the light ‘day,’
The term "day" (יוֹם, yom) in Hebrew is rich with meaning, often representing a period of time characterized by light. In the ancient Near Eastern context, light is frequently associated with life, goodness, and divine presence. By calling the light "day," God is not only defining a time period but also imbuing it with qualities of clarity, revelation, and activity. This sets a pattern for human understanding of time and work.

and the darkness He called ‘night.’
Darkness (חֹשֶׁךְ, choshek) in Hebrew often symbolizes mystery, the unknown, or even adversity. By naming the darkness "night," God delineates the boundaries of time and space, providing a rhythm to creation. Night, while often associated with rest and reflection, is also a time of preparation for the coming day. This duality of day and night reflects the balance and harmony in God’s creation.

And there was evening, and there was morning—
The phrase "evening and morning" (עֶרֶב וָבֹקֶר, erev vavoker) introduces the concept of a day beginning with evening, which is a distinctive feature of the Hebrew calendar. This sequence emphasizes the transition from darkness to light, symbolizing hope and renewal. It reflects the theological truth that God brings order out of chaos and light out of darkness, a theme that resonates throughout Scripture.

the first day
The "first day" (יוֹם אֶחָד, yom echad) marks the beginning of time as we understand it. The use of "echad" (one) not only denotes the ordinal number but also signifies unity and singularity. This foundational day sets the precedent for the rest of creation, underscoring the intentionality and purposefulness of God’s creative work. It invites believers to recognize the divine order and to trust in God’s perfect timing and plan.

And the evening and the morning.--Literally, And was an evening and was a morning day one, the definite article not being used till Genesis 1:31, when we have "day the sixth," which was also the last of the creative days.

The word "evening" means a mixture. It is no longer the opaque darkness of a world without light, but the intermingling of light and darkness (comp. Zechariah 14:6-7). This is followed by a "morning," that is, a breaking forth of light. Evening is placed first because there was a progress from a less to a greater brightness and order and beauty. The Jewish method of calculating the day from sunset to sunset was not the cause, but the result of this arrangement.

The first day.--A creative day is not a period of twenty-four hours, but an ?on, or period of indefinite duration, as the Bible itself teaches us. For in Genesis 2:4 the six days of this narrative are described as and summed up in one day, creation being there regarded, not in its successive stages, but as a whole. So by the common consent of commentators, the seventh day, or day of God's rest, is that age in which we are now living, and which will continue until the consummation of all things. So in Zechariah 14:7 the whole Gospel dispensation is called "one day;" and constantly in Hebrew, as probably in all languages, day is used in a very indefinite manner, as, for instance, in Deuteronomy 9:1. Those, however, who adopt the very probable suggestion of Kurtz, that the revelation of the manner of creation was made in a succession of representations or pictures displayed before the mental vision of the tranced seer, have no difficulties. He saw the dark gloom of evening pierced by the bright morning light: that was day one. Again, an evening cleft by the light, and he saw an opening space expanding itself around the world: that was day two. Again darkness and light, and on the surface of the earth he saw the waters rushing down into the seas: that was day three. And so on. What else could he call these periods but days? But as St. Augustine pointed out, there was no sun then, and "it is very difficult for us to imagine what sort of days these could be" (De Civ. Dei, xi. 6, 7). It must further be observed that this knowledge of the stages of creation could only have been given by revelation, and that the agreement of the Mosaic record with geology is so striking that there is no real difficulty in believing it to be inspired. The difficulties arise almost entirely from popular fallacies or the mistaken views of commentators. Geology has done noble service for religion in sweeping away the mean views of God's method of working which used formerly to prevail. We may add that among the Chaldeans a cosmic day was a period of 43,200 years, being the equivalent of the cycle of the procession of the equinoxes (Lenormant, Les Origines de l'Histoire, p. 233). . . .

(1) to mix;

(2) to set, to depart, like the sun)

and boker (literally, "the breaking forth," from bakar, to cleave, to open) in an active sense, and applying the former to the first fading of the light, and the latter to the breaking of the dawn after the first interval of darkness has passed, thus reckoning the creative days from daybreak to daybreak; while Murphy and Kalisch, who agree with him in regarding the days as ordinary solar days, declare they must be reckoned, Hebraico more, from sunset to sunset. But if the first day commenced with an evening or obscure period (Has ereb no connection with arab, to mix? May it not describe the condition of things when light and darkness were commingled?), that can be discovered only in the chaotic darkness out of which the light sprang. Hence, on the other hand, as it seems improbable that this was of no more than twelve hours' duration, and as the presumption is that the light-period would be commensurate in length, it has been argued that day one was not a sun-measured day, but a period of indefinite extent. Of course the length of day one practically determines the length of all the six. If it was a solar day, then they must be considered such. But as the present sidereal arrangements for the measurement of time were not then established, it is clearly gratuitous to proceed on the assumption that it was Hence, neither is it to be accepted without-demonstration that they were not likewise periods of prolonged duration. It is obvious they were if it was; and that it was appears to be suggested by the terms in which it is described. This conclusion, that the creation days were long periods, and not simply solar days, is confirmed by a variety of considerations. . . .

Parallel Commentaries ...