Interpretations of the Word of Wisdom seem to evolve from generation to generation. For decades, the treatment of the Word of Wisdom has been to reduce it to a checklist of no-nos. No tobacco, no alcohol, no coffee, no tea, no illegal drugs. Prior to this, there were other popular reductions and interpretations, for example there was a period in which it was considered to be a greater affront to the Word of Wisdom to eat pork than to drink coffee or tea.
Recently, another iteration of the Word of Wisdom has become popular. This new iteration of the Word of Wisdom sells itself as the most “full” reading of section 89. But listening to the arguments and explanations for the newest rendering, they are always viewing the revelation through the lens of it being about physical health, even though the Lord has expressly stated He isn’t interested in that focus (Matthew 6:25; D&C 29:34-35; D&C 101:36-37). The spiritual blessings are usually only mentioned as an afterthought consequence, and the spiritual lessons of section 89 are not even breached. I am not saying nobody has ever attempted to look at the Word of Wisdom as though it were scripture—teaching us about spiritual things—I am only saying I haven’t found such an examination as of yet.
Along with considering symbolic, spiritual implications, I will look at the simplicity of what the revelation does say, and what it does not say. I don’t intend to disregard or ignore the straightforward reading of this revelation, which does include instruction concerning this temporal world. But a plain reading of this revelation doesn’t require adopting a lens built around worship of the body, so I will look at the content without that lens.
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, SECTION 89
Originally, the first three verses of section 89 were considered an inspired addition by Joseph to introduce the remainder, which constituted the revelation. Thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers, the early transcripts of the Word of Wisdom all included the content of these verses as part of the original transcript, pointing to their being a part of the same revelation.
“A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—“
Those intended to benefit from this counsel are addressed, at three degrees of increasing scope. It is also interesting to note the distinction between “the church” and “also the saints in Zion,” reflecting that the Lord doesn’t see these titles as defining the same group.
In the phrase "a Word of Wisdom," which form of the word "of" is meant here? Changing which definition is used can seriously alter the understanding of the phrase. Also, we have coined the name “The Word of Wisdom” for section 89 from this phrase, but “the word of wisdom” is actually named as a gift of the spirit, numbered alongside healing, prophecy, etc. (Moroni 10:9; D&C 46:17) It is probably worthy of its own investigation.
“ 2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—“
The Lord considers this a greeting, and unlike anywhere else in scripture, diminishes the understood import of His own counsel here by noting it is not to be understood as a commandment, or to be enforced by any form of constraint. Nowhere else in our scriptures does such a disclaimer from the Lord Himself exist, making it noteworthy.
I believe it is likely that the reason for this disclaimer is due to the Lord's foresight into how His words would be taken. He anticipated that men would indeed alter it into a commandment, which the people would eventually be told they must obey before they could even be baptized, and that constraint would indeed become implemented, with men depriving one another of the privilege to enter His house—the temple—on this basis. He knew mankind would attempt to entangle salvation itself with the content of this revelation, so He spoke against it to establish His word for them to act against, knowing full well that they would do that which He had forbidden (Moses 3:16-17).
What is being offered here is also notably not only “revelation,” but again, the “word of wisdom.”
This content is also showing forth the “order and will of God” pertaining to the saints’ “temporal salvation.” What is temporal salvation? Is it the same as temporal preservation? It would seem that the Lord prefers the term “preservation” when referring to forestalling death or protecting physical life (e.g. Genesis 45:5-7; 1 Nephi 5:14; 2 Nephi 9:53). The one other reference to “temporal salvation” in scripture applies to Noah (Moses 7:42). This could indeed be taken as preserving their physical lives, but could it perhaps be referring to something else? Were they only saved from death? Were they also saved from the wicked influence of those who were destroyed? Were they perhaps saved beyond merely retaining life in their physical bodies?
If we look at temporal salvation as salvation from temporal death, we also need to look at Christ, who is directly responsible for saving us from temporal death (2 Nephi 9:11; Alma 11:42; Alma 42:7-8). Interestingly, when He does it, it is after physical death has already consumed us. He doesn’t provide our “salvation” from temporal death by preventing it.
