|
When we left our story yesterday, the man and woman were eyes wide open,
sporting their artisan fig leaf fashion, hunkered down among the trees,
with hearts pounding at the sound of God’s footsteps.
Now God is on scene with some pointed questions:
“Then the Lord God called out to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’”
“And he said, ‘I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.’”
Many of us have been taught that God addresses the man first because he's "the head" or "in charge"—
a teaching that has been used to justify male authority over women for centuries.
But what if that's not it at all?
What if God addresses the man first because he bears a fundamentally
different level of accountability than she does, rather than because he's packing different anatomy?
Bruce Fleming puts it simply on his podcast, Back to Eden, when he names the man as a sinner in the first degree—
having had full knowledge and intent to choose against love;
and she as a sinner in the second—
because although she did wrong by choosing against love too,
she had to be deceived into it.
In other words:
they both did wrong, but their culpability differs.
She was manipulated into her choice through deception.
He made his choice with full awareness of what he was doing—
and after watching her be deceived.
So, the man answers-but, wait.
Did he just… not answer the actual question at all?
God asks,
His response:
“I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” Oookkkkay.
This man is really standing there in his DIY fig leaf ensemble, looking God straight in the eye–
and claiming he was afraid because he was… naked?
Sir.
You are literally clothed right now.
You already made yourself a little leaf outfit BEFORE this conversation even started.
And notice what he’s not saying-
“I was afraid of You because I was naked.”
He’s saying “I was afraid because I was naked”—
making his fear about his own condition, not about God at all.
But the condition he’s describing doesn’t even exist anymore.
He sidesteps the actual question entirely,
and redirects a location question to his emotional state,
with a lie about his physical state.
In doing this, he reveals way more than he thought he was concealing.
This is a "preemptive reframing"-
getting ahead of the real accusation by offering a false
but more manageable problem to solve.
Here, he's attempting to make God think the real issue is nakedness
rather than collusion and betrayal.
He’s trying to rewrite reality in real time—
to the Creator of both time and reality.
But if he was truly afraid of being naked
(which, again, he’s not even naked anymore),
his selective courage reveals something telling about what he actually fears and what he doesn’t.
Consider What the Man WASN’T Afraid Of:
- Betraying his wife
- Facing certain death
- Watching his wife die
- Defying God by eating the fruit in the first place
Yet suddenly now he’s terrified when God shows up?
The man who stood mute,
while his so-called beloved was systematically deceived into cooperating with her own death, suddenly finds his voice!
It's a whole miracle!
Neighbors, this wasn’t a man afraid of having broken a rule.
This was a man trying to avoid being exposed as a betrayer.
Now, God goes right to the heart of it.
“Then God asked, “Who told you that you were naked?
Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” The man's response to his Creator?
“The woman you gave to be with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate.” First off, notice AGAIN the sidestepped questions
Then, give attention to the curious statement he makes, and how he phrased it.
It's called "burying the lede" —
hiding your culpability among blame statements so it gets lost.
The sentence structure itself is doing manipulation work:
- Front-loading the blame (woman and God get the prominent positions)
- Minimizing his role and culpability (reduced to "and I ate" at the end)
- Framing his sin as passive (rather than an act)
Now, let's really dial in on what he's left out:
🚩🚩🚩 The whole serpent 🚩🚩🚩
🚩 His own presence at the scene of the crime
🚩 Any reference to his choice to utter not a word and nary a finger lift to intervene
🚩 Any denouncement of the deception itself
🚩 Any gratitude that they're both still alive
🚩 Any mercy or grace for his victimized wife, his ezer kenegdo.
No fig leaf on earth can cover up this many flags, this shade of red.
This isn't just selective memory —
this is active protection of the actual perpetrator.
A truly innocent person would be pointing fingers at the actual deceiver:
"A serpent showed up and lied to her— even said she wouldn't die!
So when she tried it and lived, it gave me the courage to try it too!
But he's the one who started all this!"
Instead? Radio silence about the serpent while throwing his wife under the bus.
The man has essentially become the serpent's defense attorney while his wife becomes the patsy.
*clears throat*
"Ahem, Your Honor, we're not here to discuss my client.
Let's talk about how the victim made poor choices, and frankly,
if she hadn't been created and then created this situation by existing in the first place..."
He minimizes his role, accuses both God and Eve,
and positions himself as a victim of their collusion.
Known as the DARVO technique,
this is the industry standard tool of treachery for abusers and their enablers.
Deployed like clockwork in the accountability aftermath of their dastardly deeds, it stands for:
Deny. Attack. Reverse Victim and Offender.
So, to recap, attempting to gaslight God looks like this:
• Question dodging - Completely ignores “Where are you?” and “Who told you that you were naked?”
• Reality reframing - Shifts focus from disobedience to nudity, from choices to feelings
• Selective amnesia - Conveniently redacts the serpent’s existence, role and his own silent complicity
• Blame shifting - Points fingers at both God (“the woman YOU gave me”) and the woman
• Victim posturing - Portrays himself as the innocent party caught between God’s gift and the woman’s offering
• Responsibility minimizing - Reduces his active participation to passive reception (“she gave me…and I ate”)
• Protector deflection - Shields the deceiver (serpent) while sacrificing the deceived (the woman)
So, fellow Sherlocks, what do you think?
What's really going on here?
Detectively,
🔍 Camille
ps: Hit reply - I really want to hear what you're seeing!
pps: If this feels eerily familiar—
Maybe like something you’ve lived through, not just read about—
You’re not imagining it. And you're not crazy.
These tactics are still very much in play today.
I'm hosting a workshop on the 12th to talk about it.
Want in? Hit reply and I'll send the details!
|