THE EPICLESIS

FOR REFORMED
EUCHARISTIC PRAYER

Christopher Kou

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

LIT501: Introduction to Liturgical Theology

Theopolis Institute

June 18, 2014

Introduction

What happens at the Table of the Lord? If Christ is really present, then how is this so? The

witness of the Church throughout history has been that Christ is present in the Eucharist through the

operation of the Holy Spirit, and in the practice of the Church, prayers at the Eucharist gradually

acknowledged this truth.

This paper will explore the element of the Eucharistic prayer or anaphora called the epiclesis,

which is the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Through this study I hope to show how this particular part

of the prayer was introduced and why it is important for us. Presented here is a brief account of some

of the directly relevant Biblical passages, as well as a summary of the historical and theological

issues, and finally, a suggested form for an epiclesis based on those studies.

Over the course of the first centuries of early Church history, the Eucharistic prayer underwent

development, expansion, and change, even as the Church developed its doctrine of the Eucharist, of

the Trinity, and of consecration. There is no simple discernible progression of the form of the

anaphora, featuring preface, Sanctus, institution narrative, anamnesis, oblation, epiclesis, and

doxology; rather, it seems evident that churches of various geographic regions and diverse

backgrounds exchanged and shared practices for Eucharistic praying in the first few centuries before

centralized ecclesiastical control was exercised to unify and standardize the prayer forms across the

churches. 1

The doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist has led to significant discussion of

two specific elements: the epiclesis and words of institution. The Eastern Church has, in later times, 2

generally viewed epiclesis as a “moment of consecration,” and the Western Roman Rite, not having

1
Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (Second Edition.; New York: Oxford
University Press, 1992), 7-8.
2
Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist (New York: St. Vladimir’s, 1987). Schmemann has an excellent
discussion of the creeping in of the Western idea of the “consecratory moment” into Eastern thought in
chapter 11, “The Sacrament of the Holy Spirit.”

1
an explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Tridentine, has regarded the institution narrative as the

consecration. For churches that hold to a Calvinistic view of Real Presence through spiritual ascent,

a “moment of consecration” debate has little place, for in a Calvinist view of the Eucharist, it is the

congregation who is translated and transformed during the rite, and not the elements. Nevertheless, I

believe the epiclesis still has a place and proper form within an anaphora based upon Trinitarian

theology and the theology of spiritual ascent.

The Biblical Foundations

The word epiclesis3 essentially means an invocation, the calling of a name, or a petition to

“come” upon or into, in answer to an appeal. In the Eucharist, the part of the prayer that bears the

term has historically been viewed both as a blessing and consecration of the elements of bread and

wine. 4 In the Greek Septuagint Old Testament books regarded as canonical by Protestants, there are

no occurrences of the word. However, we find two instances of epiclesis being used in reference an

invocation of God in 2 Maccabees:

(8:14-15) But those who stayed were selling all the things that remained, and with one accord

they began to beseech the Lord to rescue those who had been sold by the impious Nicanor

before a meeting in battle. And if not on account of them, yet on account of the covenants

with their fathers and because of the invocation upon them of his sacred and magnificent

name. . . .

(15:16) Now those with Nicanor began advancing with trumpet blasts and battle cries. Then

those with Judas engaged their enemies with an invocation and prayers.

3
From the Greek epi, “near,” and klesis, “calling.”
4
John McKenna, The Eucharistic Epiclesis (Second Edition.; Chicago: Hillenbrand Books, 2009), 47-51.
These pages summarize at least some attempts to locate in Irenaeus and Cyril of Jerusalem the epiclesis as a
consecratory moment.

2
 Additionally, the more general “calling” (κλησις) is used in the New Testament of God’s call

upon men (Philippians 3:14, Ephesians 1:18), and to refer thereafter to their calling for Christian life

and service (Romans 11:29, Hebrews 3:1), rather than to refer to invocation of God. So we must

begin the study by acknowledging that the terminology of epiclesis is extra-biblical, and its

immediate textual foundation is found in two instances in the book of 2 Maccabees.

However, working through the New Testament, we may find instances of what we might term

an epiclesis. The final book of the Bible concludes with an epiclesis of sorts, though addressed not to

the Holy Spirit, but to Jesus Christ (Revelation 22:17-20). Interestingly, the Spirit is directly

involved in the invocation of Christ to “come.” And Jesus answers the invocation, “Surely I am

coming soon.” Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 16:22, Paul invokes the Lord in the Aramaic Maranatha.

The gradual addition of Holy Spirit invocations in the prayers of the Church to the Christ invocations

found in Scripture seems likely due to ante-Nicene theological developments in doctrine of the Holy

Spirit.

In the context of the Eucharist, no explicit kind of invocation is found in Scripture,

but this does not necessarily mean it is not warranted, since we find what some have taken to be

traces and clues of a kind of invocation in the New Testament. First, let’s examine at the Gospel

narratives of the last supper.

