A Review of “The Old Testament Concept of Revival within the New Testament” (pp. 45–50)
Budiselić, Ervin. “The Old Testament Concept of Revival within the New Testament.” Kairos Evangelical Journal of Theology, Vol. VIII, No. 1 (2014), pp. 45–74.
Reviewed by Elisha O. Akyaw & Emmanuel Martey
Overview
Ervin Budiselić currently serves at the Biblical Institute of Zagreb, Croatia. He holds a Ph.D. in Biblical Theology, with research interests spanning Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology, and the Comparative Study of religion.
In his article, “The Old Testament Concept of Revival within the New Testament,” Budiselić acknowledges the widespread popularity of the term “revival” and the controversy surrounding its meaning, particularly when paired with the term “awakening.” He observes that Croatian Christians tend to use the two terms interchangeably, whereas the English-speaking tradition maintains a clear distinction between them. He further notes that the usage of the concept of revival, as defined and expressed in the New Testament, is inadequate. In light of this, the author sets out to provide a more precise understanding of revival for modern Christianity.
This review focuses on the main points, critique, and lessons drawn from pages 45–50 of the article.
Main Points
Within pages 45–50, Budiselić presents a range of significant ideas. This review discusses the most prominent of these.
Definition of Key Terms
In his effort to define revival and its related concepts, the author draws on the works of scholars including Bill Johnson, Charles Finney, Tom Hill, Thomas Kidd, Donald Murray, and others. He establishes a clear distinction between revival and awakening. Since some Christians have already experienced spiritual life but have grown cold, they need to be revived. Accordingly, he defines revival as the process of reforming, making alive, or restoring a believer back to their first love and original spiritual purpose, a concept applicable exclusively to Christians. Awakening, by contrast, refers to waking up one who has never before experienced spiritual life and is therefore directed at non-Christians.
Regarding revivalism, the author argues that Christians frequently and erroneously attribute their desire for divine visitation to revival. He clarifies that church activities such as prayer meetings, seminars, and conferences are more accurately described as “revivalism,” that is, the preparatory work Christians undertake to instigate revival. The author also introduces the concept of the “Manifestation of God’s Kingdom” as a related but distinct phenomenon.
Features of Revival
Budiselić identifies the key features of revival within the framework of reformation and revivalism. He argues that a genuine revival must always point toward the reformation of certain practices within the Christian community, specifically evangelism, the promotion of sound doctrine, and the rekindling of faith. Any dramatic spiritual experience that does not produce tangible change in these areas, he contends, cannot legitimately be described as revival.
Drawing on the work of Thomas Kidd, the author further establishes that the elements of spiritual longing, particularly the desire for God’s visitation, are also features of revival. Consequently, a genuine revival should result in the conversion of unbelievers, personal repentance, and a renewed commitment to holiness.
The Effects of Revival
The author argues that although revival typically begins with individuals, it must not remain confined to them. Revival must progress to affect the whole church and ultimately extend to transform wider society. While revival is primarily directed at Christians, it invariably draws unbelievers to the knowledge of Christ, leading to their conversion. In this way, what begins as a work of renewal within the church becomes a force of transformation for society at large.
Theological and Experiential Dimensions
Budiselić makes a significant observation by identifying two dimensions through which revival is described: the theological and the experiential. The theological dimension encompasses knowledge about revival acquired through academic study or fieldwork, while the experiential dimension refers to knowledge gained through the lived encounter with revival itself. Drawing on the perspectives of Orr and Davies, the author concludes that revival is dynamic in both its intensity and its spread and that the theological understanding of revival may at times differ considerably from its experiential reality.
The Continuity of Revival across Both Testaments
The author asserts that revival in modern Christianity must be read within the contours of the Old Testament. He explains that while the term “revival” does not appear directly in the New Testament, it is best understood as the fulfillment of the Old Testament concept of revival. Budiselić thus implicitly affirms a continuity between the two Testaments, positioning the Old Testament as the foundational or primary context for understanding revival. Modern Christianity, he argues, should therefore interpret revival through the lens of the Old Testament concept.
Critique
Strengths
First, the author’s treatment of God’s sovereignty in relation to church growth is commendable. This position aligns with McIntosh’s critique of church leaders who prioritize institutional growth models over a dependence on divine sovereignty. The recognition that God’s sovereignty is the ultimate cause of revival, particularly when a church has plateaued, addresses a pressing need within contemporary Christianity.
Second, Budiselić’s assertion that revival must affect unbelievers is both timely and theologically sound. His position resonates with Redford’s argument that every genuine revival must culminate in a meaningful response to the Great Commission. This contribution is of particular relevance to modern Christianity.
Third, his emphasis on transformation as the core of revival is a valuable and well-grounded point. This assertion aligns closely with Menzies’ holistic theory of Spirit Baptism and revival, which identifies transformation as central to the Pentecostal experience. Attributing transformation to revival rather than merely to signs and wonders makes the concept not only more theologically robust but also more practically significant for church growth.
