I Dare You – Part II | The Resurrection
III) The Resurrection
In John 14, Jesus is briefing His disciples, preparing them for the task of taking the baton of the gospel to the masses. He’s getting ready to be crucified and after His Resurrection. He’ll be headed home and it will be up to His disciples to ensure that His Message continues to be proclaimed.
In verse 6, Jesus states that no one can come to the Father except through Him. For those who’ve been brought up in Sunday School, this is familiar territory. But for the disciples, these are still uncharted waters and you can see that in Philip’s response to Jesus when he says, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Philip articulates what we all want to see and know. While creation very eloquently proves the reality of a god, it doesn’t provide a definitive picture of the face of God. We want to know God. We want to hear His Voice, we want to experience His Company, we want to feel His Power. But in order for that to happen, we have to have an address.
Jesus was an impressive figure. He didn’t teach as a mere educator. Rather, He spoke as the One Who actually wrote the textbook He taught out of (Mk 1:22 [see also 2 Tim 3:16-17]). Throughout His ministry, He was constantly underlining Himself as God Incarnate. He was here to give God a specific address in history so that people could better understand the Nature and the Message of God.
As logical as that all sounds as far as a Divine strategy is concerned, it’s still a stretch for anyone to embrace the idea that the Person you’re sitting next to is the Creator of the Universe and the Redeemer of your soul. Philip had been with Christ since the beginning of His earthly ministry. We find him first in John 1 and at the time, he’s so confident that he has found the Messiah, he says as much to Nathanael in verse 45. His confidence was probably bolstered in John 6 when Jesus asks him for his thoughts on how they should go about feeding a crowd that included 5,000 men plus whatever women and children were in the mix. Philip had to be inspired as he watched Jesus use two fish and five barley loaves to feed a group that Philip himself had said would require eight months wages to facilitate.
Philip is the one who some Greeks approached in John 12:20 with a request to interview Jesus which shows that Philip was recognized as one of Christ’s cadre even to those who are on the outside looking in. Perhaps that’s why Jesus expressed a little surprise at Philip’s request in John 14:8 when he asked Jesus to show them the Father. No doubt, Philip was thinking of something along the lines of God’s appearance on Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:16-19 [see Ex 20:18-21] or Exodus 33:22 when God manifested Himself in the context of something obvious and dramatic. By this point, Jesus had performed in a way that qualified as obvious and dramatic. Making the blind see, healing those who had been paralyzed and bringing Lazarus back to life were all significant indicators that Jesus was more than just a charismatic educator.
But miracles lose their luster after a while. It didn’t take the Hebrews long for them to completely forget and / or rationalize away the obvious Reality of God even after they had been led through the Red Sea. Exodus 15 has Miriam celebrating the demise of the Egyptians. Three months later they’re at the foot of Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:1. By this time, the miracle celebrated in Miriam’s song isn’t the only extraordinary thing that has occurred. The crossing of the Red Sea (Ex 14:21-22), the destruction of the world’s most formidable military force (Ex 14:27-28), a miraculous provision of water, meat and bread (Ex 15:25; 16:13-36; 17:5-7) and a successful stand against the Amalekites (Ex 17:8-13) – all of these things now are etched into the minds of the Israelites as Moses heads up to the top of the mountain and stays there for 40 days and nights.
But at some point while he’s gone, the Israelites decide that the God Who has been leading them isn’t God at all. Rather, their god is this cow made out of gold they decided to whip up using the jewelry they were wearing at the time (Ex 32:1-4).
Miracles are conclusive, but only for a season. At least that’s the way human nature affects their significance over time. Still, Jesus responds to Philip’s request by reminding him of the miracles that He had performed up to that point. Not only were they obvious indicators that a supernatural Someone was present, but those same miracles were fulfillments of specific prophecies that had been articulate centuries beforehand because that was all a part of the prophecy that pertained to Christ which He had fulfilled to the letter (Is 9:6; 29:18-21; 35:5-6; 61:1).