Matthew 26:26 indicates that “Jesus took bread, and after blessing5 [it] broke [it] and gave [it] to

his disciples . . . And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave [it] . . .” The Gospel

accounts of Mark and Luke are similar in how they describe the actions of Jesus at the table. For the

bread, Luke substitutes “when he had given thanks” for Matthew’s “after blessing,” which suggests

to us that blessing and giving thanks are in some sense the same action. There is no direct object for

the “blessing” in the Greek, though one is generally supplied in English translations. But for

5
εὐλογήσας

3
maintain the parallel the apparent parallel, the “blessing” requires no direct object just as his “giving

thanks” also requires no direct object. Thus, “Jesus took bread, and after blessing, broke and gave . .

.”

So while Matthew is not speaking of blessing the bread directly, it may serve to clarify what

exactly Jesus is doing. That is, he is likely speaking a general blessing in association with the bread

and the cup, bringing to mind what we have of the Jewish berakoth formulas for bread and cup, of

which we will look at a little later.

While the Gospel narratives do not describe the blessing of the elements, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

may have a much stronger indication of it:

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread

that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we

who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Here, the direct objects are clear. The phrase, “The cup of blessing that we bless” 6 suggests that

there is a blessing spoken either explicitly to bless the cup, or in such close association with the cup

that it can be said to bless the cup itself. Closely tied to this blessing of the cup

is a strong statement of vital communion and fellowship in Christ’s blood. The cup of blessing

brings about communion. Likewise the bread broken entails communion in his body. There is also

the further implication in 1 Corinthians 10:18-21 that if the Lord’s Table is analogous to the

sacrifices of Israel and the exact opposite of the table of demons, there may be a sense in which the

bread and wine may be considered an “offering” to God, and therefore a participatory meal, in the

same way that Israel had communion in the altar and those who eat food offered to idols are in real

danger of having communion with demons. 7

6
Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν
7 See C. John Collins, “Eucharist as Christian Sacrifice,” WTJ 66:1, 2004 for an in-depth discussion of what it

might mean for Reformed churches to understand the Eucharist as offering.

4
 Finally we see that in this passage that communion is not only with God, but with one another.

Eating of the “one bread” is the cause of its partakers being “one body.”

The Nature of Blessing

So what, exactly is this “blessing” of which the Eucharistic passages speak? What can we glean

something from how the Church has prayed at the Lord’s Table? First, we should not expect to find

anything like an ancient standardized anaphora, if we remember that Justin Martyr, in his First

Apology, giving the first extra-biblical account of Christian worship, tells us that the prayer for the

Eucharist is offered by the president “according to his ability,” which we must take to mean

extempore. At the same time, there is more that may be gleaned from Justin Martyr.

. . . as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh

and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed

by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are

nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. 8

The phrase relevant to epiclesis here is “blessed by the prayer of His word,” or “over which the

thanksgiving has been said.” 9 It is impossible to impute any notion of a full epiclesis onto this

account, but Justin Martyr may hold one more clue for us yet:

There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with

water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the

8
Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (ed.
Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe; vol. 1; The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Buffalo, NY:
Christian Literature Company, 1885), 1185.
9
Lawrence J. Johnson, Worship in the Early Church: An Anthology of Historical Sources (vol. 1; Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press, 2009), 68.

5
 name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being

counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. 10

We begin to see some similarities between the blessing of the Eucharistic prayer and the Jewish

berakoth (blessings) that we know of. The president gives thanks “to the Father of the universe.”

This recalls to mind the berakah for the cup in the Passover Haggadah which goes like this:

“Blessed art Thou, Adonai our LORD, King of the universe, creator of the fruit of the vine.” 11 This

blessing is not exclusive to the Seder, but is common also to what we know of every birkat ha-mazon

meal prayers. 12 In Justin Martyr, we see that this same kind of blessing is addressed, evidently to the

Father “through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” after which more thanksgivings of

“considerable length” follow, especially for being counted “worthy to receive.”

It is impossible to say how ancient the Haggadah prayers are; although many purport to be from

before the destruction of the second Temple, the Haggadah was transmitted orally for generations

before being written down in the 8th century A.D. 13 However, we can find clear examples the

berakah form of prayer in Scripture. That form, for example as found in 2 Chronicles 2:12, is first an

ascription of blessing to God—“Blessed be the LORD”—sometimes followed by a title of God—

“God of Israel”—followed by the reason for blessing or praise for a particular act of God, such as

“who made heaven and earth, who has given King David a wise son. . . .”

One thing that the Biblical berakoth and those of the Haggadah have in common is this: they

address only God in blessing. In no case do they pronounce blessing directly upon an impersonal

object.

10
Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” 1185
11
Joseph Tabory, JPS Commentary on the Haggadah: Historical Introduction, Translation, and Commentary
(Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2008), 110.
12
The Haggadah receives more attention for noticeable parallels to Christian Eucharistic anamnesis than for
the general form of berakoth.
13
Ibid., 1. Some evidence of seder orders exist from as early as the 4th century. See Bokser, 29.

