The Biblical Roots of Civil Disobedience
The story about two women that honored life, risked everything, and changed the course of history.
One of the most compelling stories in the Hebrew Bible is about midwives’ defiance of the cruel decree to murder Hebrew boys born in Egypt. The events likely occurred during the reign of either Pharaoh Ramses II (c. 1279–1213 BCE) or Merneptah (c. 1213–1203 BCE), who was the Pharaoh at the time of Exodus.
The evil is unleashed
The new Pharaoh of Egypt decided to take brutal action to curb the spiraling, out-of-control birthrate of the Israelites. His fear is understandable; his cruelty is unfathomable and clearly without any possible justification.
We read that:
15 Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah, and the other was named Puah; 16 and he said, “When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” (Exod 1:15-16)
On the surface, the meaning seems clear, but in Hebrew, it is far less so, which is why Jewish interpreters over centuries have disagreed sharply on whether the midwives were Israelites (“Hebrew midwives”) or members of an Egyptian medical elite responsible for overseeing births among Hebrew slaves.
The reason this is possible is because the original Hebrew text was unpointed; that is, there were 22 letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, without vowels. The Hebrew text appears as: למילדת העברית, while the Massoretic text appears as: לַמְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת. The people who created the Masoretic Text are called Masoretes. They were Jewish scribes and scholars who worked between the 6th and 10th centuries AD/CE. The Masoretes standardized the Hebrew Bible by adding vowel points (niqqud), accentuation (cantillation marks), and other notations to ensure accurate pronunciation and recitation of the text as they saw it. Their work resulted in the Masoretic Text (MT), which is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible today.
Skip this paragraph if you can’t stand grammar, but if you suffer through it you will be rewared: In Exodus 1:15, the Hebrew phrase describing the midwives Shiphrah and Puah is written in the Masoretic Text as לַמְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת, which translates to “to the Hebrew midwives.” This particular Massoretic vocalization uses a patach vowel (a short “a” sound) under the lamed (לַ), positioning “Hebrew” (עִבְרִיֹּת) as an adjective modifying “midwives,” implying that the midwives were ethnically Hebrew. However, as was already mentioned above, the original text was without vowels. This means that there is a feasible possibility for an alternative to the Massoretic text vocalization, such as לִמְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת, with a chirik vowel (a short “i” sound) under the lamed (לִ). In this reading, the phrase becomes a construction chain, meaning “to the midwives of the Hebrew women,” implying that the midwives were not Hebrew but rather Egyptian professionals appointed to work within the Hebrew community.
One key argument for the midwives being Hebrew is that their names are not Egyptian but have clear Hebrew meanings. Shiphrah means “beautiful” or “improvement” in Hebrew, while Puah means “crying out” or “radiant.” They may have been recruited from the Israelite community to work for the Egyptian royal court as liaisons. However, their Hebrew names can be explained as their Hebrew work names, not their original Egyptian ones. The primary argument for the midwives being Egyptian lies in the logical implausibility of Pharaoh having direct conversations with Hebrew slaves and expecting them to put to death a large number of Israelite children (it’s unclear which aspect is more implausible!).
Another consideration is the mathematical impossibility of two midwives single-handedly performing this duty. Based on approximate but reasonable calculations, it would have taken approximately 1,000–3,000 midwives to service around 600,000 Israelite women who were actively getting pregnant as per the Biblical account. By the time they left Egypt, the Israelites numbered between one and three million, based on the biblical count of 600,000 men excluding women and children (Ex 12:37). Therefore, it is also very possible that Shiphrah and Puah were medical secretaries in Pharaoh’s court. The idea that Shiphrah and Puah were overseers aligns with Egyptian bureaucracy, which employed many officials to manage labor and resources.
The rebellion of faith
Whether Hebrew or Egyptian, midwives disobeyed the order and made up false justifications for not following it.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live. 18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?” 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them.”
Their excuse to Pharaoh—that Hebrew women were “vigorous” (chayot, from ח-י-ה, ch-y-h, “life” or “animal”)—is interpreted as likening them to wild beasts who birth quickly without aid, a clever wordplay on vitality versus human fragility.
