Courage Under a Government of Death

The opening chapters of Exodus present courage expressed through several faithful people whose actions resisted Pharaoh’s attempt to destroy Israelite sons. The Egyptian ruler possessed military power, legal authority, administrative control, and the ability to punish those who opposed his commands. Shiphrah and Puah resisted him through reverence for God. Amram and Jochebed protected their child within their home and concealed him for three months. Jochebed then constructed a carefully prepared ark and placed the infant among the reeds of the Nile. Miriam watched from a distance, approached Pharaoh’s daughter at the proper moment, and helped return Moses temporarily to his mother. Their courage was not identical in form, yet each action served the preservation of the child whom Jehovah would later use to lead Israel out of Egypt.

Exodus 1:8 records that a new king arose over Egypt who did not recognize Joseph. He viewed Israel’s growth as a national threat. Rather than respect the people whose ancestor had helped preserve Egypt during famine, Pharaoh imposed harsh forced labor. Exodus 1:11 states that taskmasters were appointed to oppress the Israelites, who built the storage cities of Pithom and Raamses. The policy was designed to weaken Israel through exploitation, but Exodus 1:12 says the people continued to multiply.

Pharaoh then moved from oppression to organized murder. He commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill male infants during childbirth while allowing female infants to live. This decree attempted to use women who assisted life as instruments of death. The plan also concealed royal violence behind the appearance of childbirth complications. Pharaoh expected ordinary workers to enforce his wicked policy and carry the moral guilt of his command.

Shiphrah and Puah Feared God More Than Pharaoh

Exodus 1:15 identifies two Hebrew midwives by name: Shiphrah and Puah. The preservation of their names is striking because the king who threatened them is not named in the passage. Pharaoh possessed the throne, but Scripture honors the women who feared God. Exodus 1:17 states plainly that the midwives feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt commanded. They kept the male children alive.

Their fear of God was not panic. In Scripture, fearing God includes reverence, recognition of His authority, and submission to His moral judgment. Shiphrah and Puah understood that Pharaoh’s command did not become righteous merely because it came from the ruler. Human government has legitimate authority, but no ruler has the right to command murder. When civil authority orders what God condemns, loyalty to God takes precedence.

This principle appears later in Acts 5:29, where Peter and the other apostles declared that they must obey God rather than men. The apostles were not promoting disorder or contempt for lawful authority. They were identifying the limit of human command. Romans 13:1-4 describes governing authorities as servants assigned to restrain wrongdoing, not as masters authorized to redefine good and evil. Pharaoh abandoned the proper function of government and used state power to attack innocent life.

Shiphrah and Puah faced direct accountability before Pharaoh. Exodus 1:18 says the king summoned them and demanded to know why they had allowed the boys to live. Their resistance was therefore not distant or anonymous. They had to answer the ruler whose command they had disobeyed. Exodus 1:19 records their explanation that Hebrew women were vigorous and gave birth before the midwife arrived. The text presents their answer as an explanation of the circumstances under which the children survived. Scripture’s explicit moral approval rests on their fear of God and refusal to kill.

Exodus 1:20-21 states that God dealt well with the midwives and gave them households because they feared Him. Jehovah’s approval did not rest on political rebellion for its own sake. It rested on their reverence for Him and their refusal to participate in murder. Their courage protected infants who could not protect themselves and preserved families that Pharaoh intended to destroy.

Courage Expressed Through Refusal

Shiphrah and Puah demonstrate that courageous action sometimes begins with a simple refusal: “We will not do this evil.” They did not possess an army capable of overthrowing Egypt. They could not immediately end Israel’s forced labor. They could, however, refuse to turn their skilled work into an instrument of death. Courage acted within the responsibility directly placed before them.

The midwives’ work required close personal involvement with vulnerable mothers and infants. Pharaoh attempted to corrupt that trusted role. He wanted the women who entered homes to assist delivery to betray those families at the most defenseless moment. Their refusal preserved the moral purpose of their work. They continued to help life rather than destroy it.

This has direct significance for Christians. A believer may hold a position in which an employer, official, teacher, supervisor, or institution demands participation in wrongdoing. The command may be presented as routine procedure, professional duty, or obedience to policy. Shiphrah and Puah show that no title transforms evil into righteousness. The Christian must identify the moral character of the action, refuse participation in sin, and accept the danger that faithfulness may bring.

Their conduct also demonstrates the power of quiet courage. Exodus does not record them delivering speeches to the Egyptian public. Their resistance occurred through the lives they refused to take. Courage need not be loud to be real. A person who protects the vulnerable, refuses to falsify information, declines to betray another, or will not assist an immoral act may accomplish great good without public recognition.