So, are there things besides death which one might need “salvation” from in the temporal world? Which this “temporal salvation” might be referring to?
“ 3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.”
There is apparently A principle tackled in this section, which has attached promise, and is adapted to the capacity of the weakest possible saints. It is not adapted for those who cannot be called saints. What could this principle be?
If the principle were that we must focus on optimizing our physical health through diet, then we face a problem beyond the clear scriptural conflicts. Babylon herself—those who cannot be called saints—certainly knows how to obey this principle in spades. Hollywood, Babylon’s pinnacle, is far more successful in obeying such dietary restrictions than the LDS church membership. The dietary reading of this section is certainly adapted to Babylon’s capacity, perhaps evidently more so than ours.
So, what is the principle? And what is the promise (v. 21)?
“ 4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—“
With “Behold,” the introduction has finished and the content itself begins with “thus saith the Lord.” Once the Lord establishes He is the one speaking, He first delivers the reason for this warning revelation: conspiring men. He does NOT say it is in consequence of concerns about physical health, it is due to the dangers of conspiring men. Ask yourself, when men conspire, what are they seeking? Are they seeking simply to destroy mankind’s health? Do we have moustache-twirling villains with dastardly intents primarily focused on destroying our health? Or is it more likely that these men have the same destructive lusts in their heart as any, for power and authority over their fellow men? To overcome man's agency and subject them, to which ends the destruction of physical health would only be—at best—an incidental byproduct? Rather than the goal?
Could aspirations for power one over another involve acts such as one person telling another what they can and cannot do? For example, what they can and cannot consume? What they can and cannot do with their own body? What treatment of their body will or will not offend God, when such statements are devoid of revelation? What will or will not damage the body, when our Telestial bodies are varied like the stars (D&C 76:81), having not only similarities but differences? Which differences might make that which is expedient for one be a problem for another?
Is it not evil and designing to catch the First World up in a storm of argument over the quality of our abundant food, while letting the Third World die of starvation by the droves? Is it not evil and designing to distract us with the false impressions of “important” dichotomies such as organic vs. non-organic, vaccines vs. anti-vaxx, to rile us up into contentions and judgments one with another, when liberty would dictate anyone could use any of these and none need harass or compel another for their choice?
The Lord also tells us that He has warned us, and is similarly forewarning us. What things has the Lord warned us about? What has He not warned us about? He frequently warns us about things which concern our spiritual welfare. He warns against sin and temptation and so forth, on a regular basis. However, whenever the Lord warns His people of a temporal danger, it is always an immediate danger, with an immediate instruction to facilitate deliverance from that danger. Lehi was given immediate warning and instruction to save the lives of himself and his loved ones (1 Nephi 2:1-2). Joseph, the earthly stepfather of Jesus, was given immediate warning and instruction to preserve the temporal welfare of Jesus and their family (Matthew 2:13-14). Noah was only given sufficient notice to prepare the ark to save the temporal lives of his family and the ark’s residents (Genesis 6:13-7:7). These were all individualized, time-bound instructions for temporal preservation.
There are no enduring warnings concerning temporal welfare that I can find in scripture, besides the assertion that section 89 is one. Therefore, whatever forewarning He is doing, which He implicitly ties to previous warnings, does not appear to be about temporal preservation, but instead about temporal salvation, which contextually appears to be a different matter.
“ 5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.”
God will address more concerning each form of drink specifically in the coming verses, but the baseline is that wine and strong drink aren’t endorsed outside of an assembly where we offer up our sacraments before Him.
What is it about wine and strong drink that would prompt the Lord to make these remarks about them? Would He be more concerned about how they would affect our body? Or about how they affect our spirit?
He says it is neither good, nor meet. What is the difference between these? What is “good” in the sight of God? What is “meet” in the sight of God? When might one qualification be met, while another is not? What is differentiation?