If the midwives were indeed Hebrew, everything makes perfect sense, but could it also make sense if they were Egyptian? The answer is yes. How so?
Although the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) can mean either “God” or “gods,” in this context, it includes the definite article (הָאֱלֹהִים, ha-Elohim, “the God”), limiting the interpretation to either the God of the Israelites or one of the aforementioned Egyptian gods. The Egyptian pantheon included at least three deities associated with protecting pregnant women and their unborn children: Amun-Ra, the chief Egyptian deity, associated with childbirth among other roles; Isis, the goddess of motherhood, revered as a protector of women and children; and Hathor, another goddess closely linked to childbirth. It is plausible that the Egyptian midwives feared their own god(s). In other words, the term “the God/god” in Exodus 1:17 could refer to either the God of the Hebrews or an Egyptian deity who would be particularly offended by the destruction of human life on such a massive scale in Egypt.
Although “the God” (הָאֱלֹהִים, ha-Elohim) could refer to “THE LORD/YHVH” (יהוה), it would be unusual for the text to avoid explicitly stating that “the midwives feared THE LORD” (the God of the Hebrews). The absence of YHVH suggests a tilt away from Israel’s deity and toward one of the Egyptian gods.
It is impossible to determine which interpretation of the ancient Hebrew text is original. Midwives may have been Hebrew or Egyptian, or, perhaps, they were Egyptian women who feared Israel’s God. The text may intentionally retain ambiguity to encourage readers or listeners to consider the implications in various contexts, a known and often deliberate feature of the Hebrew Bible.
The failure of evil
In Exodus 1:15–20, Shiphrah and Puah exemplify moral courage triumphing over tyrannical evil. Defying Pharaoh’s decree to murder Hebrew newborn boys (Exodus 1:16), they feared God above human authority, sparing countless lives through deception (Exodus 1:19). Their act of civil disobedience, rooted in reverence for life, thwarted Pharaoh’s genocidal intent. God rewarded their faithfulness, blessing them with enduring dynasties/households (Exodus 1:21), while the Israelite population multiplied, growing “exceedingly mighty” despite oppression (Exodus 1:20). This divine favor underscores a profound truth: evil, though formidable, is ultimately powerless against those aligned with God’s moral order. Pharaoh’s subsequent decree, commanding all Egyptians to drown Hebrew boys (Exodus 1:22), reveals his desperation and acknowledgment that his initial plan failed due to the midwives’ heroism. Shiphrah and Puah’s actions demonstrate that courageous deception, when preserving life, aligns with divine justice.
Conclusion
The story of Shiphrah and Puah stands as a timeless testament to the power of civil disobedience rooted in moral conviction. Whether Hebrew or Egyptian, these midwives defied a tyrannical decree, choosing to honor the sanctity of life over the demands of an oppressive ruler. Their courage, driven by a profound fear of God—whether the God of Israel or a deity of their own tradition—demonstrates that true righteousness transcends cultural, ethnic, and even religious boundaries. By sparing the Hebrew boys, the leaders saved the nation of Israel from extinction and preserved the line of Judah, which would one day give the world Christ, the Savior and King. This narrative challenges us today to reflect on our response to injustice. The midwives’ actions remind us that even in the face of overwhelming power, acts of defiance, grounded in faith and moral clarity, can unravel the schemes of evil. Let their story ignite your resolve. Stand firm against injustice, wield truth as your shield, and act with the audacity of faith. Will you, like Shiphrah and Puah, dare to defy the Pharaohs of today in order to protect life? Take courage; reshape the world.
Comments (59)
The Septuagint (LXX) significantly reduces two ambiguities found in the Masoretic Text of Exodus 1—namely, the identity of the midwives and the object of their “fear of God.” The Hebrew phrase hamyalledot ha‘ivriyyot can be read either as “Hebrew midwives” or “midwives to the Hebrews,” but the LXX’s ταῖς μαίαις τῶν Ἑβραίων clearly denotes midwives belonging to the Hebrews. This aligns with the narrative, in which Shiphrah and Puah function not as ordinary birth attendants but as supervisors over the Hebrew midwifery system, a structure consistent with Egyptian labor administration. Likewise, the LXX clarifies ha-Elohim by using the singular τὸν θεόν, the standard designation for YHWH, making it unlikely that the reference is to Egyptian deities. Finally, the phrase “He built them houses” reflects a Hebrew idiom for establishing enduring family lines, not Egyptian-style dynasties. Thus the LXX offers a coherent and historically plausible interpretation.
Thank you, Andre. I think it can go either way, my brother. Thank you so much for your thoughtful and competent contribution.
Thank you for your reply. But I still think Mahoney is correct about the time of the Exodus. I think it happened about 1450 BC with additional evidence presented by Simcha Yacavobic in “The Exodus Decoded” wherein he advances that the eruption of the San Torini Volcano would have produced the physical effects of all of the ten plagues. Thus providing a true vehicle for Jehovah to have used to serve his purpose. He proposes that Ahmose is the Pharoah of the Exodus. I don’t think it was Rameses II . Although this does nothing to change your point on Civil Disobedience. I think the Bible is a true history and archaeology and geology (the volcano) go a long way to prove it.
Victoria, to tell you the truth, I was never into these kinds of things :-). For me the bigger questions are the ones I dealt with, but I do respect the historical inquiry that you are interested in. Blessings and much peace!
I enjoy it every time, thankyou !
So glad to hear!
Thanks to God to inspire you to study the word of God. God bless you be with you! But today worldly governments allowing the murdering of unborn babies. We need midwives like Shiphrah and Puah those who fear and obey God rather than their leader and beyond their financial benefits.
That's for sure.
There is actually research showing that the oldest belief of Egyptians were in single creator God which is describe virtually identical to YHWH so it could actually be that God that they feared.
Yes, that's a possibility, although I stubbornly :-) still think that what I present as possibility makes even more sense :-)
This brings to mind how those in power are depopulating the world through various means. Both euthanasia and abortion are ever increasing, and the current genocide through the use of bioweapons—we live as if we hang on by a thread, for the current era is death affirming.
It is true in our world we kill each other differently from how we killed each other in the previous time periods. Although it could be argued that if you take WWI and WWII we are (at least in armed conflicts) behaving quite humanly.
I disagree about the timing of the Exodus. I think it took place much earlier as new archaeological evidence confirms. Also the Bible states that the Exodus took place 450 years before Solomon’s temple was built.—which places it about 1450 BC. I think the time of the Hyksos is the time of Exodus. You should look at “Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus” by Timothy Mahoney. It’s very compelling!
Thank you, Victoria! 1 Kings 6:1 speaks of 480 years between the Exodus and Solomon’s 4th year, not 450. With Solomon’s 4th year usually dated around 966–967 BCE, this yields an Exodus around 1446 BCE, which is why many conservatives favor a mid‑15th‑century date. Many scholars, however, view 480 as a schematic figure (twelve generations of forty years) rather than a strict chronological statement. The Hyksos ruled c. 1650–1550 BCE, earlier than a 1440s Exodus, and as foreign rulers, they were expelled by Egyptians, not oppressed slaves departing. Mahoney’s “Patterns of Evidence” compellingly presents a conservative case, but it relies on minority chronological revisions and is widely seen by scholars as apologetic rather than neutral.
Shalom Dr. Eli,
How could there be any ambuguity regarding whom the midwifes feared? It had to be the G-d of Israel since He rewarded the midwifes with families of their own. Something the gods of Egypt (the death cult) were completely unable to do. The Holy One of Israel showed the impotency of their idols and the futility of trusting in them as it is written and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the LORD.
Whether the midwifes were Israelites or Egyptians may be debatable.
When it comes to the rapid rate that Western countries are being over run by Muslims, it should be a matter of great concern for both Jews and Christians.
Yes, I agree there is a lot of ambiguity here.
Profound! Civil disobedience is NOT a response limited to the '60s...YHVH is HUGE & in CONTROL
Thank you, D!
Hi DrEli,
The context of this account brings to my mind the judgement of Solomon over the two mothers claiming the one child as their own and the wisdom Solomon used to reveal the true mother, who would give up her child so he might live. Any thoughts?
Jon, personally I think that in this case it is a coincidence.