Why was the Prophetic books of the Old Testament written?

Answer 1

He had quite a bit of time on his hands...

The Bible is a continuous accounting of revelation and the effect of that revelation throughout history. As it mainly covers a historical period of between 1200 years (if you are Jewish) to roughly 1800 years (if you are Christian), it is naturally very long.

Answer 2

The prophets are in the Bible to warn God's people of what shall come to pass in the future.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him, TO SHEW HIS SERVANTS things which must shortly come to pass... blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the Words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." (Rev.1:1-3)

"Surely THE LORD GOD WILL DO NOTHING, but He REVEALETH HIS SECRET UNTO HIS SERVANTS THE PROPHETS." (Amos 3:7)

Answer 3

A:

The two books traditionally attributed to Luke are Luke's Gospel and Acts of the Apostles, although both books were originally anonymous and the consensus of scholars is that Luke, the physician companion of Paul, is quite unlikely to have been the real author.

The Gospel

Luke's Gospel tells Theodosius that what was to follow came from sources "delivered" to him, so a good way to begin to establish why this author wrote Luke's Gospel is to establish what sources were used. New Testament scholars have clearly demonstrated that the Gospel was substantially based on Mark's Gospel, with further sayings material from a source also used by Matthew's Gospel and now known as the hypothetical 'Q' document.

Since Luke already had a gospel to hand, in Mark's Gospel, he must have believed that it needed improvement, to serve the needs of his community. Part of this improvement was to add the material from 'Q', which he probably felt was so important that Mark was incomplete without it. The early version of Mark that he used as a source also contained no appearances of the risen Jesus and therefore no proof that Jesus had really risen, an omission that had to be corrected. It also contained no information about where Jesus came from, so Luke needed to add a story about the birth of Jesus, as well as a genealogy of his earthly father, Joseph. Finally, he needed to place the gospel story in a historical context, to lend credence to the story of Jesus.

Acts of the Apostles

The reason for Acts of the Apostles is still debated by scholars. It was long thought to be a reliable history of early Christianity, but Burton L. Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament) says Acts of the Apostles simply marks a shift in focus for second century mythmaking, away from Jesus and towards the apostles. Uta Ranke-Heinemann (Putting Away Childish Things) describes the book as a work of Propaganda aimed at Gentile Christians and Gentiles who have not yet become Christians. She says that anyone who has kept up with New Testament studies over the last century can only laugh when they hear that Luke was a great writer of history.

A wide consensus of scholarly opinion is that Acts was written to support the role of Paul in the Christian community. The basis for this is that it contains accounts of miracles that Paul never wrote of in his own epistles.

However, I would take the opposing view. I believe that a hidden theme in Acts of the Apostles is a comparison between Peter and Paul, such that Peter always comes across as the more worthy apostle. For example, they are both reported as performing comparable miracles, but in each case Paul's miracle was matched by at least one even more awe-inspiring and worthy miracle performed by Peter. Paul had never mentioned performing miracles, but decades later we find Acts attributing miracles to him, with Peter always performing another, somewhat similar but greater miracle and doing greater service for the Church.

According to Acts, Peter's first miraculous cure was of a man who had been lame since birth but was immediately cured by being commanded to stand and walk. Paul's first miraculous cure was improbably similar to Peter's first cure. Peter's miracle was performed in the name of Jesus, at the Temple, where the faithful saw the healed beggar praising God, and was the opportunity for some outstanding proselytising. Paul's first cure was clumsy and without apparent purpose, given that Paul did not tell the man about Jesus and he was even mistaken for a pagan god.

In his epistles, Paul talked about having championed the right of gentile converts not to undergo circumcision and not to obey Jewish food laws, mentioning the lack of support he received from Peter. However, Acts makes it clear that these decisions were championed by Peter, and that Paul was not even present when Peter's proposal was accepted. The author of Acts, traditionally Luke but this is very unlikely, was rewriting history.

Answer 4

To show us how to live and the purpose of life, its also a book of history especially Jewish history in the old testiment.

Answer 5

The books of the prophets were mainly written to urge the Israelites against idolatry and to warn them.