What are our sacraments? Why is it plural? Is the Lord’s supper one of our sacraments? Or is it His? What sacraments are there besides the Lord’s Supper? What is a sacrament? How is a sacrament ours? How do we offer up a sacrament, which is ours, before God?
“ 6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.”
This verse notes that the wine we drink in the offering up of our sacraments should be of our own make. Is this a standing law? Or was it a response to limited circumstances at a given point in time? Could there be some reason to make wine yourself? Something to be learned? When He says “your” own make, is He speaking individually? Or collectively to some sort of body?
We have been warned not to purchase wine of our enemies (D&C 27:3), but that revelation does not say to not buy wine at all. Who are our enemies? Why shouldn’t we buy wine of them? Can we buy wine from non-enemies? Could you buy from a non-enemy and qualify the wine as being of “your own make” if you identify communally with those who made and sold it to you?
The idea has been asserted that it was initially about the fear that our enemies would poison the wine, but upon investigation I find the idea seems to be only a derived assumption, with no Divine or authoritative statements to that end. We also have the word of the Lord that those who believe won’t be harmed by drinking deadly poisons (Mark 16:17-18; also, I note that intentionally drinking it to tempt the Lord makes one disobedient (Matthew 4:7) and disqualifies them from this blessing), and that we are free to require of God miraculous healing from poisoning (D&C 24:13). So could there be other reasons besides poisoning to not buy wine of our enemies?
Does “pure wine of the grape of the vine” negate the use of wines blended with other fruits? Including other vine fruits?
What else does wine represent? What other uses are there for “wine” and “the vine” in scripture? How could those things need to be “pure”? What else could this verse be understood as alluding to?
“ 7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.”
So strong drinks aren’t for the belly, they aren’t intended for drinking. That is not their ordained purpose.
Are all alcoholic drinks “strong drinks”? Or is the label of “strong drinks,” as opposed to “mild drinks,” a distinction between different types of alcoholic beverages? More on that when we reach verse 17.
Strong drinks are for washing the bodies. Why? How? What kind of “washing” could be referred to here? What symbolism could be understood in the use of strong drink to wash our bodies? What can be learned about our souls if we look at using strong drink—distilled “spirits”—to wash our bodies?
“ 8 And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.”
What is meant by “not for the body”? Does it mean it is not for applying to the surface of our body, similar to washing our body? Does it mean something else?
If it is not for the belly, it is not intended for eating to fill our belly, it is not for physical nourishment.
Ultimately, it “is not good for man,” but for cattle. We are not intended to benefit from tobacco directly, yet we benefit from it indirectly. How can this principle be understood with spiritual things? Some things in this Telestial world are not good for us, but are they perhaps good for someone or something else? Could you give something to another which benefits them directly but might not benefit you directly? Or which might bring you benefit through sacrificing it for another’s sake?
Tobacco, which is not good for man but is good for cattle, must still be applied by man, and that with judgment and skill. What might this testify of? Are there things you might need to apply to others, but only with judgment and skill, as opposed to undiscerningly and wantonly?
“ 9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.”
I don’t see latitude for redefining “hot drinks” as anything other than what it says: hot drinks. If you have a drink, that also happens to be hot, He says its not for the body or the belly.
Strong drink and tobacco have similar prohibitions, but also contain direction for their use. Those things have stated purposes. So is there something hot drinks are for? Or do drinks which are “hot” serve no ordained purpose? Can you cool a hot drink, causing it to no longer qualify as a “hot drink”? If it is not a hot drink any longer, does this counsel reach its bounds and expire?
Why is it only hot drinks, why not hot food?
Again, what is meant when it is “not for the body”? Does that mean washing the body, like strong drinks? Or is it talking about the body in some other way? If they are not for the belly, they are not intended for the purpose of providing us physical nourishment through the belly. How do the body and the belly differ? Is it perhaps that one is interacted with internally and one externally?
What might hot drinks represent? If this were symbolic, what could be understood about not taking “hot” drinks into your belly, or using them in some way for your body? How is it bad? Obviously scalding your mouth or body is a damaging thing, but what might the excessive heat represent?
