Genesis 1:2 uses the phrase “וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת.” Since ruach in Hebrew can mean “wind,” “breath,” or “spirit,” what in the grammar, parallel passages, or ancient Near Eastern usage helps determine its meaning here?
Is there anything in the participle merachefet, or in the construct with Elohim, that suggests whether the verse describes a natural wind, a divine wind, or the Spirit of God?
Great observations and questions.
The Hebrew construct chain ruach Elohim grammatically conveys an of-relation, so the possible renderings are “wind of God,” “breath of God,” or “Spirit of God.”
In Genesis 1:2, the phrase is paired with the participle merachefet (‘hovering/fluttering’), which elsewhere (Deut. 32:11) conveys the deliberate, protective motion of a living agent (an eagle over its young), a usage that does not naturally fit impersonal wind or breath. However, at Jesus’ baptism, the Spirit is described as ‘descending’ and ‘remaining’ on Him like a dove (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), showing a deliberate, personal, and visible action that parallels the ‘hovering’ (merachefet) of the ruach Elohim in Genesis 1:2.
Although, the Holy Spirit may be portrayed or compared to wind and breath depending on context (Job 33:4; Acts 2:2), but the phrase "Spirit of God" is more distinctive and nuanced (Psalms 139:7). He is distinct from the Father and Son, yet perfectly unified in Will (John 14:16, 14:26). In John 14–16, the titles Helper/Advocate/Comforter (paraklētos) are grammatically masculine nouns normally used for personal agents, and Jesus pairs them with the masculine pronoun ekeinos (“He”), even though pneuma (“spirit”) is neuter. This grammatical shift seems to favor a personal referent rather than an impersonal force.
The New Testament may offer more clarity for Genesis 1:2, since it explicitly reveals the unified role of the Father and the Son in creation (1 Cor 8:6; John 1:1-3), a relationship not fully disclosed in the Genesis narrative itself. For instance, in Hebrews 9:14 the phrase “through the eternal Spirit” uses the construction dia + genitive, which in Hebrews regularly denotes the agency of a personal actor, not an impersonal force. This Spirit participates in Christ’s self-offering—an explicitly priestly act that requires intention, volition, and cooperative agency. Elsewhere in Hebrews the Holy Spirit is portrayed as speaking, testifying, and bearing witness (Heb 3:7; 10:15), features that consistently convey a personal subject rather than an impersonal influence. The adjective aiōnios (“eternal”) in 9:14 denotes without beginning, a quality applied to God alone, thereby identifying the Spirit as uncreated rather than temporal or derived. On grammatical, contextual, and lexical grounds, Hebrews treats the Spirit as a conscious divine agent, not merely “breath” or “energy.”
The Father was in the beginning (John 1:1), the Word was in the beginning (John 1:2), and the Spirit was in the beginning (Hebrews 9:14 — aiōnios, “eternal,” denotes timeless, uncreated, and enduring without end). Another way to express this could be: The Father is from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2; Hebrews 1:2). The Son, as the agent of creation and source of aiōnios life, is described as the ‘Everlasting Father’ or 'Father of Eternity' (Isaiah 9:1-2, 6; Matthew 4:14-16; Hebrews 1:2). The Spirit is eternal, uncreated, and active as the personal divine agent (Hebrews 9:14; Psalm 104:30).
So if the Spirit is eternal and uncreated (Heb 9:14), then the ruach Elohim “hovering” in Genesis 1:2 naturally aligns with the same personal divine agent active at creation (cf. Job 33:4; Ps 104:30; 1 Cor 2:10–11). Thus, the participle merachefet, contextual usage, and New Testament insight, together with grammatical considerations, all suggest translating ruach Elohim as “Spirit of God.” While some may reasonably differ depending on their interpretive framework, such caution is understandable.
I'd like to gently offer: if the ‘Spirit’ described in Hebrews 9:14 is eternal—without beginning or end—and the ruach Elohim in Genesis 1:2 is hovering over the waters, which translation makes the most sense grammatically and contextually: ‘wind of God,’ ‘breath of God,’ or ‘Spirit of God’? And if something truly eternal exists, would it not plausibly have been present at the very beginning—or would the Spirit more likely be omitted?
The verb רחף has connotations of physical movement, to brood, hover, or shake. Wind or breath would not exhibit such movements, but a spirit could potentially brood or hover (there seems to be bird imagery that is taken up again for the spirit of God in, for example, Jesus' baptism.)
This idea is beautifully expressed in the last line of Gerard Manley Hopkin's "God's Grandeur":
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.
