to hover: to hold a place in the air above something, wings working, without moving on
This verb appears only three times, and two of those describe motion in the air. One of them settles what the picture is. In the Song of Moses a great bird circles above its fledglings as they try their wings, staying with them instead of flying off. So the word does not mean simply to fly (עוּף), nor to dart and swoop (דָּאָה). It names the harder thing: holding position over one spot, wings beating steadily, going nowhere.
That picture carries power and attention at the same time. A bird that can hold itself above its young is working continuously to do so, and it is working for their sake, ready to catch them. When the same word is used of the Spirit of God above the waters at the very start of Genesis, it is therefore not an image of idleness. It is poised, watchful, expectant motion, and its whole weight comes from the bird over its nestlings.
This one word is also why Genesis 1:2 reads so differently from one English Bible to the next. Because the verb elsewhere describes a living winged creature and never moving air, readers who follow the word closely arrive at "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Readers who let the surrounding creation account lead instead take the phrase as a great wind and stretch the verb to cover air rushing across a surface. The disagreement is genuine, and it turns on how far this verb can reach.
Nuances
What מְרַחֶפֶת describes in Genesis 1:2, and therefore whether רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים is the Spirit of God hovering or a mighty wind sweeping over the water.
- majorityThe Spirit of God was hovering over the water. The only other Piel of the verb (Deuteronomy 32:11) is unambiguously a raptor over its young; the Ugaritic cognate rhp is used only of birds of prey and of a deity in bird flight; רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible means "wind of God"; and Hebrew has ready idioms for a great wind (רוּחַ גְּדוֹלָה, רוּחַ סְעָרָה) that are conspicuously not used here.; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part I: From Adam to Noah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 1:24-25; G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; 1987), 16-17; V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (NICOT; 1990), 111-115; B. K. Waltke and C. J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan, 2001), 60-61, 68; K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26 (NAC 1A; 1996), 135-137; T. Friedman, "וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם," Beth Mikra 25 (1980): 309-312; D. T. Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory (Eisenbrauns, 2005); M. DeRoche, "The rûaḥ ʾĕlōhîm in Gen 1:2c: Creation or Chaos?" in Ascribe to the Lord, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 303-318; D. W. Thomas, "A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew," VT 3 (1953): 209-224
- minorityA mighty wind, or a wind from God, was sweeping over the water, the verb being extended to the rapid movement of air. The arguments are contextual rather than lexical: the wider creation-combat background of the ancient Near East, the parallelism of the three clauses of verse 2, the absence of any further reference to the Spirit in Genesis 1, and the use of divine names as intensifiers.; H. M. Orlinsky, "The Plain Meaning of Ruaḥ in Gen 1:2," JQR 48 (1957/58): 174-182; E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; 1964), 3, 5; C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, trans. J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 106-108; J. D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil (Princeton, 1988/1994); J. M. P. Smith, "The Use of Divine Names as Superlatives," AJSL 45 (1928/29): 212-220
- minorityThe verb describes brooding incubation, a bird warming the primordial waters into fertility. Modern scholarship has largely abandoned this reading, since Deuteronomy 32:11 speaks of fledglings rather than eggs and the Ugaritic evidence points to circling flight rather than nest-warming.; Jerome, Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim, ad Gen 1:2 (PL 23:939); H. Gunkel, Genesis, HKAT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901)