Need info on PaRDeS the 4 interpretations of the bible

[gilgal]

Many of the prophecies of Jesus Christ aren't direct prophecies but use a deeper level of interpretation such as Matthew 2 "Out of Egypt I called out my son". If you look at the original prophecy which is in Hosea he's referring to Israel. But Matthew must have interpreted at a deeper level.

I want to know what are the levels of interpretation and examples and why they are categorized in that level. Thanks.

[gilgal]

Jewish sources:
http://www.betemunah.org/remez.html
http://ohr.edu0/ask_db/ask_main.php/163/Q2/

Do you agree or disagree?

[gilgal]

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Fruchtenbaum-RabbinicQuotationsoftheOl.pdf

THE REFINEMENT BY DR. DAVID L. COOPER
Dr. David L. Cooper, the late director of the Biblical Research Society, was quite familiar with
Jewish writings and also knew all about the fourfold way the New Testament quotes the Old, but
he created new names for the four categories to make it easier for Gentile Christians to
understand. (Messiah: His Historical Appearance, pgs. 174-177). He also noted that the second
chapter of the Gospel of Matthew has one example of each category. I will give his examples and
add some of my own.

The first rabbinic category was pshat which has the basic meaning of "simple", "plain." Cooper
referred to it as literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment. The example used is Matthew 2:5-6
which quotes Micah 5:2. In the original context of Micah 5:2, the prophet is speaking
prophetically and prophesying that whenever the Messiah is born, He will be born in Bethlehem
of Judah. Thus the literal meaning of Micah is that the Messiah will be born in the Bethlehem of
Judah and not the Bethlehem of Galilee. When a literal prophecy is fulfilled in the New
Testament, it is quoted as a literal fulfillment. Other prophecies that fall into this category
include: Psalm 22 (describing the death of the Messiah); Psalm 110:1 (the Messiah will be seated
on the right hand of God); Isaiah 7:14 (the virgin birth); 40:3 (the forerunner of the Messiah);
52:13-53:12 (the rejection, atoning death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah); 61:1-2a (the
prophetic ministry of the Messiah); Zechariah 9:9 (the ride into Jerusalem on a donkey);
Zechariah 11:4-14 (Messiah will be sold out for thirty pieces of silver); Malachi 3:1 (the
forerunner of the Messiah); et. al. These are cases where the Old Testament literally speaks of a
specific event in the future and when that specific event is fulfilled literally in the context of the
New Testament, the New Testament quotes that particular prophecy as a point-by-point
fulfillment.

The second rabbinic category was remez which means "hint" or "clue" or "suggestion." Cooper
dubbed this category as literal plus typical and the example is Matthew 2:15 which quotes Hosea
11:1. In the original context of the Hosea passage, it is not even a prophecy but refers to an
historical event, that of the Exodus. The background to the Hosea passage is Exodus 4:22-23
which refers to Israel as the national son of God. Thus, according to Hosea, when God brought
Israel out of Egypt, He divinely called His son out of Egypt. The literal meaning of the Hosea
passage refers to the Exodus under Moses. There is nothing in the New Testament that can
change or reinterpret the meaning of the Hosea passage nor does the New Testament deny that a
literal exodus of Israel out of Egypt actually occurred. However, the Old Testament literal event
becomes a type of a New Testament event. In the New Testament, an individual Son of God, the
Messiah, is also divinely called out of Egypt. The passage is not quoted as a fulfillment of
prophecy since it was not a prophecy to begin with, but quoted as a type. Matthew does not
deny, change, or reinterpret the original meaning. He understands it literally, but the literal Old
Testament event becomes a type of a New Testament event. In rabbinic parlance, it is a remez or
a hint of another meaning in additional to the literal, in this case a typology. Other examples
include: Isaiah 29:13 (Israel has become religious only in the outward sense, obeying man-made
commandments while ignoring the divine commandments) quoted in Matthew 15:7-9 (Israel
becomes a type of the Pharisees and their traditions which made them very religious. They were
religious based upon man-made traditions while actively disobeying divine law such as honoring
father and mother); Isaiah 6:10 (speaks of Isaiah’s ministry that will be largely rejected) quoted in
John 12:39-40 (Isaiah’s ministry becomes a type of Messiah’s ministry which was also largely
rejected); Psalm 118:22-23 (the rejected stone) quoted in Matthew 21:42 (a type of the rejection
of the Messianic stone that becomes a stone of stumbling); Exodus 12:46 (prohibition against
breaking any bone of the Passover lamb) quoted in John 19:36 (that prohibition is now a type for
not breaking the bones of the Passover Lamb of God). Many of the quotations and/or references
to the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers in the Book of Hebrews fall into this category.
While the author of Hebrews makes references to the sin of Kadesh Barnea, Moses, Aaron, the
Levitical priesthood, the blood sacrifices, the Day of Atonement, Melchizedek, etc., he never
once denied that there was a literal sin of Kadesh Barnea, Moses, Aaron, blood sacrifices, Day of
Atonement, or Melchizedek. However, all these now become types of the person and/or work of
Jesus the Messiah.

