Exodus 9:31 · Bible study
Exodus 9:31 Commentary: Selective Judgment and Mercy
Hebrew · 9 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why did God destroy only the ripe crops in the seventh plague? A study of judgment, mercy, and Egypt's agricultural calendar.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The plague destroyed early-ripening flax and barley but left later wheat and spelt unharmed, showing judgment mixed with mercy.
- Key words: 'aviv (young barley ears) and giv'ol (bud); both indicate the crops were mature enough to be damaged.
- Main debate: The exact stage of growth ('aviv as “ripe” vs. “green but in ear”) and the precise month of the plague (late January or early February).
- Theological theme: God’s judgment is proportionate and leaves room for repentance; He strikes what is most vulnerable but withholds final destruction.
- Best use: In sermons or studies on the nature of divine judgment and mercy, and on reading biblical narrative with attention to cultural details.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
(Now the flax and barley were destroyed, since the barley was ripe and the flax was in bloom;
WEB World English Bible 2000
The flax and the barley were struck, for the barley had ripened and the flax was blooming.
KJV King James Version 1769
And the flax and the barley was smitten: for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was bolled.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And the flax and the barley were smitten: for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was in bloom.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And the flax and the barley have been smitten, for the barley is budding, and the flax forming flowers,
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And the flax and the barley were smitten; for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was bolled.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
The flax therefore, and the barley were hurt, because the barley was green, and the flax was now bolled;
Translations in other languages (10 available)
El lino, pues, y la cebada fueron heridos; porque la cebada estaba ya espigada, y el lino en caña.
O linho, pois, e a cevada foram feridos; porque a cevada estava já espigada, e o linho em flor.
Le lin et l’ orge avaient été frappés, parce que l’ orge était en épis et que c’était la floraison du lin;
Also ward geschlagen der Flachs und die Gerste; denn die Gerste hatte geschoßt und der Flachs Knoten gewonnen.
Het vlas nu, en de gerst werd geslagen; want de gerst was in de aar, en het vlas was in den halm.
Ora il lino e l’orzo erano stati percossi, perché l’orzo era in spiga e il lino in fiore;
Len tedy i jęczmień potłuczony jest; bo jęczmień był niedostały, a len podrastał.
Лен и ячмень были побиты, потому что ячмень выколосился, а лен осеменился;
（那時，麻 和大麥 被雹擊打；因為 大麥 已經吐穗，麻 也開了花。
And the flax and the barley were damaged, for the barley was almost ready to be cut and the flax was in flower.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Exodus 9:31
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that this parenthetical note (interrupting the narrative between verses 29 and 33) explains the extent of the hail damage. Keil and Delitzsch state that the flax and barley were smitten because they were already in ear and blossom, while the wheat and spelt were spared because they were still tender. Calvin sees this as a remnant of hope, intended to invite Pharaoh to repentance. The Cambridge Bible connects the detail to Egyptian agricultural practice, noting that flax blossoms and barley ripens in January or February, fixing the date of the plague. The consensus is clear: God’s judgment was precise and limited, He destroyed what was ripe but left a portion untouched, demonstrating both His power and His patience.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: The flax and barley were destroyed because they were ripe; the wheat and spelt were spared because they were not yet grown, showing God’s restraint even in judgment.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of the agricultural note | The verse is a parenthetical explanation of which crops were destroyed and why. | Some (e.g., Cambridge Bible) see it as a later editorial insertion, while others (Keil & Delitzsch) view it as an integral part of the original narrative. |
| Stage of crop growth | Flax was in bloom, barley was in ear, both were vulnerable to hail. | The Hebrew 'avib can mean either “ripe” (so most translators) or “green in the ear” (Lange). This affects whether the barley was fully ripe or merely headed. |
| Significance of sparing wheat and spelt | It shows God’s mercy and gives opportunity for repentance. | Some (Calvin) stress the invitation to repentance; others (Gill, Matthew Henry) emphasize the demonstration of God’s power in limiting the plague. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Egypt was famous for its flax and barley. Flax (Hebrew pishtah) was essential for linen used by priests and for mummy wrappings (Cambridge Bible). Barley (Hebrew se'orah) was a staple for bread and for a fermented drink (Gill). Both were sown in November or December after the Nile flood receded and ripened by late January or February (Keil and Delitzsch, citing Pliny). Wheat and spelt (the “rye” of older versions) ripened about a month later, in March or April.
This agricultural timeline is key: the seventh plague of hail struck in late January or early February, just as the early crops were vulnerable. The hail destroyed the mature flax and barley but left the younger wheat and spelt unharmed. The sparing of the later crops was not accidental; it gave Pharaoh and the people a reason to hope that the full harvest might yet be saved if they repented. Matthew Henry notes that God “mixed mercy with judgment,” and the Cambridge Bible calls this parenthetical notice a “supplementary” detail that shows God’s restraint.
Flax and barley were economically vital. Linen was a major export, and barley was used for food and drink. Destroying them struck at the heart of Egypt’s prosperity. Yet by sparing the wheat and spelt, God left a path back from ruin. The verse thus serves as a microcosm of the Exodus narrative: judgment that aims at redemption, not annihilation.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Exodus 9:31. The verse is stable across Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions, with only minor differences in English renderings (e.g., “bolled” vs. “blooming”).
