine singular nacam vb. avenge, take vengeance – the blood of his servants he avenged , in administration of justice against murder.  Blood at hands of; take vengeance for thee. Hophal: Be avenged, vengeance be taken (for blood).”  In Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew English Lexicon, 667, and in BibleWorks 6.0.

 

Works Consulted

Arnold, Bill T. and Bryan Beyer.  Encountering the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids:  Baker Books, 1999.

Belcher, Richard.  Doing Biblical Exegesis.  Columbia, SC: Richbarry Press, 1985.

BibleWorks 6.0, Computer Bible Research Software.  BibleWorks, LLC.  P.O. Box 6158 Norfolk, VA, 23508; available at http://www.bibleworks.com.

The Bible.  New King James Version.

Black, David Alan.  Using New Testament Greek in Ministry: A Practical Guide for Students and Pastors.  Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs.  The New Brown - Driver - Briggs - Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon.  New York: Christian Copyrights, Inc., 1983.

Elliger, Karl and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds.  Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.  Verkleinerte Ausgabe: Whrttemberg Bible Society, 1984.

Kidner, Derek.  Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary.  Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967.

Shame and the Innocent Person

A person has no participation or responsibility in their own conception or its timing. Few would argue with this outside of the Mormon cult. We cannot choose our parents or our day of conception, or even our day of birth. We bear no responsibility for any of these matters.

Nevertheless, the Bible is crystal clear that fornication is a sin and violates one of the Ten Commandments (the seventh commandment). When this occurs, there is legitimate shame for the participants and their families. This is intensified when the sinful acts (sex outside of marriage) result in a new life. Some parents will decide to murder the child in order to hide the shame. Others avoid adding a second sin to the first, and people should encourage them for choosing life over death. However, the newborn is the innocent party in this event (Ezek 18:19–20). Human culture often looks down on a child born out of wedlock with the same or more scorn than the parents. They have derogatory names in many languages for such children, ignoring their innocence in the incident that resulted in their conception.

The first-century Pharisees made a false accusation toward the only virgin-born person, Jesus the Anointed One, on this matter (John 8:41). This recorded event shows disdain for the innocent person who was not a participant in the sin, which was even common in that day. This cultural mistreatment of the person who is not at fault is not biblical, wise, moral, or legitimate. Likewise, the breaking of the 7th commandment is not unpardonable if the guilty parties truly repent and trust God’s provision for the sinner by the Messiah’s substitutionary atonement (Luke 7:47–48).

Are parents involved in the sins and mistakes of their children? If it happened despite their teaching, example, home life, and provided environment, then the answer is no. However, since most parents fall short in these areas at least to some degree, there may be legitimate shame and guilt when their children fail to obey biblical standards and that failure produces a child. Nevertheless, a believer in the God of the Bible can also repent of and be forgiven for failing as a parent. Parental failure is not an unpardonable sin either (2 Sam 12:13).

Even though all children are born with a sin nature (Psa 51:5), regarding the conditions of their conception, all children are 100% innocent when the conception did not follow God’s declared pattern and plan. Therefore, it is wrong for grandparents to allow pride to dictate how they treat this fearfully and wonderfully made gift from God (Psa 139:14). No matter how badly they failed as parents or how much their children failed, this new person added to the family is a wonderful, special gift. They need unconditional love from their grandparents. The grandparents therefore cannot hide these children’s existence from their church, work, neighborhood, or other communities. As these children grow up and meet people who knew their grandparents, they should be told how much their grandparents loved them. They should learn that their grandparents displayed their pictures on their desks at work, on their phones, and in their homes, and that they were very pleased with this wonderful addition to their family. Yes, shame was attached to an event, but not to the innocent person. To treat a grandchild differently because of race, skin tone, timing of conception, or disability is wrong and harmful to the innocent person based on one’s sinful pride, prejudice, or fear of shame. I know of people in their thirties and forties who have vivid memories of mistreatment by grandparents because of something for which the grandchild was 100% innocent. The painful memories linger on and distress their families to this day. Don’t make this mistake or encourage others to make it.

To truly love a wonderful gift to your family does not mean you condone the morals of our culture or the current ways of the world system as acceptable, or that you have lowered God’s standards. We must employ biblical wisdom in this situation. Responding to the sin of the guilty is one thing. Their relationship with the Lord will dictate this response. However, the mistreatment of the innocent child is not a biblical response to this circumstance. The arrival of a baby changes everything. It is very hard to know how to respond correctly without seeking advice and thinking through what a commitment to celebrate life over death looks like in your own family. Being pro-life is much more than placing a bumper sticker on one’s car.

