The state government of New Jersey remains strangely defiant after revealing that the state had wrongly registered 6,600 noncitizens on its voter rolls. While publicly admitting the error, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill (D) rejected a request from the U.S. Department of Justice to see the data. For all its cosmetic course-correction, this defiant rejection of transparency indicates that the New Jersey government remains, at heart, unrepentant for compromising the integrity of its elections.

New Jersey’s original admission was full of blame-shifting. Sherrill blamed her predecessor, Governor Phil Murphy (D), for allowing the noncitizens to be registered. She blamed the French software company, IDEMIA, which processed the data. (IDEMIA later responded, “The 6,600 records submitted to the [Motor Vehicle Commission] and Division of Elections contained correct information according to the design specifications as set out by the state,” which meant that “at no point was a noncitizen ever marked as a citizen in the database.”)

New Jersey’s subsequent behavior was consistent with that of someone with something to hide. Although Sherrill admitted that “fewer than 400” noncitizens had illegally voted (which means that more than 300 did), the state is obstructing the federal government’s attempts to investigate apparent federal crimes. After already admitting to the mistake, what does the state gain by avoiding transparency?

Readers may still be unpersuaded that New Jersey’s response deserves the descriptor “unrepentant.” After all, they did voluntarily admit the error and remove the noncitizens from the voter rolls. What more does repentance require? To answer this question, we must first consider a few biblical examples.

In 2 Samuel 12, the prophet Nathan confronts King David after his adultery with Bathsheba and the arranged death of her husband, Uriah. “Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight?” the prophet proclaimed (2 Samuel 12:9).

Whatever his earlier posturing, David makes no attempt at self-defense when directly confronted with his sin. He simply says, “I have sinned against the Lord” and later pens the famous penitential Psalm 51. As a result, David receives forgiveness, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die” (2 Samuel 12:13).

David’s response is contrasted with the negative example of Saul in 1 Samuel 15 (1 and 2 Samuel are meant to be read together as a single book, so these similar tales are meant to be read in conversation with each other).

In 1 Samuel 15, the prophet Samuel confronts King Saul after his failure to destroy the Amalekites and their possessions. Before Samuel says anything, Saul blurts out an over-pious greeting that betrays his guilty conscience. “Blessed be you to the Lord. I have performed the commandment of the Lord,” he claims (1 Samuel 15:13). But the evidence against Saul was too obvious to ignore. Samuel could hear the sheep Saul was supposed to slaughter (1 Samuel 15:14). Saul begins to make excuses, shifting the blame to the people (1 Samuel 15:15), but Samuel interrupts, “Stop!” (1 Samuel 15:16). After rehashing Saul’s instructions, Samuel concludes, “Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” (1 Samuel 15:19).

Even after he was confronted with his sin, Saul protests, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord” — before he repeats the same lame excuses and blame-shifting (1 Samuel 15:20-21). Only after Saul realizes his throne is at stake (1 Samuel 15:23) does he confess, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may bow before the Lord” (1 Samuel 15:24-25).

But Saul’s confession is insincere, and Samuel exposes it. When Samuel refuses Saul’s apology, he does not plead, beg, or otherwise throw himself on God’s mercy. Instead, his response reveals that Saul only cared what the people thought, not what God thought, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel” (1 Samuel 15:30).

While David’s repentance was accepted, Saul’s denial, excuse-making, blame-shifting, and insincerity were rejected. Saul’s example follows the disastrous pattern of his first father, Adam. When confronted with his own sin, Adam answered God, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (Genesis 3:12).

In 2 Corinthians, Paul commends the church in Corinth for the true repentance they showed in disciplining a member for living in open sexual sin. In testifying to their credit, Paul distinguishes between false and true repentance — or, as he puts it, “godly grief” and “worldly grief.”

“For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death,” (2 Corinthians 7:10). What are the characteristics of godly grief? Paul elaborates, “For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter” (2 Corinthians 7:11).

Godly grief is accompanied by a whole-hearted effort to do whatever it takes to eradicate the sin. This is what true repentance looks like. For New Jersey, admitting that there were noncitizens on their voter rolls was a good first step, and removing those noncitizens was another. But the state’s refusal to take responsibility or accept accountability shows a lack of interest in ensuring that such a compromise of election integrity could never happen again. New Jersey has failed to prove itself, at every point, “innocent in the matter.”