The third rabbinic category was drash. It has the meaning of "exposition", "investigation" which
expanded on the meaning of the text, drew conclusions, and applied to a new situation based
often on only one point of similarity. Cooper referred to this category as literal plus application
giving the example of Matthew 2:17-18 which quotes Jeremiah 31:15. In the original context,
Jeremiah was not prophesying of an event in the far future, as was the case with Micah, or
dealing with an event that was long history as was the case with Hosea. Jeremiah was
prophesying about a current event happening in his own time, the beginnings of the Babylonian
Captivity. As the Jewish young men were being taken into captivity, they went by the town of
Ramah, a town not far from where Rachel was buried. Rachel had become the symbol of Jewish
motherhood. As the young men were marched toward Babylon, the Jewish mothers of Ramah
came out weeping for sons they would never see again. Jeremiah pictured the scene as Rachel
weeping for her children. This is the literal meaning of the Jeremiah passage. Like the rabbis, the
New Testament cannot change or reinterpret what the verse means in that context, nor does it try
to do so. But in this category there is a New Testament event that has one point of similarity
with the Old Testament event and it is quoted as an application. The one point of similarity here
is that once again there are Jewish mothers weeping for sons they will never see again. Otherwise,
the two situations are totally different. The Jeremiah event happened in Ramah, north of
Jerusalem; the Matthew event happened in Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem. In the Matthew
passage, the sons are killed; in the Jeremiah passage, the sons are not killed but taken into
captivity. There is only one point of similarity in the two events: Jewish mothers weeping for
sons they will never see again. The literal meaning of the Jeremiah passage is dealing with the
Babylonian Captivity. But by means of drash, the verse is quoted as an application because of
one point of similarity. Another example is the quotation of Isaiah 53:4 (where Isaiah is speaking
of the spiritual healing of Israel as a nation from their sins by means of the blood atonement of
the Messiah) in Matthew 8:17 (applied to the physical healing of Jewish individuals by Jesus).
The point of similarity is the healing by the Messiah. Isaiah deals with the spiritual healing of the
Jewish nation resulting from Messiah’s atonement; Matthew describes the physical healing of
Jewish individuals at a point of time when Jesus had not yet died and therefore no atonement had
yet been made. Another example is the quotation of Isaiah 6:9-10 (which describes the nature of
Isaiah’s ministry) quoted in Matthew 13:14-15 (which applies to the ministry of Jesus), and the
one point of similarity is that both speak in a way the unbelieving Jewish audience will not be
able to understand. The same is true with the quotation of Psalm 78:2 (which states that the
Psalmist will speak a parable and dark sayings that are well known and passed down from
generations) in Matthew 13:35 (where Jesus now speaks in parables teaching things that they
had not known before but are revealing new truth). The point of similarity is that of speaking in
parables. This is the category to which the Joel two and Acts two passages fall into and this will
be discussed later in the paper.