6
 In Scripture, most often, people are the object of benediction: their assemblies, their names,

their houses (households), and their children. Also, days and times are clearly consecrated to be holy

and called blessed. Yet, while we have no cases of benediction being said over objects, still God

specifically promises to bless food. In Exodus 23:24-25, YHWH tells Israel, “you shall not bow

down to their gods nor serve them . . . You shall serve the LORD your God, and he will bless your

bread and your water, and I will take sickness away from you.” And again in Deuteronomy 28:5,

“Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl” (i.e. the grain which is gathered into the

basket, and the dough of bread, which is produced in the kneading bowl). The blessing of food is

directly tied to the service of YHWH, and especially the worship of him, rather than participating in

the worship of other gods. If you worship YHWH, he will bless you; he will bless your food, and

your drink. Food and drink are not blessed for their own sake, but for a specific benefit to God’s

people.

We find echoes of this in 1 Corinthians 10:16-21 when Paul insists that the cup of blessing at

Eucharist can in no way be mixed with the table of demons. But what can he mean when he says that

we “bless” the “cup of blessing”? Calvin sees in the passage a clear and direct “mystical

consecration,” and takes Erasmus to task for inserting the preposition “for” to make it read “the cup .

. . for which we give thanks to God.” Moreover, Calvin clearly is in disagreement with any who

would translate εὐλογοῦμεν to mean “give thanks for” rather than “bless.” 14

Thiselton takes a route similar to Erasmus, though retaining the meaning of blessing to render it

“the cup over which we offer blessing.” 15 Calvin argues that these kinds of renderings seem

“exceedingly forced.”

14
John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (vol. 1;
Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 334–335.
15
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek Text (New
International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 760.

7
 Now, to this point I concur with Calvin. However, I believe he somewhat misses the mark.

Rather than needing to understand “blessing” to mean “set [the cup] apart a la consecration

mystique,” in light of what we have seen regarding the customary berakoth and their relation to the

“cup of blessing,” we can strike at the meaning much more directly without resorting to awkward

renderings: it is evident that the worship of YHWH, and the blessing of God for the cup is so closely

associated with the cup itself that we might rightly say that the cup itself is blessed in that act, or as a

result of our blessing God, because God has promised to bless the food of his people when they

worship him rather than following other gods.

In conclusion, because the berakah is not an invocation, although it will inform an appropriate

epiclesis form, it cannot be considered an epiclesis, in the technical sense. This, we must turn to the

pages of Church history to find.

From Transition to Full-Formed Epiclesis

We examined the meaning of “blessing” in Scripture and its parallels in Jewish liturgical

tradition, but did not find anything that we could properly call an epiclesis (an invocation of the Holy

Spirit). We did find examples of invocation of Jesus to “come” with the Holy Spirit giving voice to

the Church in that call.

The first possible mention we have available to us of epiclesis as a part of the liturgy is found in

Irenaeus’ Against Heresies. Citing two closely related discussions of the Eucharist in Irenaeus,

O’Connor presents what I believe to be a fairly convincing argument that Irenaeus used the epiclesis

and “word of God” interchangeably: 16

16
James T. O’Connor, The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist (Second Edition.; San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 2005), 25.

8
 (Against Heresies V.II.II) . . . just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies

in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises

with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the

wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes

the Eucharist. 17

(IV.XVIII.V) For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the

invocation (epiklesin) of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist. 18

Therefore, “word of God” and “epiclesis” are synonymous to Irenaeus in the context of the

Eucharistic praying. O’Connor perhaps oversells the significance of this though, since it is not

explicitly the Holy Spirit who is invoked, and his use could quite easily belong to the category of

earlier Christ invocations. But at least Irenaeus appears to represent an early movement toward

explicit invocation in association with the anaphora.

In the record of transitional texts, which is rather scant, we go from accounts of berakah-like

blessings to something very close to a fully formed epiclesis sometime in the 3rd to 4th century. 19

There are some pre-Nicaean liturgical uses of the Greek ἐπίκλησις, as in Irenaeus, but the word also

often refers to the naming or applying of the divine name (e.g. calling God “Father”), and Zheltov

notes that the liturgy of St. Basil features both this use as well as the invocation of the Holy Spirit. 20

17
Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
(ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe; vol. 1; The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Buffalo,
NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 1528.
18
Ibid., 1486.
19
And here, by “epiclesis” I continue to mean any invocation of the Holy Spirit in connection to the Eucharist.
cf. Dix, Shape of the Liturgy, 182. He appears to hold a very narrow definition for epiclesis, as an invocation
of the Spirit specifically for the purpose of converting the elements of bread and wine.
20
Michael Zheltov. “The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought,” in Issues in Eucharistic
Praying in East and West, (ed. Maxwell E. Johnson; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2010): 264-265

9
We have also the probably gnostic, early 3rd century Acts of Thomas, which includes an epiclesis that

may be in transition:

Come, holy name of Christ which is above every name. Come, power of the Most High

and compassion that is perfect. Come, gift of the Most High. Come, compassionate mother.