“ 10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.”
God here emphasizes “verily” that all wholesome herbs are ordained for us, in one way or another. What herbs qualify as “wholesome”? Which herbs don’t? On what grounds is the distinction made? Who gets to make the distinction? Who is bound under their interpretation?
God iterates three ordinations for these wholesome herbs: For our “constitution,” for our “nature” and for our “use.” Our “constitution” is most easily understood and applied as referring to our health, our physical well-being. This was indeed an understanding in Joseph’s day. This is the only basis by which we tend to read and understand this section of the D&C.
But then what is the “nature” of man? How do herbs contribute to man’s nature? Is it our “natural” frame, the physical form of our “natural man”? Does eating these herbs contribute to sustaining our natural man—the enemy of God (Mosiah 3:19)—so that we might remain in this state of inhabiting it, facing its weaknesses that we might learn to overcome them and hopefully subject our natural man to the spirit? If fasting by abstaining from such food serves to strengthen the spirit (Alma 17:3), does that perhaps further testify of this understanding? Why are they not ordained for the “spirit” of man?
What about the “use” of man? Does that necessarily say man is using it for himself? The prior verse discussing tobacco noted that it was not for man directly, but for the cattle directly, by which man benefits indirectly. But the man must be the one to use it, the man must administer it to the cattle, with judgment and skill. So even the herbs not meant to be administered to man directly are still useful to man, for administering to those who would indeed benefit. Some things are perhaps ordained for a given man or men to administer, but not to receive in administration.
“Every” herb and fruit is ordained to be used, in some way, “in their season.” This says nothing of a need for only consuming local, indigenous fruits or herbs, as I have seen asserted. This says nothing for or against using preservatives either. It merely says they are to be used in their “season,” or in other words, when properly ripe, when they have grown and matured.
Some things are unwise for us to partake of or use before their properly ordained time. Adam and Eve sinned in partaking of the fruit before the properly ordained time. The law of chastity is about not engaging in certain behaviors until the properly appointed season of marriage has been reached. Some things can also be attempted too late, their season having passed. Regret is often a direct result of man failing to act within a season appointed unto them, only to look back in misery as they receive the consequences. For example those who procrastinate the day of their repentance (Alma 13:27; Helaman 13:38), and having passed from the mortal season, find that they never accomplished the work of repentance ordained for them in the season of their mortality.
Even when we are within the season for the use of the herbs and fruits, it is to be done “with prudence and thanksgiving.” We are to be learning wisdom among other things, discerning the proper circumstances for the things we engage in or do not. And thanksgiving is essential as God is highly offended by those who don’t confess His hand in all things (D&C 59:21).
“ 12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”
First of all, there is a noteworthy punctuation change in here, which potentially alters the context of what is said, and occurred only after Joseph Smith’s death. It is the comma inserted between “used” and “only” in verse 13.
One the one hand, it could be argued that the post-Joseph change is a violation of intent, catering to subsequent understandings or desired interpretations; that the proper interpretation is to remove the comma and read it as God being pleased when we don’t relegate the use of beast of the field and fowls of the air to times of winter and famine. This can be bolstered by a reading of 1 Timothy 4:3 and D&C 49:18.
Conversely, one could argue that the word “only” was used and understood a bit differently then (as it was), and that it would be appropriate to infer this comma (D&C 121:36 would be a good example of this type of reading). If so, then it isn’t inappropriate to write in what was already implied. Let’s look at the context and see if it reveals anything.
If the comma is improper, then the Lord isn’t worried about how many beasts and fowls we kill and consume. He isn’t necessarily indifferent, He has an opinion, preferring that we not limit our consumption within certain stated constraints. The difficulty with this reading is the end of verse 12. He begins with “Nevertheless,” which is a word that is used to switch gears, acknowledging that while the prior statement may be true, the content of this subsequent statement will be pointed in a different direction, as opposed to further bolstering the original statement. In this case, the word is used after the Lord confirms that animals are indeed for eating, which would seem to imply that He will now make a statement to the effect of not eating. Indeed, He says they are to be eaten “sparingly.” I don’t know of a definition for the word, past or present, that would be a synonym for “wantonly,” or “gratuitously,” or “regularly.” Sparingly always implies leaning toward less, as opposed to more. So to me, it seems safe to accept the comma as implicitly understood in the beginning. You might disagree.
