The Symbolism of John 6

[KennC]

Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”

I was reading through that event but also in view of the previous days events … the crowd in John 6 is the same crowd who just the day before were going to take Jesus and force him to be King!! I assume they would have had Jesus take over Herods Palace, after He delt with the Roman occupation?

… Jesus knowing this, this being the Jews greatest desire, hid Himself from them … it was these same folks that tracked Him down the next day!! I don’t think they easily forgot about taking Him by force to be King overnight.

In this sense, His Flesh in that role, the role off an earthly ruler would count for nothing … and even the Protestants should be relieved this crowd never got their way.

 

[PrinceCaspian]

Can someone tell me why my really long post, that I spend like an hour on, got deleted??

That’s pretty frustrating.

 

[Linkowski]

Bishop Challoner teaches against this wrong interpretation (cannabilism) in his notes in the Douay-Rheims bible:

John 6:63-64*:

*63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 63 “If then you shall see”… Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

64 “The flesh profiteth nothing”… Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.
64 “Are spirit and life”… By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.

In John 6:63, Jesus is referring to His words and not in His flesh…by flesh, again, He is referring to looking at His teaching (words) from a carnal/physical/fleshly standpoint - he says “the WORDS that I speak to you are spirit and life”. The interpretation above is twisted to meet a doctrine that is not taught in scripture.

I can tell you this, Christ said to do it in remembrance of Him…when I take the Lord’s supper, I remember and meditate on the breaking of the body and shedding of the blood that bought my salvation. This meditation is again, a spiritual feast, and I benefit by immensly from it. I am, in effect, eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Real presence…Is not Christ omnipresent? He is everywhere all the time…He is present and available at all times. I can be with Him and feast on Him whenever I can and whereever I want…

Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I do not need to kneel before a Eucharist or any shrine, I just close the door of my closet or pray in Church, and I have Him. I am His and He is mine.

 

[az_4_faith]

Biblical interpretation without the guidance of those who formed the Canon leads to great confusion.

The early Church knew that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ years before they could hold a Bible in their hands. Just as some turned away from Jesus (John 6:66) because the teaching was too hard, those who didn’t accept the teaching of the Real Presence in the early Church also walked away.

Then, with the Protestant Reformation, armed with their Bibles, those who could not accept the teaching denied Him and walked away as well.

The Apostles and Church Fathers got it right. Why our Protestant brothers and sisters keep trying to undo Jesus’ teachings is beyond me, considering how awesome His Gift of Holy Communion actually is.

 

[KennC]

when I take the Lord’s supper, I remember and meditate on the breaking of the body and shedding of the blood that bought my salvation. This meditation is again, a spiritual feast, and I benefit by immensly from it.

It’s impossible to go through Mass without experiencing this and every Catholic through-out his or her day has this opportunity for Spiritual Communion … as well as His real presence at Mass just as He said. Once you have the view from the top of the mountain you can still enjoy the view from 3/4 the way up and 1/2 way … whereas some who are bound never to go beyond 1/2 way up will never have anything past that point.

 

[KennC]

Jesus is referring to His words and not in His flesh…by flesh, again, He is referring to looking at His teaching (words) from a carnal/physical/fleshly standpoint -

Btw, … then why didn’t He just say that, they would be fed by His Word … because not one soul up to that point was considering eating His Flesh, not one.

… whereas on the night before He died he would have instructed them all to write His Words down and then held up Scritpure in His hands saying, take this all of you and consume it, this is my Body.

He stayed with, “eat my Flesh and drink my Blood”. After His resurrection he fully interprepted the Scriptures and explained by Scripture exactly who He was and why He came to the Disciples on the road to Emmaus, yet they never saw …

… only to recognise and truly see Him in the Blessed Bread. So excited in seeing the Lord they reported this event, the seeing Him in the Blessed Bread, to the others.

As far as I’m concerned that was the first Mass, reading of Scripture and the Blessed Bread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy - it seems that you are agreeing with me. Otherwise, you may need to make some clarifications/give a brief summarization.

If I have misunderstood then my apologies.

When you wrote that Jesus wanted us to look at his teaching in John 6 “spiritually” are you doing so from the perspective that transubstantiation is or is not what occurs at the consecration of the bread and wine?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do not need to kneel before a Eucharist or any shrine, I just close the door of my closet or pray in Church, and I have Him. I am His and He is mine.

