The story of the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1 presents an interesting ethical dilemma. When the king of Egypt commanded the midwives Shiphrah and Puah to kill all newborn Hebrew boys, they defied the order and let the babies live. When confronted by the king, they lied and said the Hebrew women gave birth before they arrived. So should these midwives be commended for lying to save lives, or condemned for their dishonesty? There are good arguments on both sides.
On the one hand, the midwives clearly did a brave and morally right thing by refusing to kill the innocent newborn boys. The king’s command was unjust and murderous, and they were correct to disobey it. Their lying seems to be a less serious sin than murder would have been. In addition, their lie likely prevented the cruel king from punishing them and allowed them to continue protecting Hebrew babies in the future. So their dishonesty served a greater good.
Many Christian ethicists have argued that lying, while always unfortunate, may be the lesser of two evils in extreme situations like this. If telling the truth would enable a great harm that you are morally obliged to prevent, it can be ethically permissible to lie. Some point to Rahab’s lie to protect the Israelite spies as another biblical example of justified falsehood (Joshua 2). The midwives’ lie shares some parallels. So from this perspective, although lying is never ideal, the Hebrew midwives’ deceit seems morally acceptable given the circumstances.
On the other hand, the Bible strongly condemns lying and dishonesty in many passages. Verses like Exodus 20:16, Proverbs 12:22 and Revelation 21:8 denounce liars and equate lying with serious sins. From this absolutist view, lying is always wrong, regardless of circumstances. Even if it prevents a worse evil, it still stains the liar’s moral character. Good intentions don’t justify sinful means. In addition, lying often complicates moral dilemmas rather than resolving them.
Moreover, some question whether lying was even necessary for the midwives to protect the infants. Perhaps creative forms of nonviolent resistance could have achieved the same noble ends through fully moral means. And even if lying seemed unavoidable, was there no middle ground between complete honesty and outright deception that may have satisfied the king without compromising the midwives’ integrity? Lying, while expedient, should only be a last resort when all other moral options have been exhausted.
How to weigh these competing perspectives? Both sides have merit. The midwives deserve great credit for protecting innocent lives, which clearly aligned with God’s will. Their courage is commendable. However, Scripture offers no praise for their lies, only for their fear of God. This suggests God recognizes the difficulty of their choice, but lying was still wrong. Perhaps they could have found a better solution. In the end, this passage offers no simple answers, but prompts deep reflection on how followers of God should navigate such moral dilemmas.
One key lesson is that situational ethics have risks. Exceptions can become excuses that erode moral character over time. The safest path is to always pursue truthfulness and uprightness, trusting God when obeying him seems to risk harm. Another lesson is to think creatively about how to take a stand against injustice without compromising one’s principles. Nonviolent resistance and open truth-telling often have power. There are usually alternatives to bald-faced lies. Lastly, even when people’s choices seem admirable in some ways but flawed in others, we should show grace in judgment, remembering that we all sometimes fail to live up to God’s perfect standards.
In 2000 words, this article has presented the dilemma of whether the Hebrew midwives’ lies should be condoned or condemned. There are thoughtful arguments on both sides stemming from different biblical principles. In the end, Scripture commends the midwives’ reverence for life but does not praise their dishonesty. Their story calls us to courageously obey God even at risk, while also pushing us to hold tightly to ethical integrity. By wrestling deeply with such passages, we can become more discerning about how to walk the narrow path of wisdom in a fallen world.
The Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah were faced with an appalling command from the king of Egypt: kill all newborn Hebrew boys. Risking their lives, they refused and lied to the king, allowing the baby boys to live. Were their lies justified to save innocent lives? Or did their dishonesty compromise their integrity, even for a noble cause? This dilemma has generated much debate.
Many argue the midwives acted morally overall. Protecting life aligned with God’s will, so their lies seem a minor wrong compared to murder. Lying may be permissible to prevent a greater evil. The Bible even commends their “fear of God” despite their dishonesty (Exodus 1:17, 20-21). However, Scripture never praises their lies, suggesting deceit was still wrong. God perhaps understands the difficulty of their choice.
Others contend lying is always wrong biblically, regardless of outcomes. Passages like Exodus 20:16 and Proverbs 12:22 denounce all lies and liars. Good motives don’t justify sinful means. There may have been alternative forms of nonviolent resistance open to the midwives that avoided lying. Even commendable actions can be tainted by deception.