Weaknesses
First, while the author claims that the usage of “revival” in the New Testament context as defined by the Old Testament is inadequate, his reasoning is weakened by a methodological gap. His comparative analysis references Old Testament terms such as revival, awakening, and reconstruction but notably fails to provide corresponding New Testament terms for direct comparison. According to Wellwood, it is methodologically unsound to compare events or concepts from a single endpoint; a valid comparison requires clearly identified terms from both sides. The author’s semantic comparison therefore lacks full credibility, and the absence of New Testament equivalents creates a communicative gap between the author and his readers.
Second, in his effort to establish the distinction between revival and awakening, the author does not fully convince. A tension exists between his central claim and the premises he offers. He argues that since Christians have previously experienced spiritual life but have grown cold, revival is for Christians, while awakening the stirring of one who has never experienced life in Christ is for non-Christians. While this distinction is not disputed in principle, it raises important questions that the author leaves unanswered: Can Christians die or fall asleep spiritually? What distinguishes a Christian’s spiritual death or sleep from that of a non-believer? And what role does the Holy Spirit play in each scenario? Notably, Malyz points out that in several Pauline texts, Paul acknowledges that Christians can indeed die and fall asleep. This observation complicates Budiselić’s distinction and suggests that his argument requires more thorough theological elaboration.
Lessons Drawn
First, Christians should not place excessive confidence in institutional church growth models at the expense of dependence on the sovereignty of God. While such models may offer practical assistance, it is ultimately divine sovereignty that produces genuine revival. Church plateau, therefore, is not merely an organizational problem; it is a spiritual one that calls for revival.
Second, there is a compelling necessity for revival in the contemporary world. The need for revival is directly tied to the spiritual condition of the church, particularly when there is a lack of unity, sacrificial giving, or faithful witness. As Zizer observes, the state of society is often a reflection of the state of the church; and since revival, though directed at the church, invariably affects society positively, the church bears a profound responsibility to seek it earnestly.
Third, many Christians, including church leaders, have mistakenly equated revivalism with revival. Programs such as prayer meetings, conferences, and seminars are better understood as revivalism preparatory activities that create conditions for revival rather than revival itself. This distinction, though simple, carries significant implications for how churches plan and evaluate their spiritual activities.
Fourth, the core of genuine revival must be transformation, not merely signs and wonders. This insight is particularly relevant to the contemporary Ghanaian Christian context, where dramatic spiritual experiences are often and prematurely identified as revival. Budiselić’s article serves as an important corrective and a timely eye-opener.
Conclusion
Budiselić’s article makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing conversation about the meaning and application of revival in modern Christianity. It raises several important and sensitive issues that deserve serious attention within the Christian community. However, some of his arguments would benefit from greater elaboration, more rigorous semantic comparison, and clearer engagement with the questions his distinctions inevitably raise. Overall, the article is a worthwhile read for students and practitioners of theology alike.
Bibliography
Budiselić, Ervin. “The Old Testament Concept of Revival within the New Testament.” Kairos — Evangelical Journal of Theology, Vol. VIII, No. 1 (2014), pp. 45–74.
Davies, R. E. “Revival, Spiritual.” “In Elwell, Walter A. (Ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001, pp. 1025–1028.
Kidd, Thomas. “Revivalism.” In McFarland, Ian A., Fergusson, David A. S., Kilby, Karen, & Torrance, Iain R. (Eds.), Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 447–448.
Malyz. Retrieved from https://www.ctsfe.edu. Accessed 15 October 2021.
McIntosh, L. G. Traditional Model of Church Growth. 2003, p. 40.
Orr, James Edwin. The Re-Study of Revival and Revivalism. Pasadena: School of World Mission.
Redford, Douglas. The New Testament Church: New Testament Volume II — Acts to Revelation. Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 2007, pp. 45–250.
Wellwood, Alexis, Hacquard, Valentine, & Pancheva, Roumyana. “Measuring and Comparing Individuals and Events.” Journal of Semantics, Vol. 29 (2012), pp. 207–228. DOI: 10.1093/jos/ffr006.
Zizer, Victor. MA Cohort 7 Lectures on Revival and Revivalism. 15 October 2021.
Footnotes
[¹] Author background based on available institutional and academic records.
[²] Thomas Kidd, “Revivalism,” in McFarland et al. (Eds.), Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology, pp. 447–448.
[³] James Edwin Orr, The Re-Study of Revival and Revivalism. Pasadena: School of World Mission.
[⁴] R. E. Davies, “Revival, Spiritual,” in Elwell (Ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., pp. 1025–1028.
[⁵] L. G. McIntosh, Traditional Model of Church Growth, 2003, p. 40.
[⁶] Douglas Redford, The New Testament Church: New Testament Vol. II — Acts to Revelation, pp. 45–250.
[⁷] Wellwood, Hacquard, & Pancheva, “Measuring and Comparing Individuals and Events,” Journal of Semantics, Vol. 29 (2012), pp. 207–228.
[⁸] Malyz. Retrieved from https://www.ctsfe.edu. Accessed 15 October 2021.
[⁹] Victor Zizer, MA Cohort 7 Lectures on Revival and Revivalism, 15 October 2021.