Come, companion of the male child. Come, revealer of the sacred mysteries. Come, mother

of the seven houses so that you may be able to rest in the eighth house. Come, elder of the

five members—mind, thought, reflection, consideration, reason—communicate with these

young men. Come, Holy Spirit and cleanse their reins and hearts, and grant them added zeal

in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 21

This passage opens with the Christ invocation, then adds what appears to be a reference to the

Madonna and various gnostic esotericism, but, most notably, ends specifically with an invocation of

the Holy Spirit. Johnson also notes that cleaned up non-gnostic versions of Acts of Thomas are also

extant, so the text possibly had a much broader reading than other gnostic texts did. In the full-form

epiclesis, this type of invocation seems to be combined with the much earlier general gathering

prayers, such as that found in Didache:

For as the broken loaf was once scattered over the mountains and then was gathered in and

became one, so may your church be gathered together into your kingdom from the very ends

of the earth. 22

We may suppose that developments in Trinitarian theology leading up to the Council of Nicaea,

and, thereafter, to the Council of Constantinople, where the Church produced a creed with a more

mature pneumatology, would have been given more and more expression in the prayers of the

Church. Indeed, between Nicaea and Constantinople, a great deal of study and writing was produced

21
Johnson, Worship in the Early Church. vol. 1, 241.
22
Thomas O’Loughlin, The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (London; Grand Rapids, MI:
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; Baker Academic, 2010), 167.

10
regarding the Holy Spirit, most notably from the three great Cappadocian fathers, of which Basil is

one. It would therefore be natural to suppose that crystallization of pneumatology would result in the

expression of this greater understanding of the Holy Spirit into the liturgy of the Church. Regard for

the Holy Spirit in Eucharistic praying may parallel regard for the Spirit in the creed, which moves

from a mere mention of his existence in the creed of Nicaea to a fully formed theology of

pneumatological life-givingness, revelation, procession, and ecclesiastical catholicity in the Nicene

Creed of Constantinople. Conversely, it is also possible that the liturgical words of epiclesis were

themselves an impetus for further exposition on the Holy Spirit, which would then be a case of

secondary theology following in the footsteps of the primary (liturgical) theology.

The first example we have of an epiclesis proper is found either in the Eucharist prayer of the

Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus or the anaphora of Addai and Mari, depending on which

came first. Both texts are the topic of much debate regarding their original form, their age, and

especially to what extent they were modified in later centuries. The epiclesis of both have been of

particular academic interest. Even the authorship of the Apostolic Tradition is far from settled.

While it was once thought to have been written by an anti-pope figure in Rome, some recent studies

suggest that the manual is the work of a house church that bore the name Hippolytus, rather than the

writing of the actual person who bore that name. 23

The Hippolytus epiclesis in question reads thus from the Latin text: “And we ask that you would

send your Holy Spirit in the oblation of [your] holy church . . .” 24 Here the invocation is upon the

oblation or offering. But there is some question about whether this is original or a later addition, or

even a corruption. Stewart-Sykes proposes the alternative “send your Holy Spirit on the presbytery,”

23
John F. Baldovin. “Hippolytus and the Apostolic Tradition: Recent Research and Commentary.” Theological
Studies 64 (2004): 525
24
Paul F. Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson and L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary
(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 40.

11
rather than on the offering, in keeping with the context of the Apostolic Tradition, which is the

ordination of a bishop. 25 The invocation itself is followed by the gathering petition: “[that] gathering

[them] into one you will give to all who partake of the holy things [to partake] in the fullness of the

Holy Spirit, for the strengthening of faith in truth. . . .” This appears to fit an invocation upon the

presbytery, and would also parallel earlier known gathering petitions, such as the Didache, making

the gathering specific to drawing the presbyters and the newly ordained bishop into unity. But

however plausible Stewart-Sykes’ reading may be in context, it is still based solely upon the

hypothesis that an inattentive scribe mistook presbyterion for prosphoran when translating the Greek

text into Latin, 26 a speculation that is impossible to confirm. Because of how similar the epiclesis in

Apostolic Tradition is to the one found Addai and Mari, which does not have the context of a

bishop’s ordination, I tend to believe that the epiclesis of Apostolic Tradition is likewise intended for

the offering, not the presbytery. Dix believes the entire epiclesis of Apostolic Tradition to be a late

interpolation of a Syrian form onto the Roman liturgy, a position to which an examination of Addai

and Mari may give some credence. 27 There is no current consensus as to whether this or any other

form of epiclesis was originally present in Hippolytus.

This brings us to the anaphora of Addai and Mari, a Syrian form from the 3rd century, which

does not receive as much direct attention as the Apostolic Tradition has since the addition of

Eucharistic Prayer II, largely based on the anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition, to the Roman Rite.