It’s good that you obey the command of Jesus to go into your room and pray in secret. (Matthew 6:6)

It would be even better if you ate his body and drank his blood as he also commanded you:

1. 
   *]Matthew 26:26
   While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
   *]Mark 14:22
   While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
   *]Luke 22:19
   And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
   *]John 6:51
   I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
   *]John 6:53
   Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
   *]John 6:54
   Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
   *]John 6:56
   Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
   *]1 Corinthians 11:24
   and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
   *]1 Corinthians 11:25
   In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus never said anything that indicated that he was speaking symbolically. The Jews who abandoned him surely didn’t do so over a mere metaphor. The disciples who no longer followed him did not lose faith over a metaphor. The Apostles were so dumbfounded that the best that Peter could manage was, “Lord, to whom shall we go…” But let’s read the text again to be clear:

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

When and where did Jesus give his flesh for the life of the world? You have to be working pretty hard to ignore the plain words here. Why didn’t Jesus just say, “This bread is my teaching which I’m preaching for the life of the world?” Because that wasn’t what he meant, was it?

Furthermore, John wrote his Gospel long after Matthew, Mark and Luke. Have you ever noticed that he doesn’t record the Last Supper as the other three do? What does he do instead? He supplements their teaching about the Eucharist with the Bread of Life discourse in John 6. If he thought (late in the first century nearly 50 years after the Resurrection of Jesus) that the Church’s understanding was off-track, he would have corrected it, wouldn’t he? Why didn’t John clarify what the other Gospel writers said, Dad? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire John to tell us plainly that the Eucharist is only symbolic? Why did 1500 years pass before anyone questioned the Real Presence? Because the Church got it right from the beginning, and only the descendants of John Calvin rejected this clear doctrine. Even the Lutherans are more on track here than most Protestants.

Finally, notice that while the Gospel writers often provide a “voiceover” narrative to explain things to us or describe the times that the Apostles went to Jesus privately to ask what he meant by a parable, we get none of that in John 6 concerning this event.

 

[DLC]

John 6:51-59 must be understood in the context that it is found. First, we know that it cannot be referring to communion for communion was not instituted until the night of the Last Supper during Pentecost. Second, the Last Supper event took place also right before Christ’s death.
We must also understand this passage as the readers would have. To “eat” and “drink” here is an Hebraic figure of speech. Today we might say to someone, digest this information, meaning think about it. Jesus had just told His audience in verse 47, that those who believe in Him would have eternal life. Jesus would never turn around in the next breath and say for his readers to do something else to have eternal life. By the use of the figures of speech “eat” and “drink’ Jesus was telling his hearers to think about what He had just said in verses 22-50. This passage in John 6 does not refer to Holy Communion.

 

[Church_Militant]

John 6:51-59 must be understood in the context that it is found.

Really? Only initially, but one has to understand scripture in the context of all other scripture that applies to the same topic. You’ll find that done here.

First, we know that it cannot be referring to communion for communion was not instituted until the night of the Last Supper during Pentecost.

:ehh: Wrong. If that was the case then it wouldn’t even qualify as a remembrance since the sacrifice on the cross had not yet occurred, so there is clearly a prophetic aspect to this passage.

BTW, the last supper was during Passover, Pentecost was 50 days later.

Second, the Last Supper event took place also right before Christ’s death.

Dealt with as above…

We must also understand this passage as the readers would have. To “eat” and “drink” here is an Hebraic figure of speech. Today we might say to someone, digest this information, meaning think about it. Jesus had just told His audience in verse 47, that those who believe in Him would have eternal life. Jesus would never turn around in the next breath and say for his readers to do something else to have eternal life. By the use of the figures of speech “eat” and “drink’ Jesus was telling his hearers to think about what He had just said in verses 22-50. This passage in John 6 does not refer to Holy Communion.

This is great… I love it when a non-Catholic walks in and hands me the easy way to prove my point.

Merely Figurative?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor. The peace of the Lord be with you all.

 

[Eden]

John 6:51-59 must be understood in the context that it is found. First, we know that it cannot be referring to communion for communion was not instituted until the night of the Last Supper during Pentecost. Second, the Last Supper event took place also right before Christ’s death.
We must also understand this passage as the readers would have. To “eat” and “drink” here is an Hebraic figure of speech. Today we might say to someone, digest this information, meaning think about it. Jesus had just told His audience in verse 47, that those who believe in Him would have eternal life. Jesus would never turn around in the next breath and say for his readers to do something else to have eternal life. By the use of the figures of speech “eat” and “drink’ Jesus was telling his hearers to think about what He had just said in verses 22-50. This passage in John 6 does not refer to Holy Communion.

The argument that “eat” and “drink” here are “an Hebraic figure of speech” is not valid. John 6 was written in Greek. The Greek word used is “trogo”.

