Descriptors of God

Sources

There are certain corollaries which follow from the fourth derivative dogma, freedom from defects, whether we understand it in the philosophical or in the theological sense mentioned in the second chapter of this Book. One of these corollaries is that if we ascribe to God one of the applicable attributes, whether it be negative or positive, the attribute in question must be understood as being infinite in two respects, in time and in worth. For example, since we have shown that God is eternal and perpetual, i. e…

Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 2 25:1-3

We have seen that there are two kinds of attributes by which God is characterized, attributes which describe Himself and attributes which are derived from His activities. In each of these classes there are attributes in respect to which it is perfectly clear that they describe God in respect to His activities or that they describe Himself, as the case may be. Thus the attributes, “Merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness,” are obviously drawn from God’s activities, while such attributes as “one” and “eternal” clearly describe God Himself, and, as we have seen…

Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 2 24:1-4

An attribute by which a thing is characterized is not the essence of the thing characterized, but something attaching to the essence. For an attribute must be either something essential or something accidental. If it is something essential, as when we say man is rational animal, it is not an attribute added to the essence, but it is like saying man is man, for man is nothing else except animality and rationality. It is merely an explanation of the name, since [by hypothesis] the attribute is the essence of the thing characterized and not something pertaining to the essence…

Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 2 9:1-4

ON attributes; remarks more recondite than the preceding. It is known that existence is an accident appertaining to all things, and therefore an element superadded to their essence. This must evidently be the case as regards everything the existence of which is due to some cause: its existence is an element superadded to its essence. But as regards a being whose existence is not due to any cause—God alone is that being, for His existence, as we have said, is absolute—existence and essence are perfectly identical…

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 57:1-2

Now every attribute ascribed to any subject has in it two aspects. One aspect is that of the perfection inherent in the attribute. The other is the defect which supervenes as a result of the attribute. Accordingly the attribute is, so to speak, composed mentally of two elements, one being a perfection, the other a defect. Thus if we attribute wisdom to a subject, the attribute is in itself a mark of perfection in the subject. But on the other hand, from the fact that it is acquired by the subject and accidental in him, there results a defect in the subject…

Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 2 21:4-6

All the philosophers think that it is impossible to ascribe to God any attribute, essential or accidental, which expresses God Himself, but only those which are expressive of His acts, as we explained in chapter nine of this Book. The theological authorities who follow the view of the philosophers are of the same opinion. Thus Maimonides says that he who maintains that God has essential attributes, which yet do not induce plurality in His essence, is unconsciously combining the affirmative and the negative…

Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 2 22:1

For it is a self-evident truth that the attribute is not inherent in the object to which it is ascribed, but it is superadded to its essence, and is consequently an accident; if the attribute denoted the essence [τὸ τῒ ἦν εἶναι] of the object, it would be either mere tautology, as if, e.g., one would say “man is man,” or the explanation of a name, as, e.g., “man is a speaking animal”; for the words “speaking animal” include the true essence of man, and there is no third element besides life and speech in the definition of man…

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 51:3

Those attributes which are ascribed to God and are not based upon His acts, like one, eternal, true, and so on, can not, according to the philosophic view, be ascribed to Him except in a negative way, as we have explained in relation to the attributes one and eternal. The same thing applies to the attribute true. The meaning of this attribute is, as we shall see, one whose existence does not depend upon anything not himself. But these attributes can not be applied to God in a positive sense, because those attributes which are predicated of God as He is in Himself, if taken in a positive sense…

Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 2 23:1-10

But if his opinion is that for [the following] was it placed into the nature of things on the six days of creation that they would change - not because the Holy One, blessed be He, is not able to do what He wants; but rather his opinion was that it is because God, may He be blessed, made the world complete, and 'there is nothing new under the sun,' that God, may He be blessed, make a new creature in the world [- such a view would be acceptable]. For [a diversion from this order in the world] is not appropriate, as it would be considered the destruction of the world along with its preservation…

Derekh Chayyim 5:6:6-7

It has already been proved demonstratively that God is neither body nor a force residing in body. It follows that we must deny God all bodily accidents and corporeal affections. It is necessary therefore to give a reason for the expressions found in all the Prophets that God is jealous, wrathful, vengeful and bearing grudge. Thus Nahum says, “The Lord is a jealous and avenging God. The Lord avengeth and is full of wrath, The Lord taketh vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies.” All these descriptions denote corporeal affections…

Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 2 14:1-3

Some words denote good solely and absolutely, and do not denote evil at all. Some denote evil absolutely, and in no way denote good, while there are certain words that denote for the most part good, but in some aspect denote also evil, and vice versa. Those which denote good only, like “upright,” “faithful,” “merciful,” “gracious,” and so on, may be applied to God and used in praying to Him. Those which denote absolute evil, like “wicked,” “wrong doer,” “robber,” “doer of violence,” and so on, may not be ascribed to God, much less be used in prayer…

Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 4 23:1-2

THE ACTIVE ATTRIBUTES
The active attributes of G-d are those which we speak of the Creator with reference to His works. It is possible, when speaking of them, to associate Him with some of His creations. We were permitted, however, to ascribe these attributes to Him because of the forced necessity to acquaint ourselves with, and realize His existence, in order that we assume on ourselves the duty of His service. We have already found that the Torah and the books of the Prophets extensively use these active attributes, as also in the Psalms of prophets and saints…

Duties of the Heart, First Treatise on Unity 10:24-26

If, however, you have a desire to rise to a higher state, viz., that of reflection, and truly to hold the conviction that God is One and possesses true unity, without admitting plurality or divisibility in any sense whatever, you must understand that God has no essential attribute in any form or in any sense whatever, and that the rejection of corporeality implies the rejection of essential attributes.

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 50:2

And the Sages certainly did not have in mind - not in this mishnah and not in the words of the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 5:5) - that God, may He be blessed, placed into the creation on the six days of creation that a miracle would occur at its time because this would [otherwise] be a change of [God's] will. For these things do not have a basis or foundation at all. As how can we explain this mishnah - given that behold, it said, "Ten things were created at twilight": For why were these miracles not done like the other miracles that He placed into the nature of things when He created them…

Derekh Chayyim 5:6:4

I SHALL explain to you, when speaking on the attributes of God, in what sense we can say that a particular thing pleases Him, or excites His anger and His wrath, and in reference to certain persons that God was pleased with them, was angry with them, or was in wrath against them. This is not the subject of the present chapter; I intend to explain in it what I am now going to say.

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 36:1

There may thus be a man who after having earnestly devoted many years to the pursuit of one science, and to the true understanding of its principles, till he is fully convinced of its truths, has obtained as the sole result of this study the conviction that a certain quality must be negatived in reference to God, and the capacity of demonstrating that it is impossible to apply it to Him. Superficial thinkers will have no proof for this, will doubtfully ask, Is that thing existing in the Creator, or not? And those who are deprived of sight will positively ascribe it to God…

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 59:2

The Holy One, blessed be He, recognizes His truth and knows it as it is. He does not know with a knowledge which is external to Him in the way that we know, for ourselves and our knowledge are not one. Rather, the Creator, may He be blessed, He, His knowledge, and His life are one from all sides and corners, in all manners of unity.
Were He to live as life is [usually conceived], or know with a knowledge that is external from Him, there would be many gods, Him, His life, and His knowledge. The matter is not so. Rather, He is one from all sides and corners, in all manners of unity…

Mishneh Torah, Foundations of the Torah 2:10

You, no doubt, know the Talmudical saying, which includes in itself all the various kinds of interpretation connected with our subject. It runs thus: “The Torah speaks according to the language of man,” that is to say, expressions, which can easily be comprehended and understood by all, are applied to the Creator. Hence the description of God by attributes implying corporeality, in order to express His existence: because the multitude of people do not easily conceive existence unless in connection with a body, and that which is not a body nor connected with a body has for them no existence.

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 26:1

but that difference does not necessitate any difference as regards Him from whom the acts proceed. This fact, viz., that from one agency different effects may result, although that agency has not free will, and much more so if it has free will, I will illustrate by an instance taken from our own sphere. Fire melts certain things and makes others hard, it boils and burns, it bleaches and blackens. If we described the fire as bleaching, blackening, burning, boiling, hardening and melting, we should be correct, and yet he who does not know the nature of fire…

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 53:2-3

If we find such provision in inferior animals, how much more reasonable is it that He should provide for the noblest species, and order its affairs in accord with its higher character in an adequate manner so as to enable it to attain its perfection. If we look more carefully into this matter we shall find that the divine influence by which those things are ordered which the human species needs for the attainment of the perfection for which it is destined, is more essential than many things which we see in the formation of the lower animals…

Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 1 6:2

Relatedראו גם

Form

Phrasing of Scripture

Sheetsדפי מקורות

Related Sheets