The epiclesis of Addai and Mari, as I noted, follows a form noticeably similar to the one found in

versions of the Apostolic Tradition, and appears to be of the same Syrian type:

25
Alistair Stewart-Sykes, On the Apostolic Tradition (New York: St Vladimir’s, 2001): 65, 190.
26
Stewart-Sykes, 73
27
Gregory Dix, ed. and Henry Chadwick, ed, The Treatise on The Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus of
Rome (Elmore Abbey, 1991): 79

12
 May your Holy Spirit, Lord, come and rest on this offering of your servants, and bless and

sanctify it, that it may be to us, Lord, for remission of debts, forgiveness of sins, and the great

hope of resurrection of the dead, and new life in the kingdom of heaven, with all who have

been pleasing in your sight. 28

This epiclesis bears both similarity and some differences to the Apostolic Tradition. The

similarity is that the invocation is for the Holy Spirit to come upon the offering or oblation, and the

following petition is for the Eucharist to give benefit to those who partake. The gathering aspect is

absent.

While Addai and Mari has had its own series of debates, most of them center around the words

of institution rather than the epiclesis, which is present in both the Latin and Syriac manuscripts. 29

Dix notes that the invocation is framed in terms “so obviously primitive, resting as they do upon that

jewish eschatological doctrine which tended to be lost to sight in gentile christianity after the second

century, that one must hesitate a good deal to regard [the invocation] as any sort of late invention.” 30

In fact, the epiclesis forms the high point of the Addai and Mari anaphora, especially if, as many

suggest, the anaphora never included the words of institution. 31 The absence of an epiclesis would

be to lose the heart of the prayer, and it is, therefore, most probably original. An almost identical

epiclesis also appears in Sharar, a related Syrian anaphora, which had a common ancestry with

28
R.C.D. Jasper and G.J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed (Third edition; Collegeville:
Liturgical Press, 1990), 43.
29
Emmanuel J. Cutrone, “The Anaphora of the Apostles: Implications of the Mar Esa’Ya Text.” Theological
Studies 34 (1973): 634
30
Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (Second Edition.; Westminster: Dacre Press, 1945), 183.
31
Jasper and Cuming, Prayers, 40.

13
Addai and Mari, but developed differently. 32 In any case, the epiclesis of Addai and Mari is

probably the most ancient that has come down to us. 33

The most important thing to note about Apostolic Tradition and Addai and Mari (as well as

Sharar) is the nature of invocation in both. That is, both are an invocation of the Holy Spirit

specifically, both invoke upon the offering, 34 neither petition for a transformation of the elements,

and both petition for a direct benefit to those who partake.

As the Nicene period progresses, so does the development of epiclesis. The Egyptian Anaphora

of St. Basil, which underlies the Byzantine St. Basil as well as the Liturgy of St. James, dates from

late 3rd to 4th century, and presents this epiclesis:

And we . . . pray you, our God, in adoration that in the good pleasure of your goodness your

Holy Spirit may descend upon us and upon these gifts that have been set before you, and may

sanctify them and make them holy of holies. Make us all worthy to partake of your holy

things for sanctification of soul and body, that we may become one body and one spirit, and

may have a portion with all the saints who have been pleasing to you from eternity. 35

Here, for the first time, we see the petition for the Holy Spirit to descend on the gifts [of bread

and wine] to sanctify them and to “make them holy of holies.” That is, there is a sanctification or

consecration, and also an apparent petition to affect some sort of change upon the gifts. Compare to

the expanded Byzantine St. Basil:

32
Ibid., 45, 50.
33
Cutrone, “The Anaphora of the Apostles,” 641.
34
Except in Stewart-Sykes’ hypothesis.
35
Jasper and Cuming, Prayers, 71.

14
 . . . bless them and sanctify and make this bread the precious body of our Lord and God and

Savior Jesus Christ. Amen. And this cup the precious blood of our Lord and God and Savior

Jesus Christ. 36

This Byzantine form expands on what is said about making the gifts holy of holies, to specify a

making of the bread to be body and of cup to be blood. Finally, in the full and final form is the

Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which, among other elements, adds to this, “changing it by your

Holy Spirit.”

Retained in all of these is a kind of gathering petition for the Eucharist to be effectual for those

who partake, for life and for unity. In this part we’ve explored the historical foundations of epiclesis

and its development in the historical liturgy of the Church, to the extent that we have it. We will now

move one to examine the theological implications of this and consider what that could mean for a

Reformed liturgy.

Theological Considerations

As we saw, biblical benedictions are pronounced over people and over periods of time (e.g. holy

days). They are never pronounced over objects or things, like a sort of charm. We also noted,

however, that blessing God in close association with the cup can be understood as “blessing the cup.”

