How Could God Bless the Hebrew Midwives for Defying Pharaoh’s Decree? Exodus 1:15–21

Please Support the Bible Translation Work for the Updated American Standard Version (UASV) http://www.uasvbible.org

$5.00

Historical Context and the Ethical Dilemma

The events of Exodus 1:15–21 occur during the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt, following Joseph’s death and before the birth of Moses. This places the events sometime in the late 16th century B.C.E., during a period of Egyptian oppression. A new Pharaoh, who “did not know Joseph” (Exodus 1:8), perceived the growing Hebrew population as a political threat. His solution involved oppressive labor (1:11) and eventually infanticide (1:16), ordering Hebrew midwives to kill male infants at birth.

The two named midwives—Shiphrah and Puah—likely held supervisory roles over many others. The order they received was clear and heinous: murder male infants upon delivery. Their response, however, was equally clear: “But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Exodus 1:17). Their refusal is the earliest recorded act of civil disobedience in Scripture, grounded in the fear of God.

Divine Approval and the Principle of Obedience to God Over Men

The text explicitly states that the midwives were blessed by God: “So God dealt well with the midwives” (Exodus 1:20) and “because the midwives feared God, he gave them families” (1:21). This approval is rooted in their reverence for Jehovah—a fear not of terror, but of deep respect and moral allegiance. Their loyalty to God’s moral law overrode the immoral command of Pharaoh.

This raises a broader ethical and theological question: how does this relate to passages like Romans 13:1, which commands Christians to “be subject to the governing authorities”? The answer lies in proper biblical harmonization.

Romans 13 is a New Testament principle applicable under the Christian dispensation. However, it does not call for absolute obedience to human authorities in all circumstances. The apostles themselves stated, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), establishing that divine command supersedes human law when the two conflict. This principle was evident long before the first century and is the very foundation of moral resistance in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Shiphrah and Puah were not resisting Pharaoh because of rebellion or sedition but out of loyalty to divine morality. They refused to participate in murder. In doing so, they were not promoting lawlessness, but upholding the sanctity of life, a divine value established in Genesis 9:6 and consistently upheld throughout Scripture.

The Question of Their Deception

The controversy deepens with their response to Pharaoh: “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them” (Exodus 1:19). This statement appears to be a deflection, possibly even deceptive.

Does this present a moral contradiction? After all, God’s Law condemns lying—“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16). However, the context and purpose of biblical commands are essential. The ninth commandment specifically prohibits malicious falsehood against one’s neighbor, especially in judicial settings. It is not a blanket prohibition against every strategic withholding of information.

What the midwives said was not necessarily a direct lie; Hebrew women may indeed have delivered more quickly due to their physical labor and strength. However, even if there was an element of deception, the key issue is whether their action was a malicious lie intended to harm, or a protective measure to prevent evil.

The broader biblical pattern supports the latter view. There are multiple instances where God’s people withheld truth or provided misleading information to protect life or divine purpose:

— Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 12:10–20; 20:1–18): Abraham presented Sarah as his sister. While incomplete, this was not an outright lie, as Sarah was his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). He did this out of fear for his life in pagan territories.
— Rahab (Joshua 2:1–6): She hid the Israelite spies and misdirected the pursuers. James 2:25 commends her for her faith, not for deception, but the moral act of protecting God’s servants.
— Elisha (2 Kings 6:18–23): He misled the Syrian army and spared them, revealing a use of divine strategy against enemies.
— Jesus Christ (Matthew 21:23–27; John 7:3–10): Jesus, sinless and truth-incarnate (John 14:6), occasionally withheld information or spoke evasively to avoid premature death or to expose hypocrisy. He gave no answer to Herod (Luke 23:9) and redirected dishonest questions.

These examples underscore a consistent principle: when an individual is confronted with a situation where telling the full truth would result in aiding evil or endangering the innocent, the higher moral obligation may involve restraint. Malicious lying is always wrong, but strategic concealment from the wicked is not equated with sin in Scripture.

The Midwives Were Not Obligated to Disclose to Evil

Pharaoh had no moral right to demand the cooperation of the midwives in carrying out infanticide. He was not entitled to their transparency when his request involved murder. Their answer, whether partially true or diplomatically evasive, was aimed at preserving life.

Jesus taught this principle in Matthew 7:6: “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs.” This refers to withholding sacred truth from those who would trample it. Similarly, the principle applies to information that would be used to harm others. The moral obligation is not to empower the wicked but to protect the innocent.

This principle is also echoed in common legal systems. The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment allows individuals to refuse to answer questions that would incriminate themselves. Ethical systems globally acknowledge the distinction between malicious deception and protective silence.

God’s Blessing Affirmed Their Actions

Exodus 1:21 concludes with divine favor: “And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.” This is significant, as childlessness was often a reproach in ancient cultures. God’s reward confirms His approval of their reverence and courage. It does not suggest He endorsed deception, but that He honored their moral priorities and their commitment to His sanctity of life.

Their fear of God (Hebrew: יָרֵא yare’) is not mere dread but reverence that leads to righteous choices. Proverbs 9:10 says, “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom.” Their wisdom lay in prioritizing God’s command over man’s edict.

Applications for Today

The story of Shiphrah and Puah is not an invitation to manipulate truth for personal gain. Rather, it is a case study in moral courage, discernment, and divine allegiance. It teaches that:

— Obedience to God must override obedience to men when the two conflict.
— Truth should never be wielded to empower wickedness.
— Reverence for God includes the protection of life and justice.
— Strategic silence or misdirection, when faced with evil, is not equated with sinful lying.

This has direct relevance in situations of persecution, oppression, or moral conflict. Christians today must balance truth with wisdom, love with discernment, and obedience with courage. As Ecclesiastes 3:7 notes, there is “a time to keep silent, and a time to speak.”

Conclusion

God blessed the Hebrew midwives because they feared Him and upheld His moral law against Pharaoh’s wicked decree. Their actions reflected courage, discernment, and fidelity to the sanctity of life. While Scripture condemns malicious falsehood, it also supports protective discretion in the face of evil. The example of Shiphrah and Puah remains a powerful testimony of how the fear of God leads to righteous action—even when it defies earthly powers.

You May Also Enjoy

How Can We Reconcile Difficult Doctrinal Passages While Staying True to Biblical Truth?

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).