John 6 : 62 & 63 What does this mean?

[Wannano]

I am interested in knowing what others interpret these verses to mean…

 

[Sy_Noe]

Might some who believe in a symbolic presence but not a physical one, interpret the verses to mean that Jesus was clarifying to the grumblers that he was speaking figuratively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood and instead to believe in his death for our sins, in his resurrection and 2nd coming, and in the meantime he would be with us in spirit? Of course some still grumbled and walked away. But maybe because they were still thinking Jesus was speaking literally?

 

[Reuben_J]

Have no problem with them. God’s words give life.

In the course of his ministry, Jesus gave many teachings, and obedience to them would give ‘life’.

On the other hand, refusing to accept his teachings because they do not conform to our human set of understanding and belief, thus not accepting them in faith, would be deprived of the nourishment of his word.

 

[Cathoholic]

JOHN 6:60-64 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

Wannano. You asked:

John 6 : 62 & 63 What does this mean?

I am interested in knowing what others interpret these verses to mean…

Hopefully this explanation helps answer your question Wannano.

God bless

Cathoholic

---

Let’s break down the objections in verse 63.

• The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life
• It is the spirit that gives life
• The flesh is of no avail

The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life

The words that Jesus spoke ARE spirit and life. Jesus said so.

But you cannot throw the word “ALONE” in the verse. It doesn’t work.

Jesus ALSO said He gives His FLESH for the life of the world and we are to partake of that flesh.

JOHN 6:51 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world IS MY flesh.”

If this is all mere allegory and symbolism (as some would suggest) the context would demand Jesus giving His flesh for the life of the world is “mere symbolism” too.

This would do away with Jesus’ work on Calvary.

And that is what many early Church era heretics argued—that Jesus did not REALLY die and rise from the dead.

It is the spirit that gives life

This is part of Trinitarian theology.

God The Holy Spirit

The Spirit DOES give life. Jesus says so.

God The Son

But Jesus ALSO says HE gives life.

JOHN 6:51 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

God The Father

And consider The Father sent Jesus for this LIFE of the world.

JOHN 6:57 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

I just believe ALL the verses. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The flesh is of no avail

Well what about “the flesh” is of no avail”.

That isn’t going to work as an objection against partaking of the Lamb of God either.

Why?

***Continued on the next post . . . . ***

 

[Cathoholic]

***Continued from the last post . . . . ***

The flesh is of no avail

Well what about “the flesh” is of no avail”.

That isn’t going to work as an objection against partaking of the Lamb of God either.

Why? Because Jesus never said HIS flesh was of no avail.

NOT JOHN 6:63 (Phantom Verse) 63 It is the spirit that gives life, MY flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jesus said “THE flesh” is of no avail, not “MY Flesh” is of no avail.

And we should ALL affirm that.

“The flesh” IS of NO avail.

But WHAT is “the flesh” in a Jewish context?

"The Flesh"

“The flesh” is being saved by your Old Covenant works such as circumcision. “The Flesh” is thinking you have an inside track to God because of your blood genealogy.

To Jews, “the flesh” would mean things like family lineage (being of Jewish heritage), Tribe, and circumcision (especially precisely on the eighth day as the Jewish teaching prescribed).

Well how do we know?

Fortunately we don’t have to guess. St. Paul exemplifies this “the flesh” concept for us.

Let’s look at “the flesh” as St. Paul applies this term to himself in giving us further insight into this term for us. We will see again that “the flesh” IS “of no avail”!

Let’s look at Philippians 3:3-6 for a reasonable example of the Jewish meaning of what “the flesh” means to an ancient Jew.

St. Paul specifically talks about the phrase “the flesh” with regards to himself. Let’s see how he uses it.

(emphasis mine)

PHILIPPIANS 3:3-4 3 For we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in THE FLESH.
4 Though I myself have reason for confidence in THE FLESH also.
If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in THE FLESH, I have more:

Why?

Why St. Paul, can you say that before you were a Christian, you had so much confidence in THE FLESH?