The fourth rabbinic category was sod which means "secret" or "mystery." This category was so
called since generally it was neither based on a single passage of Scripture nor a quotation of any
specific scripture. It tended to summarize what the Scriptures said on a subject. An example from
the Midrash Rabbah 63:11 reads as follows: Hence it is written as in the verse, And I will no more
make you a reproach of famine among the nations. There is no actual verse that reads like this
but it is a combination of the concepts found in Ezekiel 36:30 and Joel 1:19. Hence this midrash
is a summary of a biblical teaching and not an actual quote. Cooper titled this category as
summation, and cites Matthew 2:23 as the example: ...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene. As in the midrash quote, there is no
such actual statement anywhere in the Old Testament. While many try to make a reference to
Isaiah 11:1, the only point of similarity is the sound of netzer, but that passage is not dealing
with a town called Nazareth. Matthew is not quoting a specific Old Testament statement but is
summarizing what the Old Testament said. While this will not be true in every case, one clue is
when the plural prophets is used as it is here in verse 23. In the three preceding examples, the
singular prophet was used and a specific prophet was quoted. However, here the plural prophets
is used, but Matthew does not quote an actual prophet for in this case his purpose was to
summarize what the Prophets said. In the first century context of Israel, a Nazarene was a
despised and rejected individual and the term was used to reproach and to shame (John 1:46).
The Prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (Isaiah
49:1-13; 52:13-53:12), and this was well summarized by the term Nazarene. Another example of
this category is Luke 18:31-33 where Jesus said he must fulfill all the things written in the
prophets (plural). That includes the following: going to Jerusalem, the Jews turning him over to
the gentiles who will mock him, spit on him, scourge him, and kill him, and also rising again on
the third day. Here again, no one prophet ever said all this. However, putting the prophets
together, they did say all this. Therefore, this is a summation of what the prophets said about the
Messiah but not a direct quotation. Yet another example of this category is James 4:5: Or think
ye that the scripture speaks in vain? Does the spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto
envying? There is no such statement anywhere in the Old Testament. The clue to what he is
referring to is the mention of adulteresses in the previous verse and the fact that he is writing
specifically to the Jewish believers (1:1). In the Old Testament, Israel was the wife of Jehovah.
When the wife worshipped other gods, this was viewed by the prophets as spiritual adultery. As
a result, the jealousy of God burned against his wife, Israel, resulting in divine discipline. In
James, believers now have the presence of the Holy Spirit and so the believer’s total loyalty
belongs to God and to the things of God. If a believer begins to make friendship of the world, he is
harboring a rival spirit causing the indwelling Holy Spirit to become jealous. This too can lead to
divine discipline (verses 1-3). Thus, James is not quoting any specific statement of the Old
Testament but summarizing what the Scripture taught about spiritual adultery and the jealousy it
creates in God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Fruchtenbaum-RabbinicQuotationsoftheOl.pdf
Thanks for posting that info. Very interesting, very useful.

[gilgal]

Thanks for posting that info. Very interesting, very useful.
Yes I think there is a need. Because when I think of direct prophecies of the Messiah there aren't many. You have to dig in the bible to understand the life/footsteps of Jesus Christ.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes I think there is a need. Because when I think of direct prophecies of the Messiah there aren't many. You have to dig in the bible to understand the life/footsteps of Jesus Christ.
That's exactly right - and that's why skeptics reject the whole argument from prophecy. Almost all the passages taken as "prophecies" had nothing explicit to do with the Messiah. For example, Isa 7:14 does not say "The Messiah shall be born of a virgin." So skeptics are perfectly justified to reject this line of argument.

But there is another .... and that is more like the midrashic view which sees repetition of patterns. From this view, the Passover Lamb did not "prophecy" the Messiah, but rather set up the pattern that "just happened" to fit the whole thing that happened when Jesus came. This line of argument can be developed into a very convincing argument that skeptics would have a much more difficult time refuting.