There was one miracle in particular, however, that Jesus had highlighted as being especially compelling and that was the miracle of His Resurrection which He spoke of in Matthew 12:39-40. He’ll refer to it again as He responds to Philip and the rest of the disciples now in the context of what is documented in John 14-17.
The Resurrection is huge!
H.P. Liddon says:
The Resurrection is what Jesus would have on His business card if He carried one at all because He is the only religious figure in human history to not only claim that He was God, but proved it by voluntarily dying and coming back to life. That was the one miracle He put on the table when He was pressed for some kind of definitive sign. You see that in Matthew 12:39-40 and Paul reiterates it in Romans 1:4.
So, in a way, this all becomes very easy in that Jesus’ claims are very unique when compared to every other religious system. He does not claim to be a messenger, rather He claims to be God (John 8:58; 10:30), and then He proves it by His Resurrection. So if His Resurrection is an event that can be validated, then the platform of the cynic has just become very unstable.
But how do you prove it? There’s no film to refer to, all of the eyewitnesses are long gone so what’s left as far as a credible source of information?
And let’s take this a step further.
Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that the Bible is not admissible as evidence, apart from those things that can be regarded as historical events. The approach that we take then is the same approach that is taken in academic circles when seeking to establish the historicity of a particular event or person. You assemble all those things that mention that person or event and then draw your conclusions based on the substance of their testimony.
First of all, the fact that Jesus died and that His body was never recovered is not a matter of conjecture or speculation. The resurrection of Christ is an event in history where in God acted in a definite time-space dimension.
Concerning this, Wilbur Smith says,
“The meaning of the resurrection is a theological matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter; the nature of the resurrection body of Jesus may be a mystery, but the fact that the body disappeared from the tomb is a matter to be decided upon by historical evidence.8
Jesus did exist and He did die and His body was never definitively accounted for after He was laid to rest. That much can be determined from the wealth of literature, art and even the presence of the Christian church as an institution in that it is based on the historical as well as the theological reality of Christ.
What happened to Christ’s body is the question.
Critics have either been looking for a corpse or insisted that one did exist for over two thousand years. But they make that assertion in the face of an overwhelming amount of evidence that cannot be overlooked without the risk of being less than objective in your analysis.
Josephus was a Jewish historian that lived from 37 to 100 A.D. He was employed by the Romans and he mentions this about Jesus in his “Antiquities of the Jews”:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive.9
In many ways, this one quote is a slam dunk. Here’s a man who had access to people who were contemporaries of Christ. He was born only seven year after Jesus died and the fact that he mentions Jesus’ resurrection in what would be considered a secular text is equivalent to Christ’s Resurrection being reported in the news. Some have very vehemently attempted to discount this quote as something that Josephus could not have written. However, this same passage written by Josephus was quoted by Eusebius in the fourth century and is included in the most recent Loeb edition of his works.10 It is credible.