Fortunately St. Paul is about to tell us why.

PHILIPPIANS 3:4b-6 4b If any other man thinks he has reason
for confidence in THE FLESH, I have more:
5 circumcised on the eighth day,
of the people of Israel,
of the tribe of Benjamin,
a Hebrew born of Hebrews;
as to the law a Pharisee,
6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church,
as to righteousness under the law blameless.

“The law” incidentally that St. Paul is “blameless” in, is ritual law, NOT moral law. Pedigrees and various rituals such as circumcision is where Paul refers to himself as “blameless”.

St. Paul knows there are DIFFERENT types of “law”. And if WE know that too, we won’t fall into the sola fide trap lumping all types of “law” together (but that discussion would be for a different thread).

St. Paul when referring to MORAL laws in 1st Timothy 1:15, refers to himself as “foremost” among sinners and NOT “blameless”.

Since St. Paul fulfilled these Old Covenant ritual classifications perfectly, he considers himself blameless or perfect in these categories, and thus he could put more confidence in “THE FLESH” than anybody.

So St. Paul basically is telling these Philippians what?

That **“THE FLESH” is of no avail! **

Remember, “the flesh” refers to Old Covenant rituals and tribal pedigrees, etc.

 

[Duane1966]

I am interested in knowing what others interpret these verses to mean…

Verse 62.) Yes, yes, what if you realized that this is God saying this to you, would you believe me then?

Verse 63.) Taken from this website: shamelesspopery.com/does-john-663-refute-the-real-presence/

In other words, it’s not as if we have Jesus using a metaphor, and the crowd naively assuming that He means it to be literal. It’s something nearer the opposite: we have the crowd initially assuming Jesus is speaking metaphorically, and Jesus going out of His way to make sure that they don’t think that. And after the crowd protests, “how can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” Jesus answers (Jn. 6:53-58), by explaining six different times that He means this literally in the span of six verses:

• “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in yourselves.” (Jn. 6:53)
  “He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:54)
  “For My Flesh is True Food, and My Blood is True Drink.” (Jn. 6:55)
  “He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in Him.” (Jn. 6:56)
  “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.” (Jn. 6:57)
  “This is the Bread which came down out of Heaven; not as the fathers and died; he who eats this Bread will live forever.” (Jn. 6:58).*

And to top all of this off, this discourse occurs at Passover time (John 6:4), one year prior to the Institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper (Mt. 26:20-29).

My friends acknowledged how Eucharistic the passage appears to be, but wanted to know what to make of John 6:63. Because after Jesus says all of this, and the crowd is outraged (Jn. 6:60), He says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” One of my friends said, “I agree that if you read the prior verses 53-58 literally, it seems to support the idea of Real Presence. But doesn’t verse 63 prove that He’s speaking figuratively?”

It’s a very good question. But the typical Protestant understanding of the passage is dangerously wrong: taking John 6:63 literally like that would discredit not only (a) the Eucharist, but (b) everything Christ just said about the necessity of eating His Flesh, (c) the Incarnation, and (d) the Passion of Christ. Because if Christ’s Flesh is worthless, then His taking on Flesh is worthless, and His sacrificing His Flesh on the Cross is worthless.

But these conclusions can’t be right (as any Christian would recognize). **Instead, Christ means that the flesh profits nothing in isolation, that it needs to be quickened by the Spirit. *Here are Augustine’s own words:

What is it, then, that He adds? It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing? It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit.

Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. [1 Corinthians 8:1] Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much. For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles’ flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord’s flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.*

 

[Duane1966]

Might some who believe in a symbolic presence but not a physical one, interpret the verses to mean that Jesus was clarifying to the grumblers that he was speaking figuratively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood and instead to believe in his death for our sins, in his resurrection and 2nd coming, and in the meantime he would be with us in spirit? Of course some still grumbled and walked away. But maybe because they were still thinking Jesus was speaking literally?

How could Jesus be clarifying for the grumblers something He had not mentioned to them, i.e. His death, His resurrection, and second coming?