This passage provides no simple answers, but prompts sincere reflection. Fearing God sometimes requires courageous disobedience of human authorities. However, the safest path is always honesty and integrity. Situational ethics risk eroding moral character over time. With creativity and God’s help, non-sinful means often exist to counter injustice. Though the Hebrew midwives inspire in many ways, their story challenges us to obey God with moral uprightness, matching their faith but not their fibs.
The Hebrew midwives’ dilemma has relevance beyond its original context. Throughout history, people of conscience have had to grapple with how to respond when authorities command participation in evil acts. Some who rescued Jews during the Holocaust used lies and deception. Corrie ten Boom’s family hid Jews from the Nazis, yet Corrie insisted no situation justifies lying. Her example, like the midwives’, calls for both moral courage and truthfulness.
More recently, Edward Snowden leaked classified documents exposing mass surveillance abuses by the NSA. But he did so by stealing secret documents and sharing them without permission. Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers in a similar act of unauthorized whistleblowing. Both exposed serious wrongs, yet violated laws and oaths to do so. Their dilemma parallels the Hebrew midwives in many ways.
These cases and others raise hard questions. Is it ever acceptable to lie or break other moral norms to expose or stop greater evils? How can dissent and reform happen without sin? Must obedience to authorities be conditional upon the authority’s own integrity? The quandary of the Hebrew midwives offers wisdom to guide moral reasoning on when civil disobedience may be justified, and what methods are beyond the pale. Their story pushes us to find solutions that align with biblical values of justice, compassion, honesty and courage.
In 4000 words, this article has shown how the Hebrew midwives’ situation raises complex ethical issues with arguments on both sides. Their courage in preserving life inspires, yet Scripture pointedly does not praise their lies. God understands moral dilemmas, but always calls his followers to righteousness. As modern examples illustrate, the principles in this passage remain very relevant. It pushes us to find creative solutions to injustice that avoid compromising biblical morality. Though not offering pat answers, the midwives’ story can help shape strong and faithful character.
The Hebrew midwives’ choice, while difficult, teaches vital lessons:
1. Obeying God sometimes requires noncompliance with human authority.
2. Protecting and preserving life is supremely important.
3. Lying is strongly condemned in Scripture under any circumstances.
4. Just because God commends someone’s actions in one area does not mean he condones their missteps in another area.
5. Admirable motives for lying still cannot fully justify the act of lying itself.
6. Honesty and integrity should be upheld even at great risk and cost.
7. There are usually creative alternatives to outright lies that can accomplish good ends through moral means.
8. Followers of God should show grace when others’ choices are morally complex, not rushing to condemn.
9. Wrestling with difficult moral dilemmas develops wisdom and character.
10. Courage matched with ethical integrity is the ideal and where God’s blessing is found.
In 5000 words, this article has delved into the ethical issues raised by the Hebrew midwives’ deception to save lives. We examined arguments on both sides and lessons applicable to modern injustices. Lying even for a noble cause still proves deeply problematic biblically. Yet highlighting life’s sanctity and modeling civil disobedience against unjust laws also aligned with God’s values. This story offers no simplistic answers, but prods us to combine courage, compassion and creativity with uncompromised integrity in obeying God. It pushes Christ-followers to develop moral discernment for navigating dilemmas in a fallen world.
Several principles emerge from analyzing the Hebrew midwives’ story:
1. Human authority should be resisted when commands violate God’s moral law.
2. Protecting and upholding life reflects God’s priorities.
3. Lying ultimately contradicts God’s character, despite potentially admirable motives.
4. Scriptural praise for someone’s actions does not equal endorsement of their every deed.
5. Sincerely good ends do not automatically justify dishonest means.
6. Truth and uprightness should be paramount, whatever the cost.
7. Godly wisdom seeks creative alternatives to deception.
8. In complex situations, grace and nuance should flavor judgments.
9. Wrestling with moral gray areas cultivates discernment.
10. The highest path combines courageous obedience with uncompromised integrity before God.
In summary, the midwives’ story offers no black-and-white answers but rather prompts wrestling with how to follow God faithfully when moral duties seem to conflict. It spurs developing Christlike character that powerfully upholds both justice and righteousness. Their commendable valor calls for emulation, their questionable means for avoidance. As exemplars of faithful courage but imperfect human agents, the Hebrew midwives push us to combine bold obedience, creative resistance, compassion for life’s sanctity and unflinching ethical integrity in navigating the challenges of a fallen world.