Reception History
Jewish exegesis has traditionally read the agricultural detail as historical evidence of the plagues’ timing and severity, placing the seventh plague in the month of Shevat (Jan/Feb). Early Christian interpreters, such as Origen, saw the sparing of the later crops as a type of God’s forbearance toward sinners. Reformed commentators from Calvin to Matthew Henry emphasized the mercy in judgment, noting that God ‘desired to give a remnant of hope.’ In modern preaching, the verse is often used to illustrate that God’s discipline is measured, He destroys only what is hardened and ripe, while leaving what is still tender a chance to grow.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God's judgment is precise and not arbitrary. The hail did not destroy everything indiscriminately. It hit specific crops at a specific stage. This shows that God knows what He is doing even in discipline.
- God's mercy leaves space for repentance. By sparing the wheat and spelt, God extended an invitation to Pharaoh and Egypt to turn back before the final blow. The partial destruction was a warning, not a final verdict.
- Timing reveals God's purpose. The agricultural calendar is part of the message. The plague came at the moment of maximum impact on the pride of Egypt, yet with a remnant of hope still visible in the fields.
Five-point outline
- The crops that suffered: flax and barley, ripe and economically crucial.
- The crops that were spared: wheat and spelt, not yet grown, still vulnerable but untouched.
- The reason for the distinction: the stage of growth. God is no respecter of persons, but He is aware of stages and seasons.
- The message to Egypt: your strength (flax, barley) is fragile; your future (wheat, spelt) hangs on your response.
- The challenge to Pharaoh: will you see mercy in the spared fields and repent, or will you harden your heart and lose everything?
Illustration hooks
- A farmer who loses the first planting to frost but the later planting survives, he still has a chance at harvest if he tends the remaining crop.
- A parent who confiscates a teenager’s phone (the flax) but lets them keep the computer (the wheat) for schoolwork, a discipline that leaves room for responsibility.
- A doctor who removes a tumour but preserves the surrounding healthy tissue, the surgery is severe, but the goal is healing, not destruction.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Why didn’t God just destroy everything at once? Why go through seven plagues?
- Does the fact that the wheat and spelt were spared mean God always gives a second chance? What about those who never repent?
- How do we see God’s mercy in the middle of hard circumstances in our own lives?
Leading a Discussion
This short verse sits at the hinge of the plague narrative. It explains why the hail was devastating but not total. As you read Exodus 9:31-32 together, notice the careful detail, the kind of observation that reveals a God who acts with intention and purpose.
Discussion questions
- What crops were destroyed, and why? What crops were spared, and why?
- Why do you think the author inserted this agricultural note between Pharaoh’s confession and Moses’ prayer?
- What does this selective destruction reveal about God’s character, especially His relationship to judgment and mercy?
- How might an Egyptian farmer have responded differently from Pharaoh after seeing the damage?
- In what ways do we see God sparing us from consequences we deserve, leaving room for change?
- How does the timing of the plague (late Jan/early Feb) help us understand the rhythm of God’s actions in history?
- What does this passage teach us about the seriousness of sin and the patience of God?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Ruth 1:22 | So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, with her, who returned out of the country of Moab. They came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest. |
| Ruth 2:23 | So she stayed close to the maidens of Boaz, to glean to the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest; and she lived with her mother-in-law. |
| Amos 4:9 | “I struck you with blight and mildew many times in your gardens and your vineyards, and the swarming locusts have devoured your fig trees and your olive trees; yet you haven’t returned to me,” says Yahweh. |
| Habakkuk 3:17 | For even though the fig tree doesn’t flourish, nor fruit be in the vines, the labor of the olive fails, the fields yield no food, the flocks are cut off from the fold, and there is no herd in the stalls, |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
9 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke draws on Egyptian agricultural cycles to explain why the hail struck flax and barley specifically: these crops were sown in November and reaped before May, making them ripe when the plague came. Wheat and other grains were sown later, in March, and so escaped the destruction. He also notes the Hebrew words for flax and barley describe their physical traits.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin observes that God did not destroy everything at once, sparing the slower crops to leave a shred of hope. This mercy was meant to invite Pharaoh and his people to repentance, if their hardened hearts could still be softened.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The Cambridge Bible commentary highlights the agricultural precision of this passage: flax and barley were destroyed because they were already in bloom or ripening, while wheat and spelt survived since they were not yet grown. This detail places the hail in January and reflects accurate knowledge of Egyptian crop cycles.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note explains that the flax and barley were destroyed by the hail because they were at specific growth stages: the barley was forming ears and the flax had developed seed pods. This timing made them vulnerable, while other grains were still in the ground and escaped harm.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill highlights the practical devastation: Egypt's flax, prized for linen, and barley, used for cattle feed and a fermented drink, were struck at their most vulnerable moment, fully grown in the stalk and ear. The hail ruined both a key industry and a staple food source.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
J
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil and Delitzsch note that the hail destroyed the flax and barley because they were already in bloom and ear, while sparing the wheat and spelt, which were still tender and had not yet formed ears. They connect this detail to the agricultural calendar of Egypt, confirming the timing of the plague.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange's central point is that God's words in verses 15-16 reveal a profound theological tension: Pharaoh, already deserving destruction, is deliberately preserved by God. This divine forbearance, far from being leniency, serves a higher purpose — to display God's power more completely through Pharaoh's eventual judgment.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry notes that Pharaoh's confession was forced by terror, not true repentance. As soon as the hail stopped, he sinned again and hardened his heart, showing that a temporary fear of judgment does not produce lasting change when the heart remains set against God.