I think "void, and without form" might also better translate to something closer to "lifeless and featureless", than "without form or substance", which seems redundant.
Form and substance are philosophical terms, and they are definitely not "redundant." Aristotle identifies the form of a thing with its physical manifestation; its substance is its "essence," which in Platonic philosophical and Christian terms indicates a participation in divine being.
The idea behind this is the idea that all existent things are only such to the extent that they are participants in divine being. This is a two-way street: From God to physical existents (man), and from physical existents (man) to God.
Isaac Newton actually had a very interesting idea about a sort of mediating field that he called sensorium Dei that might serve as a bridge between physical nature and its source in divine Being, enabling "the Lord of Life" to be "with His creatures."
And then again, we have the proposal of a universal zero-point field -- at least such has been suggested -- out of which photons just spontaneously erupt, do their thing, and are "annihilated." Now photons are very special little buggers. :^) They are the particulate nature of light, as in "Let there be Light."
To say more would probably be gratuitous, especially since I sense a discussion like this wouldn't be your favorite cup of tea. If I'm wrong about that, please do come back!
Meanwhile, thanks for letting me rant.
And thank you so much for writing, tacticalogic!