Richard

[gilgal]

That's exactly right - and that's why skeptics reject the whole argument from prophecy. Almost all the passages taken as "prophecies" had nothing explicit to do with the Messiah. For example, Isa 7:14 does not say "The Messiah shall be born of a virgin." So skeptics are perfectly justified to reject this line of argument.

But there is another .... and that is more like the midrashic view which sees repetition of patterns. From this view, the Passover Lamb did not "prophecy" the Messiah, but rather set up the pattern that "just happened" to fit the whole thing that happened when Jesus came. This line of argument can be developed into a very convincing argument that skeptics would have a much more difficult time refuting.

Richard
Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains this quite differently than the first 2 websites I posted. The 2 websites put Gemetria on the Remez level but Fruchtenbaum makes no mention of that.

[gilgal]

It seems to me that Rabbis often exaggerate on biblical stories. Is such a story believable?

The Story with Mr. Potiphar (http://www.betemunah.org/remez.html)

The Torah informs us in Beresheet 41:45 – 'vayiten-lo et-Asenat bat Poti-fera kohen On le'ishah - and he (Pharaoh) gave him Asenat daughter of Poti-fera, Priest of On, for a wife.' The Midrash in Beresheet Rabba 86,3 identifies this person as being the same as Mr. Potiphar of chapter 39 of Beresheet. The word Poti-fera constitutes the first letters of the phrase 'fattening oxen and calves in order that they become offered as sacrifices in pagan rites.' Apparently Mr. Potiphar became castrated (sexually impotent) as a penalty for wanting to use Yoseph for homosexual purposes. In shame he resigned as a minister to Pharaoh and became a Pagan Priest serving the god 'On.'
These are the stories you get in return when you try to speak to religious Jews about the Gospel.

[gilgal]

Here's a good source:
http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/40

[gilgal]

The Sod in Hebrews 7:1 (http://bible.org/article/hints-allegories-and-mysteries-new-testament-quotes-old)

Then there is the great connection, brought to light by the writer to the Hebrews, between Jesus and Melchizedek.

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. (Hebrews 7:1)

Look at the hidden details the writer to the first century Jewish believers extracts from the text of Genesis 14:18. 'Melchizedek', in Hebrew, means 'King of Righteousness'. 'King of Salem' means 'King of Peace.' Scripture records no genealogy, no parents, no birth and no death for Melchizedek. Scholars with a strict grammatical and historical perspective would still assume that Melchizedek had parents, was born, and died. And, of course, they would be correct. But the writer to the Hebrews, taking a hint from Psalm 110:4, sees in their absence a hidden connection with Jesus, who is our eternal High Priest. Jesus, as the Son of God, had no parents and no genealogy. Jesus has always been and always will be.

It makes little difference that the writer to the Hebrews is also expounding on Psalm 110:4. Where did the psalmist get the idea? If the answer is, 'From the Lord,' that is fine. It only affirms that there can be hidden meanings below the surface of the p’shat or simple meaning of the text. Furthermore, the author alludes to there being more to know about the relationship between Melchizedek and Jesus (Hebrews 5:11)13.

Perhaps we could conclude that Hebrews 7:1 is a remez or a drash. That is certainly possible. What decides the issue for me is the effort the writer of Hebrews must take to bring the connection to light. It does not have the immediate and easy semantic association of Isaiah 7:14, nor does it have the human connection of Paul’s allegory. Instead, it is more abstract and requires real decoding.

[gilgal]

The Last Words of Jesus: What Did He Really Say and Mean? (http://preservingbibletimes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=63)

The last words of Jesus the Messiah in Mark and Matthew, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,' would have been understood by an observant Jew as an obvious remez back to Psalm 22, 23 & 24, not as a statement that God had somehow 'turned His back' on Jesus and thereby abandoned His Son.


Remez is a Semitic word meaning "hint" or a "harkening back" to something that needs no further elaboration because the hearers all know its obvious context. Since all first-century observant Jewish young men had memorized the Hebrew Scriptures in preparation for their Bar Mitzvahs, rabbis would often speak and teach in this remez (shorthand) manner because everyone knew the complete (longhand) version of that portion of Scripture being cited.

