Genesis 1:5 – is it the element of light that God calls ‘day’ or the period of time?

The OT scholar, J. H. Walton comments,

God called the light [ ’ôr] ‘day’ [yôm] , and the darkness he called ‘night.’  If God called the light yôm, why does the text continue throughout the OT to call the light ’ôr ? It is a question that anyone could answer with a little thought: It was not the element of light itself that God called yôm but the period of light. There is a term for the semantic phenomenon that is observed here, namely, metonymy. In metonymy the meaning of a term is extended to include things closely related to it. When the White House makes a statement it is understood that the building is not talking. And so it is not the physicist’s light that is being named yôm but rather the period of light –obvious enough because that is what yôm is often used to refer to in the rest of Scripture. But if the word ’ôr refers to a period of light in Genesis 1:5, what about in 1:4?  There God separates the light from the darkness. Again, I find “period of light” much more plausible here.  The physicist’s light cannot be separated from darkness, but alternating periods of light and darkness can be set up. Still, we cannot stop there. If the text means for us to understand “period of light” in both Genesis 1:4 and 5, what about 1:3? Hermeneutical consistency, I think, would lead us to believe that when God said “Let there be ’ôr , we must then understand it as, “Let there be a period of light.”  We could only conclude, then, that day one does not concern itself with the creation of the physicist’s light, that is, light as a physical element with physical properties. Day one concerns itself with something much more significant, something much more elemental to the functioning of the cosmos and to our experience of the cosmos. On day one God created time. This is the first of the functions that God is going to use to bring order to the chaos of the cosmos: the orderly and regular sequence of time.[1]

After a little thought, what questions could we pose for this dictionary entry? It is certainly a valid exegetical question to ask why God calls the light – ‘day’. But this is not our first thought about Walton’s entry. He observes that it is not the element of light that God calls ‘day’ but the period of light. Since ‘day’ is certainly a period word, this looks like an innocent point. Our first thought though is that because there is a difference between calling a ‘period’ – ‘day’ and calling the element of ‘light’ – ‘day’, we cannot infer that “the word ’ôr refers to a period of light”. This is just a fallacy. You haven’t established a reference for ’ôr by simply asserting a plausible reference for yôm.

God says ‘Let there be light’ and the ‘being’ of light is what yields duration and period and it is this that God then calls ‘day’. The word ’ôr refers to light, as shown in other usage (the word is common, but see Isa 45:7; Jer 4:23). Walton has asserted a semantic phenomenon of metonymy but offered no evidence. His example of ‘the White House’ could be shown to have usage as a metonymy by simply citing a pattern of examples. Walton offers no such pattern of metonymy for ’ôr because there isn’t one in the OT.

As we move through Gen 1:3-5, the definite article is introduced in v. 4 in ‘God saw the light’. Obviously, to ‘see’ the light, one sees the ‘element’ of light (to use Walton’s term); it is implausible to say that God saw a ‘period’. The definite article continues in v. 5 where God calls the light ‘day’ after ‘separating’ the light and the darkness. Translations usually opt for ‘separate’ or ‘divide’ for the light and darkness.

At this point we need to take into account the lexical semantics because Gen 1:5 uses the word ‘between’ (!yb), reading, ‘God divided between the darkness and between the light’. The verb ‘to divide’ is common enough (40x), but it is the usage of the Hiphil form with the preposition ‘between’ that is of interest.

Compare,

‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide between (!yb)  the day and between (!yb)  the night… And to divide between (!yb)  the light and between (!yb)  the darkness’ Gen 1:14, 18

What we have in Gen 1:18 is a quotation of Gen 1:4 and its ‘between the light and between the darkness’. In Gen 1:14-18 it is the lights of the firmament of heaven which are ‘to divide’ between the light and between the darkness; in Gen 1:4 it is God who divided between the light and between the darkness. The contrast in the account is that previously God divided between the light and between the darkness on day one and not the lights. In this way the account shows that it is the Shekinah Light which divides between the light and between the darkness on the first day.

One way to show this is via the typological use of Gen 1:3-5 in the NT.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:5 (KJV)

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6 (KJV)

The darkness in NT times is like the darkness at the beginning; the light both shined in this darkness and out of it, thereby showing that in the beginning God’s presence was in the darkness and that the light that first happened there came from the dark storm clouds. This is the physical reality of God’s presence, which God sees as ‘good’ (Gen 1:4). This comment by the narrator tells us that the Shekinah Light is not intrinsic to God but a light created by him in the beginning to manifest his presence; it was good from God’s point of view. Introducing the light in and out of the darkness was then followed by God separating his light from the darkness, so that the light had a duration which God called ‘day’. The creation of this duration is the ‘separation’ of darkness and light.^[2]

Walton hasn’t seen God-manifestation in the account and so he says, “The physicist’s light cannot be separated from darkness, but alternating periods of light and darkness can be set up.” This contrast does not yield what Walton wants, which is a reference for ’ôr to a ‘period’. God divided between the light and between the darkness and we can understand this in terms of periods of light and darkness, but this does not mean that ‘light’ refers to a period rather than light. God’s action of dividing tells us he did something with light and darkness: and simply to withdraw the (Shekinah) light and introduce darkness explains the alternating periods of light and darkness.

It follows that Gen 1:3 is consistent with Gen 1:4-5 in its reference for ’ôr when God says, ‘Let there be light’. Walton’s attempt to read ‘period of light’ here appeals to ‘hermeneutical consistency’ with his proposal rather than linguistic considerations surrounding what it means for there to ‘be’ light. From this base he goes on to say that God created time even though no word for time is used. At this point in the dictionary entry, Walton is in full theological mode. Accordingly, we cannot comment on why he thinks time is a ‘function’ or that day one is about the ‘cosmos’. This is just unsupported theological expansion and worthless.[3]