So, you may shake your head when you see on social media a picture or a story showing how pleased a grandparent is with their grandchild and how much they love them when the child’s parents are/were single. Your thoughts may be that they should cover up their love and involvement with this child because of the circumstances of the conception. They should not have their pictures in their house, on their phone, or on their desk at work.

Please consider that what you are endorsing is the mistreatment of an innocent party (innocent on this one matter) and ignoring the joy God gives a whole family with a new life and a new soul made in His image (Gen 1:27). You are encouraging others to scar precious lives to avoid public shame. That is both a sin and a serious mistake. The child does not deserve shame for something they have not been involved in, nor to be mistreated or publicly hidden because of the fear of shame of the family members. Our culture is not correct in shaming the child, and this is not a deterrent to prevent childbirth out of wedlock.

The father in Luke 15 shows the posture we should take rather than that of the Pharisaical older brother. Rather than the disdain for the younger brother held by the older brother, the father had an open heart and arms and eyes lovingly searching for his son. He did not disown him. The apostle John reminds us that God is both Light (Holiness and Truth) and Love (Gracious and Merciful) [1 John 1:5, 4:8]. Neither attribute should be excluded; rather, both should be viewed in balance.

Grandchildren are gifts from God. Love them unconditionally and love them well. It is truly amazing how your love for a grandchild multiplies and expands over the months and years. You do not know what this is like until you experience it. Your different role with the child makes it very different from parental love.

Be careful how you treat children of single parents. Jesus warns, “If anyone causes one of these little ones — those who believe in me — to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea” (Matt 18:6 NIV).

People will make or break your business

Book Review: Brad Wolff, People Problems? How to Create People Solutions for a Competitive Advantage. Alpharetta, GA: Peoplemaximizers.com, 2018.

Brad Wolff and the People Maximizer group are on the right track for business improvement and can provide any business very important guidance. But these insights will only work if the owners and/or leaders are willing to internally adapt to be competitive in today’s marketplace.

This is a short and well-written book that does not use extensive technical language. The insights are presented in a very interesting fashion that will hold your attention to the last page.

Wolff explains that having a good company culture is vital to maximizing the potential output and creativity of each person employed there. Just having the right process and technology in place will not be enough if competitive employees are undermining the efforts of their so-called team members. It is vital to address key issues with the people who will make or break a business. A change in the internal culture can put a company on the cutting edge of the modern changing business environment and prepared to succeed in the marketplace.

The traditional paradigm of people management is challenged in this work. An effective alternative is offered. Likewise, examples are given from extremely successful companies that are maximizing the output and happiness of their people through these changes. When the company culture is desirable, leaders can both hire and develop the right people who will produce amazing results and these talented people will want to stay a part of the team.

From my experience, I can see how these principles would transform various construction sub-contractor teams, shipyards, direct sales, university departments, computer hardware/software companies, automotive repair shops, both church and non-profit staffs as well as financial institutions. The examples in the book include a leading dot.com corporation.

If you are a business leader, manager, senior pastor or an owner of a business, you need to read this book and think deeply about the proposed paradigm shift. The proposed change can be from frustration to joy for everyone who is aligned to the business Mission Statement. Your business can have the competitive edge and customer attraction of a Wegmans Grocery Store rather than the results of delaying adaptation of Blockbuster Video Rentals. Take up and read!

Book Review: Good Grief: God’s Sustaining Presence During my Heartbreak

David A. Dean: Good Grief: God’s Sustaining Presence During my Heartbreak; Live Oak, FL; HIMES Publications, 2012.

Sooner or later, every one of us is going to face loss and grief. It is part of our journey. It is far better to prepare for it rather than to be taken by surprise. A helpful book like the following can bridge that gap. Dr. Dean’s work gives the reader a chronological look at the first year of the grief of a Christian widower after the sudden passing of his beloved wife, Dorothy Dean. There are not many works that do this, which makes this volume quite a treasure. Dean candidly shows what a man after many years of marriage thinks and feels during the stages of grief during the first twelve months. The excellent Forward by Dr. Sidney Bradley clearly prepares the reader for what to anticipate as they walk through this journey with Dr. Dean chapter by chapter.

Who should read this book? It will be extremely helpful to anyone dealing with grief. It will uniquely help widowers and widows, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. The insights in this work will be extremely helpful to relatives, friends, pastors, Sunday school teachers and even co-workers on key dates to minister to those who are grieving throughout the first year of loss. Just the insight of recognizing the times and ways one can minister to others is worth far more than the price of the book. These dates include the deceased loved one’s birthday, day of death, wedding anniversary and key family holidays. Dean reveals that each of these stark reminders can be made more bearable with the company of others and by sensitive cards in the mail or calls on the phone. Dean is a clear writer with a theological mind. But one becomes aware of his theology through his walk in pain rather than from a theoretical lecture. This book is truly layman-friendly.