We are all familiar with this remez communication technique. If I were to burst into song and start singing, 'God bless America, land that I…………….and then stop, you could continue the song. All I have to do is start the song and everyone knows how to finish it. That would be a contemporary remez. The same would be true of the opening phrase of The Lord’s Prayer. All someone has to do is set it in motion by saying, 'Our Father who are in Heaven…', and we all know how to finish it.

Remez is a common literary technique used by the Gospel writers. In fact, remez occur over 270 times in the Gospels. Mary's Magnificat and Zechariah's Benedictus are best understood as a cascade of remez. Jesus used remez to signify who He was, e.g. "Son of Man" in Luke is a messianic harkening back to the much fuller meaning of that title in Daniel 7. "Daily bread" in The Lord's Prayer is a remez back to daily manna.

Many of Jesus’ actions were also understood by first-century observant Jews as a remez, e.g., walking on the water in Matthew 14 was a remez back to Job 9:8, writing in the sand in John 8 when they brought Him the woman caught in adultery is best understood as a remez back to Jeremiah 17:13 ('those who turn away from you will be written in the earth"). Bringing the 12-year old son of the widow of Nain back to life in Luke 7 was a remez back to Elisha who did the same thing (in basically the same site) with the Shunammite woman.

Riding a donkey down into the Kidron Valley from Bethpage on Palm Sunday would have been seen by many as a double remez back to Zechariah 9:9 as well as to Solomon who did the same thing when he became king centuries earlier (I Kings 1: 32-40). And so it goes. Understanding remez can be a very helpful way to understand the original intent of a passage. That's why we have a 30-minute module on this subject in our "Bible Alive" seminar weekends.

Jesus is a rabbi and is teaching and speaking in a Semitic dialect as a rabbi, even to his dying breath. As previously observed, any observant Jew standing around the cross would have understood Jesus’ last utterance, 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken me,' as a remez back to Psalm 22:1. And since Psalms 22, 23 & 24 always travel together as a united whole in the first-century Jewish mind, an observant Jew who clearly heard those last words (note some did not clearly hear what Jesus said and mistook eloi as Elijah – both phonetically very similar in Semitic pronunciation) knew Jesus was invoking the totality of those three Psalms as His final prayer. In doing so, He identified Himself one more time as the Messiah in how He would die (Ps. 22), stated His hope and trust in His ever-present Father (Ps. 23), and envisioned His triumphant return to heaven (Ps. 24).

Reading these three Psalms from Jesus’ perspective can take your breath away. For example, Psalm 23:4, 'Lo, thou I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, thou art with me.' From the perspective of Psalm 22:24, Jesus is affirming His confidence that 'Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, he heard.' On the Cross, Jesus identified with these Psalms long before we did.

Why does this matter? Because Passion Week often gives rise to those "traditional" sermons and homilies that go something like this: There is Jesus on the Cross bearing all the sins that ever were, are and ever will be. It is such a horrible sight that a Holy God turns His back on His Son, thus breaking fellowship with Jesus, and that abandonment is the real agony of Calvary. To a Holy God, it's not the amount of sin that is the issue! We need to remember that God goes eye-ball to eye-ball with Satan in Job. Looking upon sin and evil is not contradictory to God’s Holy nature. What God cannot do is look favorably upon sin. That was part of Jesus’ agony – His Father no longer looked upon Him fondly as the 'beloved,' but with wrath.

If you view the last words of Jesus absent the literary context of remez, your only choice is to conclude that it must be that the Father abandoned His Son, even though that conclusion would stand in conflict with all the rest of the Scriptures. God must have abandoned His Son, so this superficial logic goes, despite what Acts 2:27 says, "For David says of Him, ‘Because You will not abandon my soul to Hades, Nor allow Your Holy One to undergo decay." Other verses that could also be cited include Heb 13:5 (and Dt 31:6).