 

[Wannano]

***Continued from the last post . . . . ***

The flesh is of no avail

Well what about “the flesh” is of no avail”.

That isn’t going to work as an objection against partaking of the Lamb of God either.

Why? Because Jesus never said HIS flesh was of no avail.

NOT JOHN 6:63 (Phantom Verse) 63 It is the spirit that gives life, MY flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jesus said “THE flesh” is of no avail, not “MY Flesh” is of no avail.

And we should ALL affirm that.

“The flesh” IS of NO avail.

But WHAT is “the flesh” in a Jewish context?

"The Flesh"

“The flesh” is being saved by your Old Covenant works such as circumcision. “The Flesh” is thinking you have an inside track to God because of your blood genealogy.

To Jews, “the flesh” would mean things like family lineage (being of Jewish heritage), Tribe, and circumcision (especially precisely on the eighth day as the Jewish teaching prescribed).

Well how do we know?

Fortunately we don’t have to guess. St. Paul exemplifies this “the flesh” concept for us.

Let’s look at “the flesh” as St. Paul applies this term to himself in giving us further insight into this term for us. We will see again that “the flesh” IS “of no avail”!

Let’s look at Philippians 3:3-6 for a reasonable example of the Jewish meaning of what “the flesh” means to an ancient Jew.

St. Paul specifically talks about the phrase “the flesh” with regards to himself. Let’s see how he uses it.

(emphasis mine)

PHILIPPIANS 3:3-4 3 For we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in THE FLESH.
4 Though I myself have reason for confidence in THE FLESH also.
If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in THE FLESH, I have more:

Why?

Why St. Paul, can you say that before you were a Christian, you had so much confidence in THE FLESH?

Fortunately St. Paul is about to tell us why.

PHILIPPIANS 3:4b-6 4b If any other man thinks he has reason
for confidence in THE FLESH, I have more:
5 circumcised on the eighth day,
of the people of Israel,
of the tribe of Benjamin,
a Hebrew born of Hebrews;
as to the law a Pharisee,
6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church,
as to righteousness under the law blameless.

“The law” incidentally that St. Paul is “blameless” in, is ritual law, NOT moral law. Pedigrees and various rituals such as circumcision is where Paul refers to himself as “blameless”.

St. Paul knows there are DIFFERENT types of “law”. And if WE know that too, we won’t fall into the sola fide trap lumping all types of “law” together (but that discussion would be for a different thread).

St. Paul when referring to MORAL laws in 1st Timothy 1:15, refers to himself as “foremost” among sinners and NOT “blameless”.

Since St. Paul fulfilled these Old Covenant ritual classifications perfectly, he considers himself blameless or perfect in these categories, and thus he could put more confidence in “THE FLESH” than anybody.

So St. Paul basically is telling these Philippians what?

That **“THE FLESH” is of no avail! **

Remember, “the flesh” refers to Old Covenant rituals and tribal pedigrees, etc.

You have given insight into what the Jews meant and understood when they referred to “the flesh.” Earlier in John 6 Jesus explains He is the Bread of Life which comes down from heaven and in verse 47 explains that anyone who BELIEVES ON him has everlasting life. Is there a difference in believing in Him and believing on Him? Verse 48 he states boldly that he is that bread of life. Verse 51 he states again he is the living bread, anyone who eats of this bread will live forever, and the bread he will give is his flesh. Given the understanding of “the flesh” that the Jews had , it is interesting that they did not refer their concept to his flesh.

Jesus said the bread he gives is his flesh. In verse 54 and 55 he firmly says whoever eats his flesh hath eternal life and that his flesh is meat indeed. Interesting in John 4 his disciples told him to eat something. He replied that he had meat that they were not aware of. This caused them to ask if someone had brought him something to eat that they did not know of. In John 4 : 34 Jesus explains " My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

 

[Wannano]

Might some who believe in a symbolic presence but not a physical one, interpret the verses to mean that Jesus was clarifying to the grumblers that he was speaking figuratively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood and instead to believe in his death for our sins, in his resurrection and 2nd coming, and in the meantime he would be with us in spirit? Of course some still grumbled and walked away. But maybe because they were still thinking Jesus was speaking literally?