Flesh is ordained for man’s consumption, with stipulations. It is to be used with thanksgiving, which is clearly important to God, as noted above. It is also to be used sparingly. “Sparingly” is understood differently by different people. Some understand it as meaning an absolute last resort, some understand it as being only according to a sense of need, some see it as meaning occasionally or not wantonly. The Lord hasn’t clarified His intended reading of that in scripture, so I suppose it needs to be understood individually, which means one individual doesn’t have the right to attempt to define it for another individual. The scriptures tell us nobody is given authority to tell another not to partake of them (1 Timothy 4:3; D&C 49:18).
It is “pleasing” to God to only use flesh of beast and birds in times of winter or famine (“cold” was a later addition). But it is not required. Nor does He say eating more often than that is displeasing, though one might infer that.
Are there other things that are ordained for man, but only sparingly? Are there things we cannot even expect to consume frequently or regularly? Spiritual things? Are there also things that we can sparingly be involved with and be acceptable before God, but too much attention or investment or consumption might be offensive to Him? Are there other things that are generally pleasing to God for man to not be involved with, or consume, or participate or invest in, except in highly specific circumstances which must be named by Him?
Comparatively, we have the herbs and fruits which are intended to be used in their season. Their seasons are cyclical, coming and going according to rather regular times and patterns which can even be anticipated, though there is variety as to what is in season and what is not in season at any given time. On the other hand, we have things which are to be consumed or engaged “sparingly,” and God may prefer they not to be used unless specific circumstances arise which might warrant their use. How might these testify of other things? Is this perhaps describing some of the experiences of mortality beyond putting stuff into our body?
“ 14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;”
Grain is the “staff of life,” that upon which life leans for its support. This is the case for man, for domesticated and wild animals, and for birds (no mention of things in the earth, or things in the waters, here or anywhere in this section). There is something upon which all the stated life mutually relies for their survival in this world. What might that point to?
In the stars, the constellation Virgo—the Virgin—is holding something in her hand. The binary star Spica is represented by a grain of wheat in depictions of the constellation. If the Virgin is understood as testifying of the Virgin who brought Christ into the world, then the grain of wheat would aptly represent the Christ, who truly is the Staff of Life. This is strengthened by verse 17 noting that wheat is specifically for man.
“ 15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.”
What are “these” which He is referring to here? It doesn’t seem to refer to grain, beasts of the field or the fowls of heaven, as these all are addressed elsewhere, with different guidelines than those provided here. So it seems reasonable to to understand “these” as the “wild animals that run or creep on the earth.” Apparently undomesticated animals that run or creep on the earth aren’t in our best interest to use, unless there is not enough other food to suffice for our needs.
When it says “use,” is that limited to consumption? Or not? Why are these given a different provisional use than the other animals? Why are these not also ordained to use during the winter? What makes them different? How can the differences be understood as testifying of greater things? Do we have some things that really aren’t great to use or engage if they can be avoided, but when there is a serious lack of other options it is better for us to partake and receive what limited good we can, than to not partake at all?
“ 16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—
17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.”
The Lord tells us that all grain, fruit of the vine, and all other yielded fruit is good for man’s food. It does not say a word about anything else being bad for the food of man. Silence by the Lord does not constitute assumed disapproval, despite any assertions otherwise.
Something interesting about verses 16 and 17 is that the Lord first notes that all grain is good for man, then makes named selections of grain for man and various animals. Why? Perhaps man and each animal is matched with the grain that is generally best for them, yet all are still acceptable to man? This makes me think of the Telestial Kingdom.