Amram and Jochebed Refused to Surrender Their Son

Pharaoh responded to the midwives’ resistance by expanding his decree. Exodus 1:22 says he commanded all his people to cast every Hebrew son into the Nile. The policy was no longer concealed within childbirth. It became a public command involving the Egyptian population. Any Hebrew family with a newborn son now faced discovery, seizure, and death.

Exodus 2:1-2 introduces a man from the house of Levi and a Levite woman. Exodus 6:20 later names them as Amram and Jochebed. When Jochebed gave birth to a son and saw that he was a fine child, she hid him for three months. Hebrews 11:23 identifies this concealment as an act of faith by Moses’ parents and says they were not afraid of the king’s command.

Their lack of fear does not mean they felt no concern about discovery. Their actions reveal careful awareness of danger. They hid the child, watched the passing months, and devised a plan when concealment became impossible. Biblical courage is not the absence of awareness. It is obedience to God despite awareness of the danger.

A crying infant could not understand the need for silence. Amram and Jochebed had to manage daily life under a decree that turned neighbors, officials, and ordinary Egyptians into possible threats. Each day of concealment required vigilance. Their courage was domestic, persistent, and protective. They did not know all that Jehovah would accomplish through their son, but they knew that Pharaoh had no moral right to take his life.

Hebrews 11:23 says they saw that the child was beautiful. Acts 7:20 likewise describes Moses as beautiful before God. The emphasis does not teach that only physically attractive children deserve protection. The language marks Moses as a child of special significance and expresses the parents’ recognition of the precious life entrusted to them. Their faith acted on the conviction that the king’s decree must not determine the value or fate of their son.

Jochebed’s Ark and Deliberate Preparation

When Jochebed could no longer hide Moses, she did not simply abandon him to the river. Exodus 2:3 states that she obtained a papyrus basket, coated it with bitumen and pitch, placed the child inside, and set it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile. The Hebrew word used for the basket is the same term used for Noah’s ark in Genesis 6–9. In both accounts, an ark served as a vessel preserving life through dangerous waters. This lexical connection belongs to the ordinary meaning of the text; it does not require an allegorical interpretation.

Jochebed’s preparation was precise. Papyrus provided a light vessel, while bitumen and pitch helped make it watertight. She placed the ark among the reeds rather than releasing it into the current. The location allowed the basket to remain near the bank where it could be observed. Her conduct joined faith with practical wisdom. She entrusted the result to God while using available materials carefully.

Exodus 2:4 says the child’s sister stood at a distance to learn what would happen. This indicates that the family did not treat the placement of the ark as careless disposal. Miriam’s watch formed part of the plan. Jochebed could no longer conceal Moses in the house, but she continued to protect him through deliberate action.

Christian courage should not be confused with recklessness. Jochebed did not refuse all planning on the claim that faith made precautions unnecessary. She prepared the vessel, selected the location, and stationed Miriam nearby. Faith in Jehovah gave purpose to wise action. Proverbs 22:3 says the prudent person sees danger and hides himself, while the inexperienced continue and suffer the consequences. Jochebed’s conduct reflects prudent protection under deadly pressure.

Miriam’s Alert and Timely Courage

Miriam’s role demonstrates that courage is not limited to adults. Although Exodus 2 does not give her age, she was young enough to remain identified as the child’s sister and yet mature enough to observe, think quickly, and speak to Pharaoh’s daughter. She stayed at a distance, which allowed her to watch without immediately revealing the family connection.

When Pharaoh’s daughter came to bathe at the Nile, she saw the basket and sent a servant to retrieve it. Exodus 2:6 says she opened it, saw the crying child, felt compassion, and recognized that he was one of the Hebrew children. Recognition meant she understood that the infant stood under her father’s decree. By preserving him, Pharaoh’s daughter acted contrary to the destructive policy of Pharaoh’s household.

Miriam then approached with a carefully framed proposal. Exodus 2:7 records that she asked whether she should find a Hebrew woman to nurse the child. The question did not announce that she was the child’s sister or that Jochebed was his mother. It offered a practical solution to an immediate need. Pharaoh’s daughter agreed, and Miriam brought Jochebed.

This moment required courage because Miriam approached a member of the royal household whose father had ordered the death of Hebrew boys. A careless statement could have exposed the entire family. Miriam’s courage included self-control, attentiveness, and appropriate speech. She recognized the opening created by Pharaoh’s daughter’s compassion and acted without delay.

Exodus 2:9 records that Pharaoh’s daughter instructed Jochebed to take the child and nurse him for wages. The mother who had been forced to place her son by the Nile was now authorized and paid by Pharaoh’s own daughter to care for him. The murderous decree remained evil, but it did not prevent Jehovah from preserving Moses through the courageous actions of several people.