Why is this important? Because there are Muslims who use the 'traditional' evangelical teaching of 'abandonment' as 'proof' that Jesus really was separated from God, and therefore cannot be considered to be 'One' with God. Said yet another way, if God really did abandon His Son, then the Eternal Trinity wouldn't be Eternal would it? It would have been broken for a few hours/days during Passion Week!

As if these arguments are not sufficient, consider the contextual understanding of 'forsaken.' All throughout the Psalms, e.g. 9:9&10; 37:28&29; 71:10&11, when that word is used it is never in a context where God is somehow removing His presence. Rather, 'forsake' has to do with the Psalmist feeling that God seems to be letting one of His own fall into the hands of His enemies (for His own purposes until He deems it time for the rescue). That is a far different issue from that of removing His Presence from them. That Jesus fell into the hands of His enemies for a moment is certainly true. In His humanity, He may have even felt like He had been abandoned. But that did not mean that He actually was abandoned. Furthermore, in His Divinity, Jesus could not have been separated from the Godhead. Only Divinity could pay the perfect price God’s ransom required. As you might have gathered, in understanding the last words of Jesus from the perspective of a remez, it is hard to conclude that the Father somehow abandoned Jesus because of this hideous sinful condition as He hung upon the Cross. That He endured unspeakable anguish and agony as He absorbed God's judgmental wrath (in God’s presence) toward sin is certainly true. Think about it for a moment. Relationally speaking, the hardest thing to do is to absorb the justifiable wrath of another being directed at you while in their presence. It is at those kinds of moments that that we all wish we could be as far away as possible from the center of that wrath! As partial payment for what we deserve, Jesus absorbed the full wrath of God while in God’s presence so that we would never have to experience it.

The efficacy of Calvary is always in the blood! It is the blood of Jesus that atones for our sins, not any God-turning-away-from-Jesus sense of abandonment. The last words of Jesus actually stand as an assurance that God will never abandon His own. His care is constant and His presence is always with us, even when we walk through our own 'valley of the shadow of death,' even when we may feel forsaken in the midst of our own 'valley' experiences.

Scriptural misunderstandings can arise when we approach the text like Hellenistic Greeks, reading words without understanding their entire integrated context - the language they were first spoken in, the literary form being used, and the genre of the communication technique being employed! As I heard Kenneth Bailey recent observe, restoring the context of the Scriptures often allows us 'to rescue biblical truth from the familiar.'

Doug Greenwold, Preserving Bible Times, Bible-in-Context Reflection #506 © Doug Greenwold 2006

If you are interested in this whole subject of remez, and particularly the last words of Jesus, you will find more on this subject in Dr. James C. Martin’s book Exploring Bible Times: The Gospels in Context. For more information, visit PUBLICATIONS at www.preservingbibletimes.org.

[gilgal]

Many of Jesus’ actions were also understood by first-century observant Jews as a remez, e.g., walking on the water in Matthew 14 was a remez back to Job 9:8, writing in the sand in John 8 when they brought Him the woman caught in adultery is best understood as a remez back to Jeremiah 17:13 ('those who turn away from you will be written in the earth"). Bringing the 12-year old son of the widow of Nain back to life in Luke 7 was a remez back to Elisha who did the same thing (in basically the same site) with the Shunammite woman.


Matthew 14
22And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.

23And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.

24But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.

25And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

26And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.

27But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.

28And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.

29And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.

30But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

31And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

32And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.

33Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God

Job 9:8Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

John 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Jeremiah 17

1The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars;
...
13O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.

Luke 7
11And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and much people.

12Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

13And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not.

14And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise.

15And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother.

2 Kings 4
32And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed.

33He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD.

34And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and stretched himself upon the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm.

35Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.

36And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. So he called her. And when she was come in unto him, he said, Take up thy son.

37Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground, and took up her son, and went out.

[Victor]

I'll try to take a look at those links as I find time. Meanwhile I'd like to cross-post this to another thread on the same topic: PRDS related to the 4 Gospels? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1563&highlight=pardes)