In all biblical examples, a thing is set apart for a use not because we pronounce a special blessing for

it, but rather in the very act of using it for holy purpose, and specifically in giving thanks for it. It is

therefore appropriate to speak of “holy food.” Indeed, 1 Timothy 4:3–5 shows us that all foods are

made holy and are set apart, when they are received with thanksgiving:

36
Ibid., 119-120.

15
 . . . foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know

the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received

with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

So then, if common food is made holy by prayer and thanksgiving when set apart for the

physical sustenance of the one who believes, how much more the food that is received with prayer

and thanksgiving for the spiritual sustenance of God’s gathered people! 37

Taking all this into account, I believe we should not adopt a “late form” epiclesis in our

Eucharistic anaphora. We have seen that there are two basic elements to the late form: the

invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts in order to change them, and the invocation of the Holy

Spirit upon the people in order to make them worthy and to apply the gifts to them. At least the first

part either needs to be omitted, or modified significantly.

This, of course, touches on the various forms of the doctrine of Real Presence. The Roman

dogma is transubstantiation, and the Orthodox also believe in a kind of change, though they do not

define it to the extent that the Roman doctors did; the Lutherans also believe a kind of metaphysical

change takes place. So a late form epiclesis would in keeping with their understanding of the

Presence. For a Reformed understanding a late form would be inappropriate.

Nevertheless, some form of epiclesis is essential for a fully Trinitarian anaphora. The

Eucharistic prayer is addressed to the Father and gives thanks for creation and for the work of the

Son; the epiclesis petitions for the work of the Holy Spirit. So what form should the epiclesis

properly take? In order to answer what we ought to ask when we petition for the coming of the Holy

Spirit, we need to examine what the Spirit’s work is, in general, and also specifically in the Eucharist.

37
My purpose here is simply to show that the general concept of food being consecrated by thanksgiving is a
Biblical one. More study could be given to the question of whether there is a qualitative difference in the nature
of consecration between Eucharist and daily bread.

16
 I suggest that the Holy Spirit’s primary work as relates to the people of God is the work of

gathering and binding. That is, the Spirit gathers God’s people and binds them to one another, and

also gathers and binds them to Jesus Christ. We find this first in baptism, in which the Holy Spirit

comes upon the baptized, just as he came upon Jesus at his baptism, and unites them to that

prototype, in such a way that we are said to be united not only to the person of Jesus Christ, but also

all that he has done and all that he does (Romans 6:3-11).

The work of the Holy Spirit in inspiration (2 Peter 1:21) of the prophetic word, in giving the

Word of God to men and empowering their voice, gathers the hearers of that Word to the God who

speaks, and indeed binds them to the one through whom God speaks. When the Holy Spirit brings

all things to remembrance for the apostles who are recording New Testament Scripture, he is uniting

and binding them to all that Jesus has taught them (John 14:26). So not only does the Spirit inspire,

but he illuminates. Christ speaks in the Spirit, and the Spirit brings Christ’s words and their meaning

to remembrance. We find this Spirit-inspired / Spirit-illumined dynamic in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13.

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that

we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not

taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those

who are spiritual.

It is the Spirit that gives understanding, just as it is the Spirit that gives the words not taught by

human wisdom. So we see, we, too, are united in faith to all those who believe in Jesus Christ

throughout all ages, precisely because of the work of the Holy Spirit in inspiration and illumination.

We are bound together by the words of Scripture, and through Scripture also to Christ, who is the

Word. Closely related to this is the gift of tongues that was one of the hallmarks of the Spirit in the

apostolic age. At Pentecost, the apostles spoke in the diverse languages of all who were present, and

so peoples separated by tongue were, through the direct working of the Holy Spirit, united and bound

together—first in understanding, and then in belief, and then in baptism.

17
 Finally, the Holy Spirit unites and binds the people of God together in worship. Jesus spoke

of the day when true worshipers would worship God in Spirit and in truth, because “God is Spirit”

(John 4:23-24). That day Christ speaks of finds full expression and fulfillment in Revelation 1:10,

in which John says he was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day.” He then ascends “in the Spirit” to the

throne of God (Revelation 4:2), where he sees the same vision as Isaiah—the seraphim singing

Sanctus. And at the end of the liturgy of Revelation, the Spirit speaks in, through, and with Christ’s

Bride, the Church, when she says “Come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:17, 20).

In short, in all this gathering and binding, the Holy Spirit moves us. He moves us toward greater

unity, he moves us as he gathers us together as one into Christ, just as he “carried away” the prophets

who wrote Scripture. When John is in the Spirit, he is transported to the throne room of God. And

like John, we are raised to “heavenly places” (Ephesians 2:5-6); we have come to Mount Zion

(Hebrews 12:22-24). “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and

thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming

fire” —a Spiritual flame of Pentecost.

If the Holy Spirit is so at work in the worship of the Church, we should not be surprised to

find him directly at work in the Eucharist. For even as the Church with the Spirit says “Come, Lord

Jesus,” she also declares the death of Jesus Christ in Eucharist “until he comes” (1 Corinthians

11:26), looking in anticipation to that coming. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, we find strong indication of

the Spirit’s direct work in applying the sacramental gifts of Christ to the people:

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and

all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and

all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the

spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

The Israelites not only underwent baptism in the Red Sea, but this baptism led them into

communion with Christ himself. They ate of the spiritual food, and they drank of the spiritual drink.