Another example of a secular text that references Jesus’ resurrection would be Tertullian’s Apology. Tertullian lived from 160 – 220 AD. He was born in Carthage, Africa when it was a Roman province. By this point, Rome had become violently opposed to Christianity thanks to Nero who blamed the great fire that decimated most of Rome on the Christians in 64 AD. Subsequent Caesars followed suit and while much of the more heinous persecutions had faded by the time Tertullian was championing the Christian faith, local proconsuls still made it very hazardous to claim Christ as Savior. It was in this cultural climate the Tertullian wrote his Apology. It was a letter written to the Roman government basically challenging them to consider the logic of their predisposition against Christianity. He crafts a very compelling defense and at one point when he is describing the Christian faith, he says:
But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at the time Roman governor of Syria, and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified…At his own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner’s work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it was an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world- portent still in your archives. Then, when His body was taken down from the cross and placed in a sepulcher, the Jews in their eager watchfulness surrounded it with a large military guard, lest, as He had predicted His resurrection from the dead on the third day, His disciples might remove by stealth His body, and deceive even the incredulous. But, lo, on the third day there was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulcher was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror; without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty of all but the clothes of the buried One. But nevertheless, the leaders of the Jews, whom it nearly concerned both the spread abroad a lie, and keep back a people tributary and submissive to them from the faith, give it out that the body of Christ had been stolen by His followers. For the Lord, you see, did not go forth into the public gaze, lest the wicked by delivered from their error; that faith also, destined to a great reward, might hold its ground in difficulty. But He spent forty days with some of His disciples down in Galilee, a region of Judea, instructing them in the doctrines they were to teach others. Thereafter, having given them commission to preach the gospel through the word, He was encompassed with a cloud and taken up to heaven, – a fact more certain far than the assertions of your Proculi concerning Romulus.11
Again, this is not “biblical.” This isn’t a Bible study. Rather, this is a concerned citizen appealing to the Roman decision makers on the basis of logic. In his explanation of the Christian faith, He refers to Jesus’ death and resurrection as things that happened as opposed to things that are merely believed to have happened. The fact that he punctuates his account of Christ by referencing the eclipse that happened when Jesus was killed highlights how some of these things can be verified by referring to their own records. He is not laboring to convince his audience based on mere conjecture. Rather, he’s providing an account of what happened and how those events provided the basis of the doctrine that Christians subscribe to.
Another example that demonstrates the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection that comes from a secular source would be the account of Ignatius who lived from 50-115 A.D. He was the Bishop of Antioch, a native of Syria and a pupil of the apostle John. Enroute to a martyr’s death, he wrote his “Epistles,” and this is what he said of Christ:
He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, nad not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He also rose again in three days…”12
G) The Martyrs Speak
Martyrdom is a significant piece of evidence at this point in the discussion because there have been many people who have voluntarily died because they refused to recant their belief that Christ rose from the grave. While many religions have been harassed and persecuted, what makes the Christian dynamic so extraordinary and thus so credible is that the initial disciples were eyewitnesses to Christ having risen. This would be the thing that would embolden them to spend the rest of their lives not only promoting and publishing the Gospel Message, but to die a martyr’s death because they refused to deny the centerpiece of their creed, that being that Jesus – God Incarnate – had arose.
Again, there have been many people throughout history who have voluntarily given their lives for something they believed to be true, but very few, if any, have forfeited their lives for something they knew to be false. Chuck Colson’s testimony and his experience during the Watergate trial demonstrates this dynamic.
First of all, for those who are not familiar with Watergate, President Nixon was forced to resign his Presidency in 1974 due to what was revealed as a criminal act perpetrated by members of his team illegally breaking into the Democrat campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel. Chuck Colson was Special Counsel to the President and he was the first member of Nixon’s cabinet to serve time in prison for actions related to the Watergate scandal. He later became a Christian and went on to accomplish some extraordinary things in the context of his “Prison Fellowship” ministry.13
His steadfast confidence in the reality of Christ’s resurrection was based in part on the reaction of His disciples in the aftermath of His being arrested. In a speech delivered to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in 1984, he said:
Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Mitchell, myself and the rest believed passionately in the President. We had at our fingertips every imaginable power and privilege. I could phone an aide’s office and have a jet waiting at Andrews Air Force Base, order Cabinet members of generals around, change the budget.
Yet even at the prospect of jeopardizing the President, even in the face of all the privileges of the most powerful office in the world, the threat of embarrassment, perhaps jail, was so overpowering and the instinct for self-preservation so overwhelming, that one by one, those involved deserted their leader to save their own skin.
What has that got to do with the resurrection? Simply this: Watergate demonstrates human nature. No one can ever make me believe that 11 ordinary human beings would for 40 years endure persecution, beatings, prison, and death, without ever once renouncing that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead.
Only an encounter with the living God could have kept those men steadfast. Otherwise, the apostle Peter would have been just like John Dean, running to the prosecutors to save his own skin. He had already done it three times.
