Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The account of the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1:15-21 presents a complex scenario that has puzzled readers for centuries. This passage describes how the midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, were commanded by Pharaoh to kill all male Hebrew babies at birth. However, they feared God and did not carry out the king’s orders, instead allowing the boys to live. When questioned by Pharaoh, they lied, saying that the Hebrew women gave birth before the midwives could arrive. Remarkably, Scripture records that “God dealt well with the midwives” (Exodus 1:20), raising questions about the ethics of their actions and the nature of divine blessing in the face of disobedience to human authority.

The Primacy of Divine Authority

To understand this event, it is crucial to recognize the supreme authority of God’s moral law over human edicts. Acts 5:29 provides a clear principle that Peter and the apostles articulated: “We must obey God rather than men.” This apostolic directive echoes throughout Scripture, emphasizing that when human commands directly conflict with God’s commands, God’s law takes precedence. The midwives were faced with a direct command from Pharaoh that contradicted the sanctity of life—a principle inherent in the character of God and later codified in the commandment, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

The Fear of God

Exodus 1:17 states that the midwives “feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.” Their fear of God is pivotal, demonstrating reverence and awe for the Creator that supersedes fear of earthly authority. Proverbs 1:7 declares, “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” The midwives’ actions were not borne out of rebellion against authority per se but out of a deep commitment to uphold the divine value of life, showcasing the wisdom of choosing God’s commandments over human decrees when the two are in conflict.

The Issue of Lying

The midwives’ deception presents a moral dilemma, as lying is generally condemned throughout Scripture (Proverbs 12:22, Ephesians 4:25). However, their situation reflects a tension between competing moral imperatives: preserving innocent lives and speaking truthfully. In this context, their decision to deceive Pharaoh can be understood within the framework of a hierarchically ordered ethic, where protecting life—especially innocent life—takes precedence over the general prohibition against lying. This is not to suggest that Scripture endorses deception as a normative practice but rather that in extreme circumstances, actions that would normally be unethical may be considered morally justifiable to prevent a greater evil.

Lying Excursion

Within Christian ethics, a distinction can indeed be drawn between malicious lying and withholding information to prevent harm or injustice. This distinction is rooted in the intention behind the action and the context in which it occurs. Malicious lying aims to deceive for personal gain, to cause harm to another, or to evade justice, whereas withholding information, especially in situations where disclosing the truth would enable the perpetration of an injustice, is often motivated by a desire to protect the innocent or to uphold a greater moral principle.

Intent and Context in Ethical Decisions

The ethical differentiation between types of deception hinges significantly on intent and context. The Hebrew midwives’ actions, as recorded in Exodus 1:15-21, serve as a pertinent example. Their intent was not to deceive for personal benefit or to cause harm but to save lives. The context was one in which the truth, if disclosed, would have led to the murder of innocent infants. In this case, their deception is seen not as a morally corrupt act but as a means of protecting the vulnerable against an unjust decree.

The Principle of Protecting Life

The principle of protecting life is a fundamental ethical cornerstone in Christian theology. This principle can, in certain circumstances, justify withholding information when disclosure would result in the loss of innocent life. The actions of Rahab the prostitute in hiding Israelite spies (Joshua 2:1-6) and her lie to protect them are often cited alongside the midwives’ actions as instances where deceptive acts are presented in a positive light due to their life-preserving intent.

The Ethics of Withholding Information

Withholding information that another does not deserve or would use to harm another can be ethically justified within a Christian framework, especially when considered alongside biblical teachings on wisdom, discretion, and stewardship of one’s words. Proverbs 11:13 highlights the value of discretion, stating, “A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy person keeps a secret.” Similarly, Colossians 4:6 advises, “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” These scriptures underscore the importance of wise and discerning communication, which may include withholding information when its disclosure would lead to harm.

Balancing Truth and Love

The ethical challenge lies in balancing the commitment to truth with the commandment to love one’s neighbor (Mark 12:31). Ephesians 4:15 advises speaking the truth in love, suggesting that truthfulness and love must guide all actions, including communication. In situations where speaking the truth could result in harm to an innocent person, love and the protection of life may necessitate withholding information or being selective in what is shared, always with the aim of preventing harm rather than facilitating deceit for deceit’s sake.

Within Christian ethics, there is a nuanced understanding of the ethics of truth-telling, recognizing a distinction between malicious lying and the selective withholding of information to prevent harm or injustice. This distinction is deeply contextual and rooted in the motivations behind one’s actions and the likely outcomes of those actions. Christians are called to navigate these ethical complexities with wisdom, guided by a commitment to uphold life, truth, and love in a manner that reflects the character of God and the teachings of Scripture.

End of Excursion

Divine Blessing and Human Action

God’s blessing of the midwives (Exodus 1:20) further complicates our understanding of the interplay between divine approval and human actions. It is essential to note that God’s blessing does not necessarily endorse every aspect of their behavior but acknowledges their faith-driven motive to preserve life at significant personal risk. James 2:26 reminds us that “faith without works is dead.” The midwives’ actions, driven by their fear of God, demonstrated a living faith that valued God’s principles above the king’s edict.

God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility

This narrative also highlights the dynamic relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Romans 13:1-7 instructs believers to submit to governing authorities, recognizing that all authority is established by God. However, the account of the Hebrew midwives serves as a biblical precedent for the principle that obedience to God can necessitate civil disobedience when the laws of men directly oppose the moral law of God. It underscores the responsibility of believers to discern when adherence to God’s commands requires standing against human injustice.

Ethical Complexity in a Fallen World

The account of Shiphrah and Puah invites readers into the ethical complexity of living in a fallen world. It illustrates that followers of God may sometimes find themselves in situations where all available choices are morally fraught. In such cases, the paramountcy of God’s moral law and the primacy of life must guide our decisions, even when those decisions involve navigating between lesser evils.

Conclusion

The account of the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1:15-21 challenges readers to consider the depth of their allegiance to God’s authority over human commands, especially when the two are in conflict. It demonstrates that in a fallen world, believers may encounter situations where difficult choices must be made—a reality that requires a deep commitment to God’s principles, wisdom, and discernment. While the narrative does not provide a blanket endorsement for disobedience to authority or for deception, it does affirm that there are circumstances in which God honors the difficult decisions made out of reverence for Him and a commitment to uphold His commandments above all else.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).