Reversal or Repentance?

Reversal or Repentance?

DARVO Patterns in the King James Bible

Modern psychology has coined the acronym DARVO:
Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

It describes a pattern in which someone confronted with wrongdoing refuses responsibility, shifts blame, and ultimately portrays themselves as the true victim.

While the term is modern, the pattern is ancient. The King James Bible records it with remarkable clarity. From Eden to the kings of Israel to the trial of Christ, we see two opposing responses to exposure:

  • Reversal — self-protective blame-shifting
  • Repentance — ownership before God

The difference between the two is moral courage.

I. Saul and David: Reversal vs Repentance

Saul: The Anatomy of Reversal

1 Samuel 15 (KJV)

King Saul is commanded by God to utterly destroy Amalek. He does not. He spares King Agag and keeps the best livestock.

When the prophet Samuel confronts him, Saul opens with confidence:

“I have performed the commandment of the LORD.” (1 Samuel 15:13)

This is denial in its purest form.

Samuel replies:

“What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” (v.14)

Reality contradicts Saul’s claim.

Saul pivots:

“They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God…” (v.15)

Notice the movement:

  • He shifts blame to “the people.”
  • He reframes disobedience as religious devotion.
  • He distances himself from responsibility.

Later, pressed further, he says:

“I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD… because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.” (v.24)

Even in confession, blame remains external. His greater concern becomes public image:

“Honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people…” (v.30)

Saul’s response is preservation of reputation, not restoration of obedience.

This is reversal under threat.

David: The Posture of Repentance

2 Samuel 12 (KJV)

David commits adultery with Bathsheba and orchestrates Uriah’s death. The prophet Nathan confronts him with a parable and then declares:

“Thou art the man.” (2 Samuel 12:7)

David’s response is starkly different from Saul’s:

“And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD.” (v.13)

No deflection.
No reference to others.
No appeal to reputation.

Psalm 51, written after this event, reveals the interior posture:

“Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight…” (Psalm 51:4)

David does not deny. He does not attack Nathan. He does not reverse roles.

He owns his sin before God.

The contrast is not between a good man and a bad man — both sinned gravely. The contrast is between reversal and repentance.

II. Adam: The First Blame Shift

Genesis 3 (KJV)

After eating the forbidden fruit, Adam hides. God calls:

“Where art thou?” (Genesis 3:9)

Then comes the direct question:

“Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” (v.11)

Adam answers:

“The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” (v.12)

The structure is clear:

  • The woman.
  • Whom thou gavest.
  • She gave.
  • I ate.

Responsibility is diluted and redistributed — even toward God Himself.

Eve follows similarly:

“The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” (v.13)

Now observe God’s response. There is no argument. No counterattack. No humiliation.

Instead, measured declaration:

“Because thou hast done this, cursed is the ground for thy sake…” (v.17)
“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread…” (v.19)

God names consequences calmly and directly.

Truth stands without emotional escalation.

The first human instinct under exposure was reversal. God’s response was ordered justice.

III. Cain: Defiance Hardened

Genesis 4 (KJV)

After murdering Abel, God asks:

“Where is Abel thy brother?” (Genesis 4:9)

Cain responds:

“I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?”

First, denial.
Then, deflection edged with indignation.

He resists moral responsibility and subtly challenges the legitimacy of the question itself.

God answers:

“What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” (v.10)

Again, no debate. Just declaration of reality.

IV. Christ as the Target of Reversal

The pattern intensifies in the Gospels.

The Sanhedrin

Matthew 26 (KJV)

False witnesses accuse Jesus:

“At the last came two false witnesses…” (v.60)

When questioned directly:

“Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?” (v.62)

The record says:

“But Jesus held his peace.” (v.63)

The innocent is accused.
The powerful present themselves as guardians of truth.
The offender is recast as the threat.

This is reversal at full scale.

Before Pilate:

“And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.” (Matthew 27:12)

Pilate marvels:

“Insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.” (v.14)

Christ does not scramble to preserve image. He does not counter-accuse. He does not enter the manipulative frame.

His identity is not destabilised by accusation.

V. The Two Paths Under Exposure

Throughout Scripture, exposure reveals character.

Reversal (DARVO pattern)

  • Deny wrongdoing
  • Shift blame
  • Attack the confronter
  • Protect reputation

Repentance

  • Confess plainly
  • Accept responsibility
  • Submit to truth
  • Trust God with consequences

Saul reversed.
David repented.
Adam shifted.
Cain hardened.
Christ endured accusation without surrendering truth.

The difference is courage before God.

Conclusion

The Bible does not sanitise human nature. It records with precision how men respond when confronted.

When authority is threatened, when shame is activated, when reputation is at risk — the instinct to reverse is strong.

But Scripture also reveals another way:
to stand exposed, to say “I have sinned,”
or, in Christ’s case, to endure false accusation without manipulation.

Reversal protects pride.
Repentance restores fellowship.

And only one of those leads back to God.

​

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Validation vs. Valuation

Validation vs. Valuation I recently found myself reflecting on the difference between validation and valuation , and I realised that although the words are often used interchangeably, they point to very different things. Validation, at its simplest and most innocent, is a form of support in the moment. It says: you’re seen , you’re heard , you’re not alone right now . In practical terms, validation is important — we validate work to ensure it’s safe, correct, or fit for purpose. In relationships, it can be reassuring and kind. But validation has a shadow side. When validation becomes something I need in order to feel whole — when my sense of self depends on it — it quietly shifts from support into something corrosive. In its more sinister form, validation can become manipulation, or an inadvertent tapping into a core wound: without your approval, I don’t exist . At that point, validation no longer supports identity — it erodes it. Valuation is something else entirely. Valuation ...
Read more

AMS Guide Part 1 — Charter and Purpose

AMS Guide Part 1 — Charter and Purpose 1. What This Guide Is This document is a companion guide to the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) Ontology . Its purpose is to: explain the ontology in plain but accurate language reduce cognitive load for readers encountering the ideas for the first time provide intuition, metaphors, and narrative scaffolding allow readers to grasp what the ontology is doing without needing to adopt its formal vocabulary immediately The guide is not the ontology itself. It does not replace formal definitions or axioms. It exists to make them understandable . 2. Intended Audience Primary Audience Readers with: a genuine interest in science and how the physical world works some familiarity with scientific ideas and language curiosity rather than professional obligation A good mental model is: A regular reader of a BBC science magazine, Scientific American–style articles, or long-form popular science writing. This reader: is not a practi...
Read more

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate I recently watched a video titled “There Is Something Faster Than Light.” The specifics of the argument aren’t the point here. What caught my attention was the familiar framing that followed: Newton versus Einstein, non-local versus local gravity, classical intuition versus modern physics. This framing is common. It’s also misleading. What follows is not a critique of either Newton or Einstein, but an attempt to understand what they were actually observing , why their descriptions differed, and how those observations can be unified under a single, coherent ontology — the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) . Newton: Gravity as Non-Local Action Newton’s law of gravitation is often caricatured as “action at a distance,” and historically, Newton himself was uneasy with that implication. From a modern perspective, Newtonian gravity is described as non-local : Two masses influence one another instantly N...
Read more