Likewise, Dean’s experience with making changes in the home with the ongoing issue with Dorothy’s baskets gives great insight to the need for delay on permanent changes of certain things. Many working their way along this same path learn that passing along their loved one’s clothes to those who can use them should be done sooner than later, as this becomes more difficult as more time passes. However, we learn from Dean’s trek that some other type of possession might be best stored for a while and to take a little more time before permanent changes are made. Likewise, Dean’s story is also a positive example of not making major financial changes in the first year after the passing of a spouse. The first 12 months are way too soon to make wise major decisions when one is emotionally drained by the loss. Dr. Dean modeled this wisdom throughout this work. He was also willing to listen to his children’s advice and to carefully think things through. Unfortunately, criminals and con men will exploit vulnerable people if there are no safe guards in place. The honest description of mistakes that cause further guilt and disappointment in this story were not reversible, but they did not involve the foolish loss of needed retirement funds for basic monthly needed sustenance. This work does not warn against this danger with a lecture. It simply models the wisdom on delaying major decisions and the importance of listening to advice.

What about the small section at the end of this book, “To My Readers?” As a retired Baptist pastor, I do not personally hold to the Advent Christian views in this small section. If this small appendix confuses you, ask your pastor any questions that come to your mind. If you are unable to do that, but you need some help, see R.C. Sproul’s chapter, “To Die is Gain” in Surprised by Suffering. This chapter will help if you see another view on this matter with key Bible references. It is a good resource if you don’t skip that part of Dean’s book and you find yourself a little confused about his way of interpreting the word “sleep” in the Bible. However, don’t let this little segment deter you from reaping the wisdom displayed in this volume. It should not surprise one who reads of the loyalty Dr. Dean expresses throughout this volume to Dorothy that he would also show loyalty to his particular denomination and it distinctions on the matter of death. We can appreciate this loyalty while disagreeing on this third or second level doctrine (depending on the reader’s convictions) among evangelicals. Only first level doctrines that are denied cause us to question the salvation of those who do not hold to the faith once delivered to the saints. Therefore, get this book for yourself and then get another one for a friend. You will be glad you did.

Are Grandparents important?

How important are grandparents? By the time I was three, both grandmothers and one grandfather had passed away. Doctors diagnosed my remaining grandfather with manic-depressive illness (bipolar disorder). Before the 1970s, he would receive shock treatments about every seven years and was on medication. My family never left me alone with him, and I only saw him periodically. 

Sometime before I was 8 years-old, I was talking to the older lady next door, and I asked her if she would be my grandmother and her husband would be my grandfather. She said yes and instantly became my unofficially adopted grandmother. She hired me to do yard work from time to time after that. They invited me over to eat watermelon with them on their picnic table under the tree in their backyard when they got one during the summer. By ten I was cutting the grass in their backyard and would go over to their house on Saturday nights to watch Kojak and the Sonny and Cher show. After seeing my friends react with their grandparents, I instinctively knew I was missing something important. My request embarrassed my parents, but it was one of the best requests I ever made. Grandma Hattie Brashier, who hailed from Hertford, NC, had thorough training in country cooking. Her collards were the best I had ever eaten. Grandpa Vernon Brashier was a veteran and was from Kentucky. He was an excellent storyteller. 

These folks gave me time and love over many years. Grandma Hattie had a stroke around when I was fourteen, and she passed away when I was sixteen. I was devastated. It was the first loss of that magnitude in my life. My actual grandfather passed away the following year. I was sad by his passing, but did not have the hole in my heart that I had with Grandma Hattie. I visited Grandpa Vernon from time to time, but I spent a lot of time away from home after getting my license at 16 and was often working on cars. While I was in Bible College, I visited Grandpa Vernon in the hospital (I was about 25 years old) when he was dying of cancer. He had been resistant to the gospel because of geological explanations claiming that different stratus levels of rock proved evolution, which disproved the Genesis record. When I shared the gospel with him, he was open and told my father that it seemed heaven opened when I read Romans 10 to him. I am not sure where he was spiritually when he passed away a few weeks later. But I am so grateful for this couple’s investment in me over so many years when I was just their next-door neighbor and not blood kin. I now know how much I needed them. Providence brought them into my life at an important stage and removed them at another specific time. I hope by God’s sovereign grace I will see them again in glory. God does all things well, and He is all-knowing, so I trust in His wise plan. Many people who invested in me over the years—both earlier and later in my life—have influenced the positive things I have accomplished. Grandparents are important, and good ones can do a lot of good.

Ted Manby