18
And by “spiritual,” Paul means not some sort of disembodied ghostly sustenance that they ingested,

but rather food and drink that were given by the Spirit. The Holy Spirit binds Israel to Jesus Christ in

the manna and in the water from the Rock. But for the Church that conquers, the Holy Spirit offers a

better manna (Revelation 2:17). And so, in the incarnation, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary,

mother of Jesus, and brought into the world the bread of life in the house of bread . . . whom she

immediately wrapped in cloth and placed in a grain-feeding trough as “a sign” (Luke 2:7, 12, 16).

Since, therefore, the Spirit is so intimately involved in our fellowship with Christ, Paul can rightly

call our fellowship the “communion of the Holy Spirit” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

John Calvin takes up the idea of ascension—of the Holy Spirit’s moving God’s people into

heavenly places—and helpfully ties that theme in with the Eucharistic Real Presence:

If we refuse not to raise our hearts upwards, we shall feed on Christ entire, as well as

expressly on his flesh and blood. And indeed when Christ invites us to eat his body, and to

drink his blood, there is no necessity to bring him down from heaven, or require his actual

presence in several places, in order to put his body and his blood within our lips. Amply

sufficient for this purpose is the sacred bond of union with him, when we are united into one

body by the secret agency of the Spirit. 38

It seems incredible, that we should be nourished by Christ’s flesh, which is at so great a

distance from us. Let us bear in mind, that it is a secret and wonderful work of the Holy

Spirit, which it were criminal to measure by the standard of our understanding. “In the

meantime, however, drive away gross imaginations, which would keep thee from looking

beyond the bread. Leave to Christ the true nature of flesh, and do not, by a mistaken

38
John Calvin, “Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood
of Christ in the Holy Supper” T&T II.516 (Julie Canlis. Calvin's Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and
Ascension. Kindle edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), [Kindle Locations 1790-1793].

19
 apprehension, extend his body over heaven and earth: do not divide him into different

parts by thy fancies, and do not adore him in this place and that, according to thy carnal

apprehension. Allow him to remain in his heavenly glory, and aspire thou thither, that he

may thence communicate himself to thee. 39

In agreement with Calvin, then, I believe the Scripture teaches us that Jesus Christ is not brought

down to earth to be moved into the elements. The Holy Spirit does not go about turning things into

other things, but rather, as the one who moves men, he transports us, the people of God, into the

heavenly presence of Jesus—as it is likewise the Spirit’s work to move God’s people into closer

fellowship with Christ and with one another. In other words, it is not so much that the Spirit makes

Jesus to be present upon an earthly Eucharistic table, as that he causes us to be really present with

Christ at a heavenly Eucharistic table.

With the theology of spiritual ascent, together with the Biblical understanding that blessing God

for food blesses our food, we have no need to look for a point of consecration in the service, or to

suggest one in the anaphora. The Holy Spirit does not come down from the Father at a point in the

service when we ask it of him. Rather, the Father has already sent the Spirit upon the Church on the

day of Pentecost, and by baptism we partake in that Spirit. Thereafter, we find that the Holy Spirit

continues to fill and move God’s people (Acts 4:8, 31; 13:52), even as the Spirit moved Jesus into the

wilderness to be tempted after descending upon him at baptism (Matthew 3:16-4:1).

The leading of the Holy Spirit for God’s people happens especially in the worship of God.

Ascent begins at entrance. The Sursum Corda ushers us into the special divine presence where we

sing Sanctus with the seraphim. Christ teaches us from his Word, which is inspired by the Spirit and

illuminated to us by the Spirit. We are seated at the heavenly table before the anaphora begins,

through which we give thanks to the Father for the gift of the Son and the work of the Spirit. In other

39
Calvin and Pringle, Commentaries on Corinthians, 380–381.

20
words, the whole service is consecration, for we are gathered around the table, blessing God from the

moment of entrance. The food is consecrated (set apart for a purpose) when it is brought into the

assembly for use as Eucharist and the people begin praising God. As there is a progressive

sanctification of persons through all of life, we see a kind of progressive sanctification of the

assembly in the liturgy. As Schmemann observes, the liturgy “is entirely, from beginning to end, an

epiklesis, an invocation of the Holy Spirit, who transfigures everything done in it . . .” 40

For even while Christ is bodily absent, yet is he present, especially in the gathering of believers,

through the operation of the Holy Spirit. “Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about

anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are

gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matt. 18:19–20).

Conclusion

What form, then, should our expression take in the Eucharistic prayer? To summarize those

things that we seek to express, and ought consciously to include in our petitions to God:

1) Blessing God for the bread and cup is the blessing and consecration of the food, because

God blesses the food of his people when they worship him, and makes it holy.

2) The Holy Spirit has come upon the Church at Pentecost, yet progressively fills and moves

the people into the heavenly presence of Christ through worship.

3) The Holy Spirit applies the body and blood of Jesus to us in our partaking of the

Eucharist.

4) The Holy Spirit unites the people of God into one body through the Eucharist, binding

them to Christ and to one another.