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

 

[bibleapologist]

The argument that “eat” and “drink” here are “an Hebraic figure of speech” is not valid. John 6 was written in Greek. The Greek word used is “trogo”.

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

The only problem with that (and I haven’t yet verified your claims) but if that is the truth, it still doesn’t explain how the Greek translators knew without a doubt that Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively.

Do you have an Aramaic translation from which the Greek was translated?

BA

 

[DCD]

The only problem with that (and I haven’t yet verified your claims) but if that is the truth, it still doesn’t explain how the Greek translators knew without a doubt that Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively.

Do you have an Aramaic translation from which the Greek was translated?

BA

The greek translators knew because of the context.

Father Prat:

“The metaphorical sense of 'eat,” “devour someone” is limited to certain poetical expressions, the meaning of which is never ambiguous because it is prepared by the context."

He gives examples if anyone is interested.

Peace,
David

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Do you have an Aramaic translation from which the Greek was translated?

BA

The book of John was written in Greek not Aramaic.

Are you saying that John was in error? I hope not.

 

[heisenburg]

Bless you in your Journey BA

I would like to take a moment to comment on some underlying issues you have brought forth.

For starters, you indicated that "how do we know that the Greek understanding of Eat is correct since we do not have any Aramaic or Hebrew versions. This is simple. The Gospel writers would have indicated it with the correct word. They were not in the business of trying to instill confusion, but they were in the business of trying to convey truth. If the the author understood Jesus’s saying to mean you just think on this… digest it so on, he would have put it that way. There are other instances where we are told to think about what was said/written… so there is a precedent for using think and contemplate over the ‘eat’ meaning. Also if it really did mean to think about and digest… why then do NONE of the bible translations have it. I cant find a single translation that has this. Are we saying we know better than the people who spend their lives attempting to translate?

You also ask is it literal or figuratively… I commenting on this in a previous post discussing the revelation of the old in the new. As mentioned… to imply that this is only figuratively and symbolic, you must also argue that the Jews for thousands of years believed it was symbolic

The best way to answer this question is their response…

If he meant symbolic, or merely to ‘digest’ what he was saying. Why did so many leave. It isnt because he was proclaiming to be the way to eternal life. Most already believed it anyway. So that isnt a valid reason to abandon him. The disciples knew this, so why would they say it was a hard saying. If he was just talking figuratively, and everyone knew he was talking figuratively, again, no reason to freak out. If it is just a figure of speech, then again, why would it be so devastating to hear. They have heard many other analogies in the past. again, the apostles even said… this is a hard saying not what does this parable mean

The only way they would have been so disturbed is if they thought it was a literal meaning. It is a continuation of the sacrifice of the OT presented in Christ. If I was told to ‘eat’ someone, and wasn’t completely open to the faith, i would freak out… I would NOT freak out because of an analogy, nor would I freak out because of something I already believed.

In Christ

 

[KennC]

If he was just talking figuratively, and everyone knew he was talking figuratively, again, no reason to freak out. If it is just a figure of speech, then again, why would it be so devastating to hear. They have heard many other analogies in the past. again, the apostles even said… this is a hard saying not what does this parable mean

Exactly!!! … everyone was used to Christ speaking figuratively, they may have knudged each other ?? from time to time but that would have been it.

 

[Eden]

Do you have an Aramaic translation from which the Greek was translated?

BA

St. John wrote in Greek. The word choice of trogo was his own.

“The Real Presence and the Greek Word ‘Trogo’ in John Chapter Six”:

catholicapologetics.net/eat.htm

Karl Keating

“This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for doctrinal reasons. If they merely had misunderstood him, if they foolishly had taken a metaphor in a literal sense, why did he not call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews . . . and his disciples . . .
would have remained had he told them he meant no more than a symbol. But he did not correct these first protesters, these proto-Protestants . . . four times he said they would have to eat my flesh and drink my blood.' John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper - and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic . . . **The Greek word for body’ in John 6 is sarx,' which can only mean physical flesh, and the word for eat’ (trogo) translates as gnaws' or chews.’** This is not the language of metaphor. The literal meaning cannot be avoided except through violence to the text - and through the rejection of the universal understanding of the early Christian centuries.” (4:234,237)

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005_04_03_socrates58_archive.html

The word “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. It occurs only two other times outside John 6 (cf. Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and in both cases means a* literal eating*. It is undeniable what Jesus is asking of them. They must eat His flesh and drink his blood.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Exactly!!! … everyone was used to Christ speaking figuratively, they may have knudged each other ?? from time to time but that would have been it.

