The difference between Old Testament prophets and New Testament prophets - Rev. Austin Oviawe

The difference between Old Testament prophets and New Testament prophets is not volume, drama, or accuracy. It is jurisdiction and assignment.

Old Testament prophets operated inside a theocratic nation. Israel was not just a religious people. It was a political entity ruled by covenant. Law, worship, land, kingship, and judgment were all fused. When God raised a prophet, He was inserting His voice into national governance.

Nathan could confront David because David was a covenant king. Elijah could shut the heavens because Israel’s economy depended on rain promised under the Mosaic covenant. Jeremiah could announce exile because the land itself was covenant property. Ezekiel could speak of temple judgment because the temple was the center of national life.

These men were not freelance spiritual commentators. They were covenant enforcers.

Take Elijah. His showdown with Ahab was not a private spiritual duel. Ahab had institutionalized Baal worship. That violated national covenant terms. When Elijah declared drought, it was not mystical bravado. Deuteronomy 11:16 to 17 already outlined the consequence. Elijah simply announced what covenant law already guaranteed.

Isaiah was not “prophesying over nations” the way the phrase is used today. He was prosecuting Israel’s breach of covenant. Jeremiah was not predicting Babylon for spectacle. He was announcing the legal outcome of covenant collapse.

Their words carried national consequence because the covenant itself was national.

That system no longer exists.

Modern Israel does not function under a theocracy. Its laws are not Torah. Its leaders are not covenant kings. Its courts are not priestly tribunals. There is no prophetic seat in its cabinet. No prophet addresses its parliament as God’s appointed voice. Even the land where prophets once walked no longer hosts prophetic governance.

That alone should end the argument.

If God were still appointing prophets to govern nations, Israel would be the first proof. Instead, there is silence. No prophetic decrees shaping state policy. No binding words determining elections or wars. The absence is not accidental. The framework has changed.

Jesus did not restore the old structure. He dismantled it.

“My kingdom is not of this world.”

John 18:36

Christ did not establish a new holy nation-state. He formed a body drawn from all nations. No borders. No capital city. No army. No political machinery. The church is transnational and nonpartisan by design.

That is where New Testament prophecy operates.

When Agabus prophesied famine in Acts 11, he did not tell Rome how to respond. He did not advise Caesar. The prophecy moved the church to generosity, not the empire to policy reform.

When prophets ministered in Antioch in Acts 13, they were fasting and teaching within the church. Their revelation released missionaries, not political movements.

When Paul lists prophets in Ephesians 4, their assignment is clear and limited.

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”

Ephesians 4:12

Not for controlling nations.

Not for predicting elections.

Not for threatening citizens with disaster if they disobey a prophet.

There is no prophet raised for Nigeria.

There are prophets given to the church in Nigeria.

That distinction matters.

A prophet belongs to the body of Christ, not to a flag. Once prophecy becomes nationalistic, it has already crossed its boundary. Once a prophet begins to speak as though God’s purposes hinge on one candidate winning, that prophet has confused divine will with personal ideology.

History offers sobering anecdotes.

In Europe, state churches once crowned kings by “prophetic endorsement.” The result was tyranny baptized as divine will. In America, self-styled prophets have repeatedly predicted election outcomes that failed publicly. No repentance followed. The prophets simply reinterpreted the miss or moved on.

In Africa, prophets stand on altars beside corrupt politicians, laying hands on men who loot public funds while widows starve. The politician gains spiritual cover. The prophet gains access, money, and relevance.

Scripture has a name for that transaction.

“Filthy lucre.”

1 Timothy 3:3

Titus 1:11

This is not spiritual warfare. It is mutual exploitation.

Fear-driven prophecy is another marker of abuse. When prophecy relies on threats, visions of catastrophe, or intimidation to control behavior, it has left the New Testament stream. The Spirit given to the church does not rule by terror.

“God has not given us the spirit of fear.”

2 Timothy 1:7

True New Testament prophecy strengthens, exhorts, and comforts the church.

1 Corinthians 14:3

It does not bully citizens.

It does not manage private lives.

It does not sell access to power.

Reformation requires plain speech.

The myth of “national prophets” must be dismantled. The alliance between corrupt politicians and compromised prophets must be confronted. Silence is not humility. It is complicity.

Every true New Testament prophet has a defined mandate and a clear boundary. Their authority is ecclesial, not civic. Their work is maturity, not manipulation. Their audience is the saints, not the state.

Anything beyond that is drift, deception, or deliberate fraud.

#TheSetman #Oviawé #SacredStuffe