No, the evidence is overwhelming. Those men held to that testimony because they had seen Christ raised from the dead. And if indeed He was resurrected, that affirms His deity. As God, He cannot be mistaken in what He teaches and cannot lie. An infallible God cannot err. A holy God cannot deceive.14
Human nature prohibits men from willingly sacrificing their lives for something they know not to be true. And yet, history is full of men and women who have sacrificed their well being and even their lives for the cause of Christ.
Why?
Because they knew Jesus rose from the grave. Beginning with the disciples who were eyewitnesses and continuing with the martyrs who based their certainty on the evidence that history and nature provides, believers have stood by their convictions even to the point of death. And it’s because of that certainty that the church has endured and it’s the fact that it has endured – despite the death sentence that has so often been associated with being a believer – that provides significant substance to the claim that “He has risen, He has risen indeed!”
Simon Greenleaf, famous Harvard professor of law, says:
Jesus really did live, He really did die and He really did come back to life. By doing so He proved His claim to Divinity and the moment that a person recognizes this fact as a historical truism, it changes everything. The great Methodist preacher, author and missionary of the past generation, Dr. E. Stanley Jones, described how he was once addressing an Indian University on the verities of eternity. When he sat down the thoughtful Hindu president stood up and sonorously solemnized,
If what this man says is not true, then it doesn’t matter. But if what he says is true, than nothing else matters.16
Jesus really did live and He really did die and He really did come back to life. Compared to Christ’s Resurrection and the claims to Deity that were validated as a result, nothing else matters.
Prove It! | Part I: Faith
It says in Scripture that without faith, it’s impossible to please God (Heb 11:6).
Why? Why is it so important to accept something to be true based solely on faith as opposed to being able to prove that it’s credible?
Critics often sneer at Christianity. Christopher Hitchens, a very vocal opponent of Christianity, once said that Christianity, “…can’t be believed by a thinking person.1” Richard Dawkins, the author of “The God Delusion” said, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”2
On the surface, faith seems to be something that exists only in the context of a willingness to believe in the supernatural – something that can’t be proven in the context of something you can touch, understand, and anticipate.
But that’s not the case.
You cannot function as a human being without deploying a measure of faith in some way, shape, or form.
Think about it.
When you drive down the expressway, you can’t “prove” that the driver coming at you from the other direction is going to stay in their lane. You’ve got to trust that when you take public transportation, the driver isn’t going to steer you into the ditch. Whenever you board a commercial flight, you’ve got to have faith in both the aircraft and the pilot.
Anytime they put you under to do some surgery on you, you’ve got to have faith in the anesthesiologist and the surgeon.
Evolution requires an outrageous amount of faith in that you have no fossil evidence or logic to substantiate the idea that something can come from nothing, or that a fish can grow wings and become a bird (see sidebar).
At the end of the day, those who sneer at faith, not only ignore the extent to which they embrace faith as part of their everyday activities, they use their sarcasm to conceal the fact that their criticisms aren’t rooted so much in the absence of “proof,” as much as it’s about the lack of “control.”
Even Darwin had faith. When he first published his Origin of Species, while he was very aware of the logical inconsistencies that existed between his theory and the geological record that existed at the time, he had “faith” that, in time, the record would validate the credibility of his theory.
Faith isn’t the problem. You see that dynamic documented in Lee Strobel’s book, “The Case for Christ” when he admitted that part of his skepticism as an atheist was partly inspired by not wanting to answer to a standard other than himself.5
The challenge isn’t the need to have faith, as much as it’s the need to relinquish control.
Perhaps this is part of the reason why non-believers refuse to consider the evidence that validates the Christian faith, but it’s also something for believers to ponder when they feel as though they’re “struggling” to have faith.
When you perceive the difficulties of having faith as a subliminal resistance to a lack of control, the dialogue changes. It’s not so much about the object of your faith and the evidence that validates your confidence in what you believe to be true, as much as it’s about not wanting to surrender control of your situation.
Maybe that’s why God says it’s impossible to please Him without faith. Until you’re willing to, not only give up your control, but to admit that you were never in control to begin with, you keep God and what He can accomplish at a distance (Phil 2:13).