40
Schmemann, Eucharist, 222.

21
 While hard and fast formulas standardized for all churches everywhere are not necessarily what

we are after, since from the earliest time the anaphora was extempore, model prayers may be helpful.

First, the blessing of God especially for the bread and cup may take the form of the ancient

berakoth: “Blessed are you, Lord God of the universe, for you made bread/wine. . . .” This is not

specifically an element of epiclesis, and I think the epiclesis should precede it if understood as a

petition for the Holy Spirit to work in and through our blessing.

God has sent his Holy Spirit upon the Church, so prior to the epiclesis, when recounting the acts

of God’s redemption, we might add thanksgiving or remembrance for: “. . . the sending of the Holy

Spirit to empower your Church . . .”

The “late form” petition for the Holy Spirit to come upon the gifts of bread and wine has no

basis in Scripture, for the Spirit comes upon and fills people, not things. And yet, in our blessing of

God for the bread and cup in worship, God does come and bless the food we eat, so that it might

benefit those who eat and drink. An appropriate petition for the epiclesis proper, therefore, might be:

“Pour out your Holy Spirit upon us, and bless these [your] gifts of bread and wine . . .”

“Gifts” might remain ambiguous, or the gift giver and receiver might be made explicit.

The Eucharist is an offering of the Church, and yet also the gift of God to the Church. In either

case, we should be careful not to suggest a Spirit-affected “change” of the gifts, as the change occurs

not with the bread and cup, but in the standing of the people partaking of them. Nevertheless, the

Holy Spirit applies the reality of Christ’s body and blood to those who partake. So we might,

therefore, rightly petition for that which Paul has declared takes place: “. . . that the bread we break

and the cup of blessing that we bless may be the communion of the body and blood of Christ.”

Finally, as the Spirit, having filled the Church, works especially in the Eucharist to move and to

bind us to Christ and to one another, the gathering petition should conclude the epiclesis—a common

theme in most of the ancient anaphoras from Didache to Byzantine Basil: “By your Spirit make us

22
one with Christ, that we may be bound in fellowship to all who share this feast, united in service

throughout the world. . . .”

The final form of the epiclesis proper for a Reformed anaphora might then look something

like this:

Pour out your Holy Spirit upon us, and bless these [your] gifts of bread and wine, that

the bread we break and the cup of blessing that we bless may be the communion of the body

and blood of Christ. By your Spirit make us one with Christ, that we may be bound in

fellowship to all who share this feast, united in service throughout the world. Keep us

faithful in your service until Christ comes in final victory, that we may feast with all your

saints in the joy of your eternal Kingdom.

23
Bibliography
Baldovin, John F. “Hippolytus and the Apostolic Tradition: Recent Research and Commentary.”
Theological Studies 64, 2004.
Bokser, Baruch. The Origins of the Seder. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary Press, 1984.
Bradshaw, Paul F. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Second Edition.; New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992.
Bradshaw, Paul F., Maxwell E. Johnson and L. Edward Phillips. The Apostolic Tradition: A
Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.
Calvin, John, and John Pringle. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.
Vol. 1. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.
Canlis, Julie. Calvin's Ladder: A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2010
Collins, C. John. “The Eucharist as Christian Sacrifice: How Patristic Authors Can Help Us Read the
Bible.” Westminster Theological Journal 66:1, 2004
Cutrone, Emmanuel J. “The Anaphora of the Apostles: Implications of the Mar Esa’Ya Text.”
Theological Studies 34, 1973
Dix, Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. Second Edition. Westminster: Dacre Press, 1945.
Dix, Gregory, ed. and Henry Chadwick, ed, The Treatise on The Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus
of Rome. Elmore Abbey, 1991
Irenaeus of Lyons. “Irenæus Against Heresies.” Page 486 in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin
Martyr and Irenaeus. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe.
Vol. 1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.
Jasper, R.C.D. and G.J. Cuming, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed. Third edition.
Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1990
Johnson, Lawrence J. Worship in the Early Church: An Anthology of Historical Sources. Vol. 1.
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009.
Justin Martyr. “The First Apology of Justin.” Page 186 in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr
and Irenaeus. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.
McKenna, John. The Eucharistic Epiclesis. Second Edition. Chicago: Hillenbrand Books, 2009.
O’Connor, James T. The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist. Second Edition. San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005.

24
O’Loughlin, Thomas. The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians. London; Grand Rapids,
MI: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; Baker Academic, 2010.
Schmemann, Alexander, The Eucharist. New York: St. Vladimir’s, 1987.
Stewart-Sykes, Alistair. On the Apostolic Tradition. New York: St Vladimir’s, 2001
Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint. Vol. 3. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909.
Tabory, Joseph. JPS Commentary on the Haggadah: Historical Introduction, Translation, and
Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2008.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek Text. New
International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.
Michael Zheltov. “The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought,” in Issues in
Eucharistic Praying in East and West. Edited by Maxwell E. Johnson. Collegeville: Liturgical
Press, 2010.

25