On the one hand, we all inhabit this space under that name. Yet the Telestial Kingdom is like to the stars (D&C 76:81), and Paul notes that there are many different stars and they vary in glory (1 Corinthians 15:40-41). There are truths contained within this sphere which are dependent upon conditions here. Telestial truths. For example, one person can eat a peanut and have it be good for them, while another can eat one and die because of an allergy. These truths, contained within the bounds of this Telestial sphere, may vary from person to person as the stars vary from one to another.
Could verse 17 be using varied food for varied creatures as an illustration to testify of how diverse our Telestial needs are? That while some few blanket statements can be made concerning our needs, there is also a range of diversity where one thing is good for one person while something else is good for another?
This might extend beyond food to many other things, for example a pharmaceutical drug. Or vaccine. Or behavior. Or job. Or viewpoint. Or selection of imposed temporal circumstances. Or anything, if it is something confined to the Telestial realm. That’s why I don’t care what “studies show” to be true or false, good or bad, right or wrong, because another study always shows the opposite. It is a pointless battle to me. Telestial truths are as varied and changing as the starry heavens above, providing ever-shifting sand as the foundation for any who would build upon them.
Also worth noting, “mild drinks” are fermented drinks, that is the definition understood in the days when the revelation was given. The Lord literally tells us barley and other grains are good for making fermented drinks, which the non-LDS recognize includes beer. This is why the early Mormon settlers built beer breweries all over Utah. Yes, the Lord gave us grains to make beer. For drinking. Apparently even among the weakest of all saints. There’s a good article about it HERE.
“ 18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;”
This verse contains a MAJOR caveat for the revelation. It is not enough only to “keep and do” the sayings of this revelation religiously, you must also be fulfilling the pre-requisite of "walking in obedience to the commandments." If you are not already obedient to all things which are commanded, then strict obedience to this explicitly non-mandatory revelation will not gain you its offered rewards.
What is meant by “keep” and “do”? They are clearly different, how? The understanding of “do” seems obvious, it is about our performing actions in line with these sayings. What about “keep”? Perhaps we keep the sayings by preserving them in their original form? Perhaps when we alter the revelation, whether the text itself or the understanding and application of it, we are failing to “keep” the sayings?
The blessings offered here, through verse 20, are not noted as the "promise" the Lord said He would offer in verse 3. He gives a noted promise in verse 21. These blessings enumerate things that actually come as a consequence of "walking in obedience to the commandments," as each blessing is attached to commandments elsewhere in scripture (D&C 130:21). "Health in their navel and marrow in their bones" is a promised blessing in Proverbs 3:7-8, as a consequence of humility, fear of the Lord and willfully departing from evil.
“ 19 And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;”
Wisdom and knowledge are gifts of the spirit, and given as a result of seeking them. Seeking involves inquiry, pondering, obedience and sacrifice. The Lord blessed King Solomon with wisdom and knowledge above the rest of the world, having nothing to do with his diet and everything to do with his obedience to the Lord and his heart at the time of the request. (1 Kings 3:5-14; 2 Chronicles 1:7-12).
Ether 4:13 and D&C 8:11 both speak of knowledge that is hidden, being in records yet to come forth. We must ask for the knowledge and come unto Christ, and we may receive it. All treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures, are contained within the Father and Son (Colossians 2:2-3).
“ 20 And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.”
Isaiah 40:31 directly attaches these precise blessings to waiting upon the Lord.
“ 21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.”
Here is the promise from the Lord. If a person is "walking in obedience to the commandments," and they both "keep" and "do" the sayings in the revelation, then the destroying angel will not be the one responsible for their death. It does not say they may not be slain or otherwise suffer unto death. But when the Lord sends forth an angel with the task of destruction, like unto other times (Genesis 19:1; Exodus 12:23; JST 1 Chronicles 21:15; Psalms 78:49), that angel won't be responsible for their death.
“…as the children of Israel" does not necessarily say "you are the children of Israel, and you will therefore be recognized as such." The phrase could also be understood as referential, pointing to the time that the destroying angel visited the children of Israel in Egypt (Exodus 11:4-7; 12:12-13, 23), and that this visit will simply occur in a manner like unto that one.