It’s important to be able to explain what you believe and why you believe it (1 Pet 3:15). Saying that, “…you just believe” doesn’t resonate as something that indicates you’ve actually thought things through. So, from that standpoint, being familiar with the discipline of Apologetics is a healthy exercise.
But in the end, the issue is control on a profoundly spiritual level (Jn 6:65). Your witness to the unbeliever, as well as the mindset you deploy when dealing with both triumphs and trials needs to factor in the bottom line of control and Who’s ultimately in charge. That is the beginning of the faith Scripture refers to and that is the faith that changes lives.
1. “Goodreads”, “Christopher Hitchens > Quotes > Quotable Quote”, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/919133-let-s-say-that-the-consensus-is-that-our-species-being”, accessed April 7, 2026
2. “Goodreads”, “Richard Dawkins > Quotes”, https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1194.Richard_Dawkins, accessed April 7, 2026
3. Michael Denton, Evolution a Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, Md.: Adler and Adler, 1986, 162
4. In his book, Origin of Species, Darwin says: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” (“Darwin Online”, http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1859/1859-484-c-1860.html, accessed April 8, 2026)
5. Lee Strobel explained his inclination to dismiss Christianity in part because of the way it would compel him to surrender his right to himself. “Sure, I could see some gaps and inconsistencies, but I had a strong motivation to ignore them: a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus.” (“The Case for Christ”, Lee Strobel, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998 Kindle, LOC 233
Who Hit You?
It’s a little before 6:00 am on Good Friday. By now, the “trial” is wrapping up and the Pharisees have been able to manipulate things to the point where they feel comfortable going to Pilate and demanding that Christ be crucified.
There was a breakthrough at one point, when things weren’t lining up in a way that promoted the Pharisees intention when they finally felt as though they had gotten Christ to admit something they could legitimately label as heresy.
62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?”
“He is worthy of death,” they answered.
67 Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68 and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?” (Matt 26:62-68)
The word, “excrutiating” literally means “out of the cross.” It’s a term used to describe an unbearable pain and Jesus was knew it was coming. In addition to the cross, He would be flogged according to a Roman approach that didn’t stop short of 41 lashes. Rather, He would be beaten until those responsible for “chastising” Him felt like they were through.
Last night, He had His last meal with His disciples where He revealed all of the symbolism that had been instituted centuries beforehand when Moses introduced the Passover Meal. He was the Passover Lamb. And while the disciples were not quite sure of what Jesus meant when He said, “This is my body broken for you…” their uncertainty would deteriorate into shock, fear and disbelief as they watched their Teacher be tortured and put to death.
After the Passover Meal, Jesus went to the Garden of Gethsemane where He would pray with the kind of terrible passion that accompany’s a man’s complete confidence that soon He will be subjected to an unimaginable amount of pain and suffering.
Hematidrosis is a rare medical condition where the subject perspires drops of blood. When you blush, your emotions trigger blood flow to a point just below the surface of your skin, hence the reddish tint to your complexion. In this instance, your emotions force blood out through your pores and you appear to be sweating blood (Luke 22:44). In the aftermath, your skin is sensitive to even the slightest touch. Luke says that this anomaly was experienced by Christ when He was praying. That means the pain from every punch, every lash, every slap, every cut was going to be amplified 100 fold.
It’s easy to gloss over verse 68 in the above text because we’re already familiar with what is getting ready to happen which, admittedly, is going to be far more dramatic.
But this is where it starts.
This is more than a “sting” or a solid punch to the face. This is the kind of pain that must’ve made Jesus wonder how He was going to endure the next several hours.
It’s hard not to get emotional when you meditate on the cruelty and the pain that was exacted on the Son of God that was willingly absorbed in order to pay a debt on behalf of the one who asked, “Who hit you?” Especially when you realize that, given the reality of our rebellion and need for redemption…
…we were the ones who hit Him.