It does not seem illogical to think he could be saying " if you are actually envisioning that you will eat this physical body you see if front of you, what are you going to then think and do when you see it disappear from your sight and grasp when I ascend back to heaven."

 

[Duane1966]

It does not seem illogical to think he could be saying " if you are actually envisioning that you will eat this physical body you see if front of you, what are you going to then think and do when you see it disappear from your sight and grasp when I ascend back to heaven."

How is this answering what they are murmuring about? If He is telling them He is speaking metaphorically, how then is His Flesh true food?

The way you interpret this passage is they walked away because they misunderstood Jesus. If this is true, there is nothing wrong with them walking away, it was the Teacher who was not clear.

To Catholics, they walked away because they understood, the Teacher was clear.

 

[Wannano]

How is this answering what they are murmuring about? If He is telling them He is speaking metaphorically, how then is His Flesh true food?

The way you interpret this passage is they walked away because they misunderstood Jesus. If this is true, there is nothing wrong with them walking away, it was the Teacher who was not clear.

To Catholics, they walked away because they understood, the Teacher was clear.

I don’t think he announced “ok folks, I am a now speaking literally or metaphorically.” In the previous verses he had adequately explained who he was, what his purpose was and that they should labor for that meat which the Son of Man would give them and it would produce everlasting life. When they asked what they should do to do the works of God he told them very clearly that this is the work of God…“to BELIEVE ON him who he hath sent!” There is much mention in this chapter of “believing.” There was nothing wrong with the teacher, they walked away because they did not believe. Look at Peter’s words inverse 69…"And we BELIEVE and are sure you art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

 

[Duane1966]

I don’t think he announced “ok folks, I am a now speaking literally or metaphorically.” In the previous verses he had adequately explained who he was, what his purpose was and that they should labor for that meat which the Son of Man would give them and it would produce everlasting life. When they asked what they should do to do the works of God he told them very clearly that this is the work of God…“to BELIEVE ON him who he hath sent!” There is much mention in this chapter of “believing.” There was nothing wrong with the teacher, they walked away because they did not believe. Look at Peter’s words inverse 69…"And we BELIEVE and are sure you art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

What didn’t they believe, that Jesus was speaking literally, or metaphorically?

1.) If Jesus is speaking metaphorically, but they believe He is speaking literally, their walking away is understandable. They walk away with a misunderstanding, and the Teacher let’s them walk away with a misunderstanding. In this scenario, the Teacher is at fault, for He let them walk away, knowing they misunderstood Him.

2.) Jesus is speaking metaphorically, and they understand Him metaphorically. No reason for them to walk away.

3.) Jesus is speaking literally, and they believe He is speaking literally. He lets them walk away because they understand completely what He has taught. No fault in the Teacher in this scenario. Everyone is on the same page.

 

[alwayswill]

I am interested in knowing what others interpret these verses to mean…

I think it comes down to this:
What in John 6 produces eternal life?

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and **believes in him should have eternal life, **and I will raise him up on the last day.”

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, **whoever believes has eternal life.

**
54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

question:
In John 6:
What is it that produces eternal life?
Believing in Christ v40 or eating His flesh v54?

over 2 years before the Last Supper Jesus tells them:
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.

IOW: no belief means no eternal life

The same answer that is given throughout Scriptures: Believing in Christ gives eternal life.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
John 3:36

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
1 John 5:13

 

[Duane1966]

I think it comes down to this:
What in John 6 produces eternal life?

40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and **believes in him should have eternal life, **and I will raise him up on the last day.”

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, **whoever believes has eternal life.

**
54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

question:
In John 6:
What is it that produces eternal life?
Believing in Christ v40 or eating His flesh v54?

over 2 years before the Last Supper Jesus tells them:
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.