Here is another lame argument I have heard offered:The reason that the Jews began to grumble is NOT because Jesus said that we must eat his flesh; after all, it was perfectly obvious to everyone that he was speaking symbolically. No, the reason they were upset is because he claimed to come from heaven!“For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.” (John 6:38)"At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” (John 6:41-42)

The argument doesn’t look so lame in light of these verses, does it? This is precisely the complaint of the Jews initially. But look what happens next:“But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:50-52)

Suddenly, they are not so concerned about Him “coming down from heaven”, are they? They are now more focused on His flesh! Jesus doesn’t let up at all.Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” (John 6:53-58)

Then notice the reaction of the crowd:"On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (John 6:60)

Did Jesus back off at this point? No way!Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. Did Jesus then pull the Twelve aside and “explain all things to them in private” (cf. Matthew 17:19, Matthew 24:3, Mark 9:28, Mark 13:3, Luke 9:18, Luke 10:23)?

Not according to John who wrote his gospel 50 years later after watching the development of the Church’s doctrine of the Eucharist for half a century. Instead, Jesus said:“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” What would Jesus have done if the Twelve had gotten up and left over this teaching? He would have started over - He wouldn’t, He couldn’t change the true meaning of His words, “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.”

Again, which flesh is real food? The flesh He gave for the life of the world.

Nothing symbolic about it.

 

[DianJo]

While everyone is concentrating on John 6, we also need to think about something else that was touched on earlier in this thread; that being the Passover meal and sacrifices.

I just attended the Seder meal that was peresented to our RCIA class to help them in their understanding of Mass and the Eucharist. Thank goodness I was also aboe to bring my Confirmation class.

In the context of sacrifice, there were 4 types of sacrifice: Holocost; where the entire animal is burned up to God,
Peace offering where the animal is split in half and one half is offered up to God and the other is eaten by the priest. The blood of the animal is also sprinkled on the altar and the priest and the one half must be eaten by the priest (who represents the people) in order for the covenant to be valid. This type of sacrifice is what is used when making a covenant with God (Mass).
The 3rd and 4th are the sin offering and the guilt offering where the animal again is split in half. This is done with the priest and the person who has commmited sin against God. One half is burned up to God, the blood is sprinkled on the altar, the priest and the “penitent.” The priest and the “penitent” also eat the other half of the sacrifice.

Now, consider the Passover meal. God gave very explicit instructions on what kind of animal was to be used, how old it was to be, what condition the animal had to be in (no broken bones), etc. The blood of the lamb had to be put on the post and lintel other wise the “Angel of Death” would take their first born. God also said that they had to eat the sacrifice and also gave them instructions on how to eat it - with your loins girt - as if in a hurry. They were also to make bread without leaven. Leaven was bad - leaven is a bacteria that causes food to decay and if it decays, it’s dead. Leaven is akin to sin. When we sin, we are dead. That’s why all the hubbub about leaven. The Israelites had to do just as God commanded or the event was not valid - it meant nothing.

In order for the Seder meal to be valid - it had to be completed - start to finish. Seder means order. During the Seder meal, you have 4 cups of wine, 3 pieces of unleavened bread, the bitter herbs and charred lamb.
The 4 cups are: 1)Sanctification, 2) Redemption, 3) Blessing and 4) Acceptance. With the cup of Sanctification, the head of the household would lead the meal and during the first part of the meal, he would take a large piece of the bread, break the bread in half, hide one half for later. During the cup of Redemption is when all wash their hands to prepare to eat the ritual meal. This is when Jesus would’ve gotten up to wash the feet of the Apostles (institution of teh Priesthood). Jesus also identifies his betrayer at this point in the meal. It’s also the time when Jesus would take that piece of hidden bread. He would break it and give the Apostles each a piece of it (communion) saying, This is my body.
The 3rd cup is the Blessing cup. This is where the wine would’ve been consecrated. He says, “I tell you solemnly I shall not drink any more wine until the day I drink the new wine in the kingdom of God.” (Mk 14:25) At this point, Jesus got up and left the room to go pray in the Garden. He did not finish the Seder meal and would’ve confused his Apostles.
The 4th cup - the cup of Acceptance. He prays in the garden, “Father, take this cup from me…” “not my will but your will be done.” He finally accepts his fate. He finally drinks the 4th cup on the cross when He says, “I thirst.” the sponge of wine is given to Him and he syas, “It is finished.” He finally finishes the Seder meal and in the process transforms the Seder into the the New Covenant - the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

In viewing the Passover instructions you see that the Eucharist HAS to be His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Otherwise the sacrifice would not have been valid. There would’ve been no covenant. That’s what He was trying to say in John 6.