Voter Fraud
There’s Nothing to See Here
If you do a search online for “voter fraud,” among the first articles that come up is one that comes from the Brennan Center for Justice entitled, “The Myth of Voter Fraud.” At one point in the article, it says:
Politicians at all levels of government have repeatedly, and falsely, claimed the 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections were marred by large numbers of people voting illegally. However, extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and many instances of alleged fraud are, in fact, mistakes by voters or administrators. The same is true for mail ballots, which are secure and essential to holding a safe election amid the coronavirus pandemic.1
That is the idea proliferated throughout the mainstream media; that voter fraud is rare and therefore irrelevant to any discussion pertaining to the validity of election results.
The problem with that assessment is that it doesn’t make the distinction between the existence of fraud and the extent to which it can be prosecuted. If you can’t prove it in a court of law, it’s assumed that it doesn’t happen.
Look at What All is There
To fully appreciate the scope of voter fraud, you first want to understand the multiple ways in which a fraudulent ballot can be cast.
- Forging signatures on petitions
- Voting out of jurisdiction
- Voting more than once
- Voting while ineligible
- Voting for deceased or inactive voters still on the active roster
- Voting on behalf of someone not mentally capable of voting
- Stuffing the ballot box (there are several ways to do this)
- Altering official counts (electronically or on paper)
- Destroying ballots or records during required retention periods
- Registering ineligible persons (illegal immigrants etc)
- Registering fictitious identities to vote
- Inflating voter rolls (such as false registrations or by not removing known deceased, moved and ineligible voters as required by law)
- Paying someone to vote
- Coercing someone to vote
- Using physical violence, threats or intimidation to discourage voting
- Misdirecting voters (providing false polling date, time, location)
- Certifying false statements or documents
- Access disparities (providing unequal polling place locations or core resources per capita – excessive lines and unreasonable inconvenience may discourage and suppress voters in targeted areas)
- Improperly accepting or rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots
- Ballot harvesting schemes (there are a few super-easy ways to cheat)
- Swearing false oaths (such as vouching for someone living in a particular district when they don’t)
It’s not difficult to cheat, but what’s even more difficult is to prove it court. For example…
Voting with a false identity is nearly impossible to prosecute after the fact, because there logically can be no list of people who don’t exist and if two votes by the same person are detected, short of an admission, there is no way to know for certain who cast the second fraudulent ballot. This is why properly identifying voters before they cast a ballot is important. Once in the box, ballots are anonymous. There’s no way to fish back out a fraudulent ballot once it’s been cast. 2
The best way to prevent voter fraud is to require proper ID when you vote.
A Photo ID
You need a photo ID to:
- Travel: Boarding commercial flights (TSA checkpoints), checking into hotels, or renting a car.
- Government/Legal: Voting, applying for a marriage license, visiting federal buildings, or entering military bases.
- Age-Restricted Purchases: Buying alcohol, tobacco, or tobacco-related products at retailers or bars.
- Financial & Professional: Opening a bank account, withdrawing large sums of cash, or starting a new job (Form I-9).
- Medical & Security: Picking up prescriptions at a pharmacy or entering a secured workplace.
To insist that requiring proper identification is a form of oppression and should not be required is absurd (see sidebar). When you consider the above mentioned activities that require a photo ID, it’s pretty obvious that if you want to operate as a fully functional adult in today’s society, you need to be able to properly identify yourself. You’re not being oppressed when you’re being asked to be responsible.
But while there is little to no opposition in having to produce a photo ID in order to get a driver’s license, for some reason, having to show a photo ID to vote is condemned as something sinister.
Those who oppose the SAVE Act describe it as “…a discriminatory and disastrous bill designed to block millions of eligible voters from free and full access to the polls.”(Legal Defense Fund) Part of their argument insists that it doesn’t significantly impact the integrity of elections.
But that’s not the case…
A Specious Strawman
A common talking point among fraud deniers who oppose requiring photo identification to vote is that “ID only stops voting with another voter’s identity, which is exceedingly rare, so showing ID is an unnecessary burden.”
This argument is a specious strawman, however. Photo identification would help prosecute ineligible voters by establishing proof that they cast the ballot themselves. State-issued photo ID may also contain information that could indicate a voter’s ineligibility based on citizenship. Combined with an electronic pollbook (also known as electronic rosters) capable of instant eligibility verification, like the 2010 Minnesota Voter ID bill required, ineligible felons and wards would also be prevented from voting illegally.3
“Specious” means “to be superficially plausible, but actually wrong.” “Strawman” is a term used to describe the practice of characterizing your opponent’s argument in a way that’s intentionally exaggerated and distorted so it’s seemingly easy to defeat.
To say that requiring a photo ID doesn’t significantly impact the potential of someone illegally voting is a specious strawman argument.
More often than not, those who don’t have something say as much as they’ve got something to hide won’t make an argument as much as they’ll make an excuse. They hide behind the idea that they’re either wounded or they’re trying to protect those who are. But the fact of the matter is they can’t champion their platform directly without sounding either selfish or foolish so instead of trying to get people to agree with them, they try to get people to feel sorry for them.
It can be an effective strategy because of the way most will go out of their way to avoid being labeled cruel and hateful. But it’s revealed as a bogus excuse when it’s brought into the light of real results and common sense thinking.
In an article in the New York Post, the point is made that in most countries around the world, providing a photo ID in order to vote is commonplace and to perceive it as an authoritarian takeover of the electoral process is ludicrous.
This Works
In 2008, Al Franken was declared the winner of his state’s Senate race after a lopsided and legally questionable recount by a margin of 312 votes. Despite being able to demonstrate serious discrepancies in the voting process, including proof that ineligible felons had voted illegally at a rate that was three-times Franken’s margin of victory, Franken went on to give the Democrats a 60 seat super-majority in the Senate who would then go on to pass Obamacare, a financially unsustainable enterprise that every Republican voted against, both in the House and the Senate.4
In 2018, 22-year-old Abdihakim Amin Esa of Minneapolis was charged with 13 counts of voter fraud. He claimed that he was working on behalf of a candidate’s campaign committee and while he declined to give the name of the candidate, it was widely circulated that it was Ilhan Omar. (5)
The only people that want to insist that fraud doesn’t occur are those that benefit by it. When they say it doesn’t happen, what they’re referring to is the number of court cases that have been successful in the context of prosecuting a crime committed by a party that is next to impossible to track.
The best, if not the only, way to ensure a secure voting process is require a photo ID. Absentee Ballots are still available for people in the military and those that represent legitimate voters. But to vote in person, in order to ensure you’re not illegally voting on someone else’s behalf or voting in a jurisdiction other than your own, or any of the fraudulent options previously listed, a photo ID makes sense and it works!
Prove that you have legal permission to participate in the voting process and stop insisting that the country is being limited by excessive requirements when, in fact, it’s being liberated from sinister concessions.
1. “Brennan Center for Justice” “The Myth of Voter Fraud”, https://www.brennancenter.org/topics/voting-elections/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud, accessed March 28, 2026
2. McGrath, Dan, “The Voter Fraud Manual”, Dan McGrath, 2023, Kindle LOC 230
3. Ibid, LOC 243
4. Ibid, LOC 98-99
5. Ibid, LOC 1062
Faith
Moses
Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action. (Acts 7:22)
Before the burning bush, Moses was already one amazing individual.
When the book of Acts describes him as someone who was “educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians,” that means he was taught in the context of the same sort of intellect that built the pyramids (see sidebar).
He most likely would’ve received training in history, chemistry, and military tactics. In short, he would’ve been more than prepared to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.
And yet…
Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. (Num 12:3)
That’s significant because, according to Scripture, Moses spoke to God face to face…
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. (Ex 33:11)
That just makes Moses all the more admirable.
