Discussion Questions

Zach describes taking an Ecuadorian flag oath under the watch of soldiers with bayonets and later swearing allegiance to the U.S. Constitution; what do those scenes reveal about how states try to claim “total allegiance,” and how does that compete with what God intends Christian allegiance to look like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Zach swore loyalty to Ecuador under armed soldiers and later to the U.S. Constitution. What do those moments show about how governments try to demand total loyalty, and how does that clash with the kind of loyalty God wants from Christians?

Zach says taking two oaths within six months produced “mutually exclusive” allegiances and likely meant breaking the first pledge; what does that suggest about God’s view of our words when our commitments collide, and what does it expose about the modern assumption that we can safely stack loyalties without spiritual cost? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Zach says two oaths in six months made him loyal to two things that couldn’t both be true. What does this say about how seriously God takes our promises when they conflict, and about the idea that we can pile up loyalties without spiritual consequences?

Jesus says, “Anything more than this comes from evil,” and James says “above all…do not swear”; what picture of God’s priorities and wisdom emerges from making ordinary truth-telling such a weighty issue, and why might God treat oath-taking as spiritually dangerous rather than merely “bad optics”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Jesus warns that anything beyond simple truth comes from evil, and James says not to swear at all. Why would God treat everyday honesty as so important, and why might oath-taking be spiritually dangerous, not just a public image problem?

Zach argues Jesus is not only prohibiting oaths but teaching a whole way of life: “Let your yes be yes and your no be no”; where have you relied on intensified language (religious phrases, “I swear,” “God knows,” “I promise,” etc.) to prop up credibility, and what heart-level problem is exposed if simple truthfulness feels insufficient? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you used stronger words like “I swear,” “God knows,” or “I promise” to sound more believable? What does it reveal about your heart if plain honesty doesn’t feel like enough?

Zach frames three interpretive “camps” and ties the decision largely to how someone relates the Sermon on the Mount to the Old Testament (perfection/“pedagogos” versus strict harmonization); what do you personally assume about continuity between Old and New Covenants, and how does that assumption steer your reading of Jesus’ commands when they sound absolute? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do you assume about how the Old Covenant and New Covenant connect to each other? How does that belief shape how you read Jesus’ commands when they sound absolute?

Zach critiques the “some oaths are okay” approach with the line, “Do not swear at all means swear sometimes”; when you feel the pull to make exceptions (courtrooms, military, contracts), what are the actual reasons—biblical, practical, or emotional—that make those exceptions feel necessary? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When you want to make exceptions for oaths (like in court, the military, or contracts), why do those exceptions feel necessary to you? Are your reasons mostly biblical, practical, or emotional?

Zach claims that voting effectively “condones” presidential oath-taking on a Bible; whether you agree or not, how does that argument challenge common evangelical ideas about civic participation, and what would it mean to evaluate voting through the lens of Jesus’ teaching on oaths rather than through political outcomes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Zach says voting supports leaders who take oaths on a Bible. How does that idea challenge common Christian views about politics, and what would change if you judged voting by Jesus’ teaching on oaths instead of political results?

Zach defines an oath with three components: attesting truth/commitment, invoking a higher power, and inviting punishment if unfulfilled; using his examples (“declare under penalty of perjury,” “so help me God,” swearing/affirming), how would your group decide what counts as an oath in practice without retreating into loopholes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Zach says an oath includes a promise, calling on a higher power, and accepting punishment if you break it. Using examples like “under penalty of perjury” or “so help me God,” how should we decide what counts as an oath without looking for loopholes?

Zach says the military oath (“protect the Constitution…against all enemies”) creates an “impossible to fulfill as dutiful Christians” commitment, and he challenges the idea of joining to be a “stopgap” against evil; what does integrity require when an institution asks for unconditional obedience but you privately plan to disobey if conscience demands it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If an organization demands total obedience but you secretly plan to disobey if your conscience says so, what does honesty and integrity require? How does that connect to Zach’s concern about the military oath?

Zach appeals to early Christian and Anabaptist martyrdom—people who “would rather die” than take oaths—and calls the later acceptance of oaths a “novel interpretation”; what does that early Christian instinct reveal about how they understood Jesus’ authority, and what modern comforts, opportunities, or careers might we have to relinquish if we took their reading seriously? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Early Christians and Anabaptists were willing to die rather than take oaths. What does that show about how seriously they took Jesus’ authority, and what comforts or career options might we have to give up if we followed their view today?