THE DIFFICULTY:
Exodus 1:15–21 records that the Hebrew midwives told Pharaoh that Israelite women gave birth before a midwife could arrive. Critics allege that this was a lie and argue that, since God rewarded the midwives, Scripture therefore endorses lying. The difficulty is sharpened by the Bible’s consistent condemnation of falsehood, raising the question of whether God can approve deception without contradicting His own moral standards.

THE CONTEXT:
Pharaoh’s command was not a neutral inquiry but a deliberate attempt to carry out state-sponsored murder. He ordered the midwives to kill Hebrew male infants at birth, a direct assault on innocent life and on Jehovah’s covenant people. The midwives were placed in a situation where full disclosure would have made them accomplices to mass infanticide. The narrative explicitly grounds their actions in one motive: “the midwives feared God.” The account is therefore not primarily about speech ethics in the abstract but about loyalty to God in the face of murderous tyranny.

THE CLARIFICATION:
Scripture consistently distinguishes malicious lying—falsehood spoken to deceive for selfish, harmful, or corrupt ends—from withholding or misdirecting information from those who are not entitled to it. The latter is not condemned when truth would be used as a weapon for evil. Pharaoh had no moral right to truthful cooperation in a plan to murder children.

This principle is affirmed by the teaching and conduct of Jesus Christ, who warned against giving sacred truth to those who would only abuse it and, on multiple occasions, declined to answer questions when doing so would have enabled injustice or violence (Matthew 7:6; 21:23–27; John 7:3–10). Silence, restraint, or misdirection in the face of malicious intent is not equivalent to sinful deceit.

The same moral framework explains the conduct of faithful servants of God elsewhere in Scripture, including Abraham, Isaac, Rahab, and Elisha, who withheld or redirected information from enemies of God’s people. Their actions are never condemned as sinful falsehood; in Rahab’s case, they are explicitly commended (Joshua 2:1–6; James 2:25).

Scripture further establishes that Jehovah does not owe truth to those who have already rejected it. He allows those who prefer falsehood to be confirmed in their deception, as seen in His judicial allowance of deception upon King Ahab through lying prophets—an act of judgment, not moral compromise (1 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 18). Truth is a moral good, but it is not a tool to be surrendered to evildoers for the destruction of the innocent.

THE DEFENSE:
The Hebrew midwives did not engage in malicious lying. They refused to cooperate with murder and declined to provide truthful information to a ruler who sought innocent blood. Their response protected life, honored God, and resisted evil authority. Jehovah’s approval was not of deception as such, but of their reverent fear of Him and their unwavering refusal to become instruments of death.

Exodus 1:20–21 explicitly states why God dealt well with them: they feared Him. The text does not praise cleverness, manipulation, or dishonesty; it praises moral courage and covenant loyalty. There is no contradiction with the Bible’s condemnation of falsehood. Rather, the passage affirms a consistent biblical ethic: truth must never be weaponized against righteousness, and God’s servants are not obligated to assist wickedness by divulging information to those who intend harm.

You May Also Enjoy

EXODUS 1:8 — How Could a Pharaoh “Who Did Not Know Joseph” Arise, Given Joseph’s High Status in Egypt?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS