Thread by @JamesBejon

MINI-THREAD: Some scattered thoughts on Exodus 1.

At (virtual) @Tyndale_House this morning, @DrPJWilliams mentioned a number of passages in Scripture in which God’s people prosper despite external constraints.

One such passage is found at the start of the book of Exodus.

Below are some (tangential) thoughts on it.

The story of Exodus unfolds against the backdrop of death.

The first word we read in our text (after it has enumerated Jacob’s household) is ⟨vayyamot⟩ = ‘And he died’ (1.5).

The word ‘he’ refers Israel’s forerunner and guarantor of safety in Egypt—Joseph.

Predictably, therefore, what follows is not good.

We read about the death of Joseph’s brothers,

the death of Joseph’s generation (1.6b),

and the rise of a new(born) king (1.8), who decrees the deaths of the newborn Hebrew boys (1.16).

Unexpectedly, however, and not for the last time in Scripture, against a backdrop of death, life arises.

Indeed, the word ‘life’ (חיה) (and its various derivatives) consistently occur throughout our text.

The Egyptians embitter the Israelites’ ‘lives’ (חיים).

The midwives are told to let Israel’s daughters ‘live’ (לחיות), though (wisely) decide to let Israel’s *sons* ‘live’ (לחיות) as well.

And, when questioned by Pharaoh, the midwives say the Hebrew women are too ‘lively’ (חיה) to be controlled.

As such, Pharaoh’s plans backfire.

Pharaoh is worried the Israelites will ‘multiply’ too much (רבה), start a ‘war’ (מלחמה), and then ‘head up’ out of the land (עלה) (cp. 1.10).

Yet, as a result of Pharaoh’s actions, the Israelites ‘multiply’ (רבה) even more rapidly than they previously have (cp. 1.12),

and Pharaoh arouses the wrath of ‘a man of war’ (איש מלחמה) against him, namely YHWH (15.3),

who will personally lead the Israelites up (עלה) out of the land (3.8).

Although, therefore, Pharaoh *seeks* to be ‘wise’ (1.10), his actions turn out to be foolish ones.

His Babel-esque proclamation ends in disaster (cp. Exod. 1’s ‘Hava, nitchakemah!’ = ‘Come let us deal wisely!’ w. Gen. 1’s ‘Hava, nilbenah!’ = ‘Come let us build...’),

since he has forgotten a simple fact, which his midwives are well aware of:

*true* wisdom begins with the fear of God (1.17, 21).

Hence, while God brings ‘the great house’ of Egypt to an end (⟨Pr-ʕꜣ⟩ = ‘Pharaoh’ = ‘great house’),

God establishes permanent ‘houses’ (בָּתִּים) for Pharaoh’s midwives (1.21).

And, while the name of Pharaoh remains unknown to us, the names of his midwives are preserved for us in holy Scripture,

which is a significant fact.

While the book of Exodus is a book of names (שמות!), its initial narrative remains (almost) nameless.

Even the names of Moses’ mother, father, and sister—which we later learn (Exod. 6)—are withheld from us in Exodus 2.

The exception to the rule is the names of two godly Hebrew midwives,

which reflects the great honour they acquire in God’s eyes.

Yet, although the names of the midwives are clearly stated, their *identify* is not so clear.

At first blush, the phrase ‘the Hebrew midwives’ (הַמְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת) looks as if it denotes ‘midwives who are Hebrews’.

But there’s no reason (as far as I can see) why it couldn’t refer to ‘(Egyptian) midwives who are *assigned* to the Hebrews’.

Indeed, it’s doubtful Pharaoh would have expected two Hebrew midwives to condemn their own people’s children to death,

and the midwives themselves seem more accustomed to the way the *Egyptians* give birth (1.19), which a midwife of Hebrew stock is unlikely to have been.

Furthermore, when our narrator writes about God’s actions (from the perspective of a native-born Israelite), he simply writes about what God (אלהים) does (1.20),

while, when he writes about the midwives’ attitude to God, he says they feared (lit.) ‘the God’ (האלהים) (cp. 1.17, 21)—a term often employed to describe Gentile interaction with God.

As for the midwives’ *names*, if they are Egyptian, some provocative possibilities arise.

‘Puah’ (פּוּעָה) could be derived from the verb ⟨pʕpʕ⟩ = ‘to give birth, deliver (a child)’,

either because it refers to Puah’s occupation (as a midwife) or because it’s a shortened theophoric name (cp. the epithet ⟨pʕpʕ.n-ꜣs.t⟩ = ‘he who Isis bore’).

Meanwhile, ‘Shiphrah’ (שִׁפְרָה) could derive from the lexeme ⟨spr⟩ = ‘rib’, in which case it may also be a shortened theophoric name,

such as the one below (‘My rib (is) (directed) towards life’).

As such, the name ‘Shiphrah’ resonates curiously with the name ‘Eve’ (חַוָּה),

since the name ‘Eve’ appears to derive from the word ‘life’ (cp. the interchangeability of Ugaritic ⟨ḤWY⟩ and ⟨ḤYY⟩),

and brings to mind the word for a ‘midwife’ (cp. Mishnaic/modern Hebrew חַיָה).

Oddly, then, Eve comes from Adam’s rib and means ‘midwife’,

while ‘Shiphrah’ means ‘rib’ and *works* as a midwife,

...on which note of wild speculation I would probably do well to wrap up.

Despite external constraints, God’s people can prosper if they maintain a healthy fear of him.

THE END.