He was an accomplished military tactician, he was educated, and he was a prince. He would be the one who lead the Israelites through the Red Sea, he would write the first five books of the Old Testament and he would be revered throughout the ages as the great Law Giver (The Ten Commandments).
And in the midst of this, he was authentically humble.
Faithful
Yet, it wasn’t his humility that God appreciated, it was his faithfulness:
“When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. 7 But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (Num 12:6-8)
It’s not surprising that God would underscore Moses’ faith as being Moses’ most admirable characteristic given the way faith is described in Hebrews:
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Heb 11:6)
When you’re faithful, you’re not just obedient, you’re consistently obedient. And the reason you’re obedient is not just because you want to stay out of trouble, it’s because you want to honor the One Who’s showing you what to do.
It Comes From Him
But you can’t truly honor something that you doubt. Inevitably, compromise seemingly becomes necessary in order to accommodate the possibility that the object of your faith isn’t entirely trustworthy.
You see that in James 1:5-8
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. (Jas 1:5-8)
The good news is that the faith that we want and need is not something that we have to manufacture within ourselves. God gives you the faith that you need. Both the faith that you used to accept the gospel as your bottom line (Eph 2:8), and the faith that you use to navigate your everyday activities is a something that comes from Him.
3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. (Rom 12:3)
You’ve Got to Ask
But while the faith you need is always available, it’s not automatic. Just like you have to plug in your phone to keep it charged, you have to keep your brain connected to your King in order to access the Resources you need to keep both your perspective and your performance in line (2 Pet 1:3). You do that by spending time with Him – talking to Him in prayer and letting Him speak to you through His Word (Lk 11:9-12; 2 Tim 3:16-17). When you do that, you’re keeping both your powers of observation (Rom 8:6; 12:2) as well as your imagination (Is 26:3) founded on what amounts to Perfect Peace and Power.
Today and Tomorrow
Faith isn’t the ability to know the future as much as it’s a confidence in the One Who does (Matt 6:25-34). Ask for the faith that you need (Lk 17:5; Mk 9:24) and let yourself be energized by the Perspective that transforms both the moment in front of you and the road ahead.
For further reading: Why You Want to be Spiritually Ripped
God Loves Everyone
It’s not uncommon to encounter someone who wants to justify what can be rightfully identified as a bad attitude or sinful behavior by saying that “God loves everyone.”
That’s true.
God does love everyone (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 4:8).
But the question isn’t whether or not God loves you, the question is, “Do you love God?”
You can’t say you love Him if you don’t obey Him…
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. (Jn 14:21)
Obviously, no one is perfect. But we’re not talking about a perfect performance as much as we’re talking about an honest confession. There is no forgiveness if you’re unwilling to admit that you’re wrong…
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 Jn 1:9)
You see this problem addressed in 1 John 3:6:
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. (1 Jn 3:6)
John isn’t talking about “committing” a sin as much as he’s referring to the “practice” of sin. It’s often manifested as a lifestyle of perpetual and intentional rebellion that one attempts to conceal by advocating the idea that God’s Love equates to a Divine endorsement of sin.
That’s not the way it works.
Saying that you believe that Jesus died for you doesn’t amount to much, in that the demons believe and they “shudder” (Jas 2:14-26).
What qualifies you as a believer is the way in which the Holy Spirit is now a part of who you are (Rom 8:9; 2 Cor 1:21-22). That doesn’t happen apart from establishing Christ as your everyday Authority, and not just your spiritual mechanic. (Rom 10:8-9).
Dietrich Bonhoeffer described that as “cheap grace,” which translates to a meaningless doctrine because there’s no real transformation (2 Cor 5:17). Instead, it’s just a pointless declaration that’s intended to reduce Christ to a noble sounding sentiment as opposed to the Lord of your life.
Again, the question isn’t whether or not God loves you, as much as it’s whether or not you love God. And you can’t say you love Him if you’re determined to ignore Him. God does love you, but it’s your willingness to surrender to His Authority that qualifies you as a believer, and not your ability to sound appreciative of a love you’re unwilling to reciprocate.