IOW: no belief means no eternal life

The same answer that is given throughout Scriptures: Believing in Christ gives eternal life.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
John 3:36

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
1 John 5:13

So one could say, that if someone says they believe, but do not feed on Jesus’ flesh, that they really don’t believe?

Can you have eternal life but not feed on His flesh?

 

[alwayswill]

So one could say, that if someone says they believe, but do not feed on Jesus’ flesh, that they really don’t believe?

Can you have eternal life but not feed on His flesh?

let me chew on that for a bit and get back to you

“When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, LORD God Almighty.” Jeremiah 15:16

How sweet are Your words to my taste! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Psalm 119:103

"Now you, son of man, listen to what I am speaking to you; do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I am giving you. Ezekiel 2:8

…
…
…

I’m back : eating is a metaphor for believing

 

[Duane1966]

let me chew on that for a bit a get back to you

“When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, LORD God Almighty.” Jeremiah 15:16

How sweet are Your words to my taste! Yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Psalm 119:103

"Now you, son of man, listen to what I am speaking to you; do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I am giving you. Ezekiel 2:8

…
…
…

I’m back : eating is a metaphor for believing

How is His flesh true food then?

Did His followers leave because they believed He was speaking literally or metaphorically?

Why does St. John change the wording in the discourse when talking about eating His flesh from the word phago, which is usually taken literally, but can be used metaphorically, to trogo, a word that has never been used metaphorically?

 

[Todd977]

I think, as John 3 is mostly about the sacrament of Baptism, John 6 is mostly about the sacrament of the Eucharist. This seems fairly obvious when one compares what Jesus says here about eating his flesh and drinking his blood to what he did and said at the Last Supper:
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:26-28)
And what Paul said about the Lord’s Supper:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27)

The word “Eucharist” even appears in the Greek leading up to his teaching here:
Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks (eucharistesas), he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. (John 6:11)

However, boats from Tiberi-as came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks (eucharistesantos). (John 6:23)

In John 6:62, Jesus is reassuring his disciples that this hard saying and all of his other teachings come from God and their divine origin will be confirmed later by his bodily resurrection from the dead and his bodily ascension into heaven.

In John 6:63, Jesus, like Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:14, is talking about those life-giving gifts of God which are spiritually discerned, especially the sacraments in general and, here, the sacrament of the Eucharist in particular. The sacraments consist of ordinary actions and things, like washing with water, eating bread, drinking wine, anointing with oil, which, when combined with the word of God, produce spiritual effects. For example, to the unspiritual person, the person of the flesh who judges things only by their physical appearance, the sacrament of Baptism does nothing more than get a person wet but to the spiritual person, the person whose judgment is enlightened by faith, the washing of water with the word of God washes away their sins (Acts 22:16) and spiritually regenerates a person. (Titus 3:5) Similarly, to the unspiritual person the sacrament of the Eucharist is nothing more than the smallest of meals, a bit of bread and a sip of wine, but to the spiritual person the sacrament of the Eucharist is a real and substantial participation in the body and blood of Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:16)

 

[Sy_Noe]

How could Jesus be clarifying for the grumblers something He had not mentioned to them, i.e. His death, His resurrection, and second coming?

Actually he did say he came down from heaven and spoke of ascending to where he was before and would raise them up at the last day.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

How is His flesh true food then?

Did His followers leave because they believed He was speaking literally or metaphorically?

Why does St. John change the wording in the discourse when talking about eating His flesh from the word phago, which is usually taken literally, but can be used metaphorically, to trogo, a word that has never been used metaphorically?

Exactly.

In the NT trogo was always used to describe the psychical.

The followers who departed knew full well what He was saying.

Where people go wrong with their interpretation is the verse that says the flesh is no avail…But Jesus is obviously not talking about His own flesh as we are redeemed thanks to that pierced and beaten body.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Can you have eternal life but not feed on His flesh?

Absolutely. Protestants who believe (feed on) that he gave up his flesh for us and who never consume the Eucharist in the physical presence sense of the Catholic Church can have eternal life. If I make it there, I expect to see many.