In every religion that has lasted more than a single generation there comes, at some point (or at several), a serious debate regarding which instructions of the religions’ patriarch(s) are intended to be followed temporarily, and which ones are intended to be followed permanently.

For example: In Christianity the old testament places lots of restrictions on behavior, like the prohibition on pork and other things. However the official position of the majority of Christian theologians is that those instructions were not intended to apply for all time (i.e. they were temporary).

In Islam there have been, and still are, similar debates. For example the prophet Muhammad placed certain restrictions on his followers regarding their food, dress, manners, personal hygiene and other things. Some of those instructions are taken by Islamic theologians to apply permanently to all who are followers of Prophet Muhammad, while others are taken to have applied only to those living in his time.

Consider the miswaak (a small twig used to clean the teeth). Prophet Muhammad commanded his followers to use it. Most Islamic theologians today consider this to be a command which no longer applies to Muslims today, because the modern toothbrush does (some say) a better job.

So all of this brings to the fore a fundamental question: In matters of religion how does one differentiate a permanent injunction from a temporary one?

Lets’ take two examples. One will be from Christianity, and the other from Islam.

Jesus, according to the New Testament, is reported to have commanded his followers to “Turn the other cheek”. Taken at face value, and some have done just this, that command seems to command pacifism. Jesus is not reported to have placed any time restriction on this command, so one could reasonably assume that this command is to be followed for all time.

Likewise Muhammad, according to several hadith (recorded sayings), is reported to have ordered his followers not to retaliate to violence, even unto the point of death. Just as in the previous instance (regarding Jesus) it could easily be assumed that he intended this to be the case for all times. In fact, had Muhammad died before he entered the War Phase of his ministry Muslims today would likely still espouse “Turning the other cheek” just as much as their Christian counterparts.

But let’s apply the filter of real life to these things. I’m sure that all of our mothers, at some point, ordered us not to touch the stove. Our parents often ordered us to “be quiet”, or to “sit down”.

Of course no person, whether child or adult, takes these commands as having permanent impact. the child told not to touch the stove does not avoid stoves for a lifetime, nor does the person told to be quiet become a permanent mute.

This is because, in real life, the rule is that any order is temporary, unless it is stated to be permanent.

So why the opposite approach when we look at our religious guides? Why do we assume, quite often, that every command given is intended to apply permanently?

I believe that this behavior, of assuming that all religious injunctions are permanent, is simply a way of “passing the buck”. Most of us do not want the responsibility of determining for ourselves when certain rules apply and when they do not. We tend to prefer (most of us) to simply be told what to do. This removes from us the burden of personal deliberation.

Why do you suppose that so many people of every religion actively like to suppress discussion by the “layman” on core religious topics. In Islam, for example, the common excuse given is that, regarding certain matters, only qualified scholars should speak on them or consider interpreting them. This is even applies to interpreting the Quran (the Muslim bible, so to speak). In the personal context that attitude is applied as, “I don’t have enough knowledge to come to my own conclusion, so I’ll just follow what such-and-such a scholar says.”

So the determination of what injunctions are permanent and which ones are temporary must, by it’s very nature, come down to a personal choice between two approaches:

A) All commands are permanent, unless they are stated to be temporary.
B) All commands are temporary unless they are stated to be permanent.

Of course the choice that precedes the one stated above is whether or not the individual is even willing to make his/her own choice (or to just follow that of a pastor, scholar, minister, etc.)

I personally apply the following approach:

A) No scholar is more qualified to interpret the commands of God than I am. I believe that God’s command are quite clear and that he intentionally made his words open to interpretation in many, many different ways so that they could be applied to many different people, in many different places, in many different times. When I am judged by Him I will not be able to use excuse my mistakes by claiming that I was only following someone else’s interpretation. Thus I am duty bound to make my own decisions and to take responsibility for them.

B) All prophetic (i.e. non-divine) commands are temporary unless stated to be permanent. No prophet or messenger is all-wise. Not Moses, Prophet Muhammad, or any of the others. They all made well-documented mistakes (as upsetting as that reality may be to some of you).

C) All divine commands are permanent unless stated to be temporary.

Which approach do you take?