Following from the models of chapters 1 and 3, most of the remaining chapters in part I are concerned with resolving the apparent anthropomorphisms in the Bible, or other verses which seem to point toward a corporeal God. For example, chapter 4 is concerned with the various places in the Bible where it seems as if someone “saw” God (e.g., Genesis XVIII 1, Exodus XXIV 10).

Maimonides is extremely thorough in his process of striking down every single anthropomorphism, and exhorts his readers not to confine themselves to those examples he treats explicitly.

When we treat in this work of any homonym, we do not desire you to confine yourself to that which is stated in that particular chapter; but we open for you a portal…

In chapter IX, Maimonides deals with Isaiah LXVI 1, “the heaven is my throne (kursi كرسي) \ and the earth is my foot-stool”. As may be expected, he is at pains to explain that the “throne” is a symbol for the power and dominion of God, and not to be taken literally, but he goes further.

… the throne denotes here the Essence and Greatness of God … these (Essence and Greatness) need not be considered as something separate from God himself or as part of the Creation, so that God would appear to have existed both without the throne and with the throne; such a belief would undoubdtedly be heretical (haza kufr bila shak هذا كفر بلا شك).

In this passage we see the beginnings of Maimonides’ doctrine that God’s attributes are “inseparable from His Being” (جلالة و عظمة التي ليست شيئا خارجا عن ذاته…).

God does not stand, God does not sit, God does not rise, etc…

In chapter XVIII, Maimonides deals with verses such as Psalms CXLV 18 (“The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him”; الرب قريب لكل الذين يدعونه) and Exodus XXIV 2 (“And Moses alone shall come near the Lord”; ويقترب موسى وحده الى الرب) to examine the question about what it means to be “near” or “close to” God.

For Exodus XXIV 2, Maimonides offers two options: either one can inrepret the approach to be a ‘spiritual approach’, or one can interpret it to mean that Moses approached some physical place on the mountain. Guarding against any notion of God having a physical ‘place’ in this world, however, Maimonides is quick to add:

provided you do not lose sight of the truth that there is no difference whether a person stand at the center of the earth or at the highest point of the ninth sphere, if this were possible; he is no further away from God in the one case, or nearer to Him in the other; those only approach Him who obtain a knowledge of Him; while those who reamin ignorant of Him recede from Him.

Thus, Maimonides does believe that there are degrees of closness and separation from God, but these degrees are strictly spiritual or intellectual, and the only axis along which we humans can approach God is along the axis of intellection. Moses, being the chief of the Prophets, came closest to achieving the qurb قرب of God, but this had nothing whatsoever to do with a spatial or physical nearness to God.

When speaking of the impossibility of God possessing motion in Chapter XXVI, Maimonides recalls the Talmudic saying that “The Torah speaks according to the language of man”, and remarks that since most people need tangible, material referrents with which to understand concepts, the Torah often uses figurative language to express the perfection of God; “whatever we regard as a state of perfection is attributed to God”. But according to Maimonides, “in relation to God, what we consdier to be state of perfection is in truth the highest degree of imperfection”. The argument here is that an ordinary person may associate lack of locomotion with ‘imperfection’, and for this reason the Torah, speaking in the language of man, hints at God possessing motion. However,

it has been clearly proved that everything which moves is corporeal and divisible; it will be shown below that God is incorporeal and that He can have no locomotion; nor can reset be ascribed to Him, for rest can only be applied to that which also moves.

Thus, we see Maimonides working slowly but surely toward a decisive statement about God’s incorporeality, but he doesn’t get ahead of himself (“it will be shown below”), and is content with getting there piece by piece, one anthropomorphism at a time.

Later, in chapter XXVIII, he goes a step further and states

the incorpreality of God is a demonstrative truth and an indispensable element in our faith … the primary object of every intelligent person must be to deny the corporeality of God (nafi altajsim ‘an Allah ta’aala نفي التجسيم عن الله تعالى).