Several Forms of Courage Working Together

The preservation of Moses did not depend on one human action alone. Shiphrah and Puah resisted the first murderous order. Amram and Jochebed concealed their son. Jochebed prepared the ark. Miriam watched and spoke. Pharaoh’s daughter showed compassion and accepted responsibility for the child. Each person acted within a particular role.

This cooperation illustrates how courageous faithfulness often works. One believer refuses to perform evil. Another protects someone endangered. Another prepares necessary resources. Another watches carefully. Another speaks at the proper moment. Not everyone performs the same action, but each faithful action matters.

Shiphrah and Puah could not know that one of the preserved Hebrew boys would become Israel’s deliverer. Amram and Jochebed did not control Pharaoh’s daughter’s response. Miriam did not create the compassion she observed. Their responsibility was not to control every result. Their responsibility was to act faithfully within the circumstances before them.

First Corinthians 12:4-6 explains that there are varieties of service and activity while the same God works through His servants. Although the passage concerns the functioning of the Christian congregation, the principle that God’s servants perform differing but complementary work is clearly illustrated in Exodus 1–2. Courage may involve refusal, concealment, preparation, watchfulness, speech, or compassionate intervention.

The Fear of God Over the Fear of Man

The central moral contrast in the account is between fear of God and fear of Pharaoh. Pharaoh wanted his authority to dominate every conscience in Egypt. He expected midwives to kill, citizens to seize children, and Hebrew families to surrender their sons. Shiphrah, Puah, Amram, Jochebed, and Miriam refused to treat the king’s command as supreme.

Matthew 10:28 teaches believers not to fear those who kill the body but cannot destroy the person beyond God’s power to restore. Jesus directed His disciples to fear God, whose judgment is final. This does not make danger imaginary. Pharaoh could imprison, enslave, or execute. Yet his power remained limited, while Jehovah’s authority was absolute.

Fear of man becomes spiritually destructive when it moves a person to commit sin. Proverbs 29:25 says that trembling before humans lays a snare, but the one trusting in Jehovah is protected. Shiphrah and Puah escaped that snare because they feared God. Moses’ parents escaped it because they were not controlled by the king’s command. Miriam escaped it because she approached Pharaoh’s daughter with purposeful speech.

Their courage did not arise from confidence in superior human strength. They were members of an oppressed population confronting the policy of the most powerful man in Egypt. Their confidence rested on the conviction that God’s moral authority outweighed Pharaoh’s decree.

Protecting Life Without Adopting Pharaoh’s Methods

The faithful Hebrews resisted a cruel ruler without becoming cruel themselves. The midwives preserved infants. Moses’ parents sheltered their son. Miriam used careful words rather than violence. Their methods reflected the life-preserving purpose of their actions.

This distinction is important because opposition to evil does not authorize every possible response. Scripture does not permit hatred, personal vengeance, or indiscriminate violence under the name of courage. Romans 12:17-21 commands Christians not to repay evil for evil and not to be conquered by evil, but to conquer evil with good. Shiphrah and Puah overcame Pharaoh’s command by continuing to preserve life. Jochebed answered the river decree by making the riverbank a place of rescue. Miriam answered royal danger with a proposal that reunited mother and child.

Their conduct teaches Christians to resist sinful commands through morally upright means. The end does not make a sinful method righteous. Courage before God remains governed by His standards during resistance as well as before it.

Faithful Action Without Complete Knowledge

The people protecting Moses did not possess the full book of Exodus. They did not know the sequence of the burning bush, the plagues, the Passover, the crossing of the Red Sea, or the giving of the Law. They acted faithfully with the knowledge and responsibility they possessed.

This is an essential feature of Christian courage. Believers often must obey without knowing how God will bring relief, correct injustice, or use a faithful decision. Second Corinthians 5:7 says Christians walk by faith, not by sight. Faith does not mean believing without evidence. It means trusting God’s revealed character and promises when the entire future is not visible.

Shiphrah and Puah knew murder was wrong. Moses’ parents knew the child’s life should be protected. Miriam knew the opportunity before her required action. Their limited knowledge did not excuse inaction, and their inability to control the result did not make obedience useless.

The preservation of Moses shows that courage can have consequences far beyond the actor’s awareness. The infant protected by midwives, parents, and sister became the man Jehovah used to confront Pharaoh. The ruler who ordered Hebrew sons cast into the Nile eventually saw his own oppressive power broken. The people Pharaoh intended to weaken departed Egypt as a nation under Jehovah’s direction in 1446 B.C.E.

You May Also Enjoy

Sarah: Leaving the Familiar and Continuing Forward in Faith

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS