571) Did Maimonides believe the universe was created or eternal?

 

"Three Philosophical Approaches" by Professor Avi Harel

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the research by my friend and mentor, Professor Avi Harel—discusses one of the most perplexing questions of Maimonidean scholarship: Did Maimonides believe the universe was created or eternal? Was the universe created by God at a point in history, or did it always exist? The question itself is astonishing for any religious thinker because belief in the creation of the universe seems to be a natural theological consequence of believing in God’s existence. Importantly, even the Torah opens with (two accounts) of the creation narrative. Yet Maimonides engages very seriously with this question of creation or eternity in his Moreh Nevuchim (Guide of the Perplexed). 

The Maimonidean conundrum

According to Harel (my translation from the Hebrew): 

“The controversy over whether the world was created or always existed is one of the most serious and difficult philosophical and theological problems to resolve” (Harel 2026). 

What follows is an attempt at positioning Maimonides—based on his writings in the Guide—within this great debate. No other theological inquiry has so much at stake because, firstly, the eternity of the universe negates the sensus literatus of the Torah text; and secondly, it challenges the common notion that God (as sovereign and all- powerful) is the creator of the universe. 

The views of Plato and Aristotele

Plato, who was Aristotle’s teacher, suggests that matter is eternal, but the world was “shaped.” Aristotle, on the other hand, argues for the eternity of the universe. He rejects the notion of creation ex nihilo (from nothing) and maintains that time, matter, and motion always existed. In this sense, the universe is eternal together with the eternal Prime Mover (God), with no beginning and no end. The cosmos may change with time, but matter in its essence never enters into, or exits from, existence. Aristotle creates a fundamental and apparently irreconcilable tension between logical consistency (where nothing can come from nothing) and theological necessity (which demands an omnipotent Divine). 

The Maimonidean view from the Guide of the Perplexed

As mentioned, Maimonides actively engages with the Aristotelian view on the eternity of the universe, but there are conflicting views on how he reacts to it. One of the most fiercely debated issues in Jewish philosophy is how to interpret Maimonides. Essentially, the question is: Does Maimonides accept or reject Aristotle’s concept of the eternity of the universe? (Harel 2026). 

A literal reading of many sections in the Guide seems to suggest Maimonides’ rejection of Aristotle on this matter. In the Guide, Maimonides strongly notes that Aristotle was never able to prove eternity: 

“My purpose…is to make it clear that Aristotle possesses no demonstration for the world being eternal…Aristotle himself did not claim to have a demonstration in this question…Can Aristotle have been ignorant of the difference between mere arguments and demonstrations?” (Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, II:15, [Pines, 289, 90, 91]). 

Thus, according to a plain reading of Maimonides, Aristotle’s view on the eternity of the universe remains plausible but not conclusive. 

Fascinatingly, Maimonides also notes that the Islamic rationalists, the Mutakallimun,[1] write in their Kalam that there are proofs for both the creation and the “newness of the world.” However, Maimonides strongly disagrees with those alleged proofs of creation: 

“I say then with regard to all that is affirmed by those Mutakallimun who think that they have demonstrated the newness of the world, that I approve of nothing in those proofs and that I do not deceive myself by designating methods productive of errors as demonstrations…those proofs are not valid” (Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, II:15, [Pines, 293]). 

And then in the next sentence, Maimonides also challenges Aristotle’s failure to provide convincing arguments or proofs in favour of eternity: 

“Similarly all that Aristotle and his followers have set forth in the way of proof of the eternity of the world does not constitute in my opinion a cogent demonstration, but rather arguments subject to grave doubts” (Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, Ibid.). 

Maimonides, therefore, suggests that for these reasons, since neither the Kalam nor Aristotle offer sufficiently compelling proofs for creation or eternity respectively, one has no other option but to defer to the Torah which teaches of creation. Yet even this support for creation, Maimonides phrases in the negative: 

“What I myself desire to make clear is that the world’s being created in time, according to the opinion of our Law [Torah]…is not impossible” (Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, Ibid.). 

Maimonides’ stated rejection of eternity in favour of (some form of) creation is buttressed later in the Guide, where he tends towards Plato’s ‘plasticity’ of creation theory over Aristotle’s eternity theory. Interestingly, he makes it clear that his apparent rejection of the eternity theory is not based on the ‘authority’ of the literal meaning of verses in the Torah. In other words, he is not one to take everything in the Torah as literal. He reminds us that he has often opted for the allegorical over the literal interpretation of Torah verses. For example, he opposes any anthropomorphic descriptions (giving God human attributes, such as expressions like God “spoke”) which are common in the Torah. He says that he could just as easily have applied this principle to the creation story and made it allegorical, but he chose to interpret it as an actual creation narrative: 

“Know that our shunning the affirmation of the eternity of the world is not due to a [creation] a text figuring in the Torah…For we could [easily] interpret them as figurative, as we have done when denying His corporeality [and anthropomorphic physicality]…[And if we wanted to] we should be very well able to give a figurative interpretation of those [creation] texts and to affirm as true the eternity of the world” (Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, II:25, [Pines, 327-8]). 

But Maimonides writes that he does not go for the allegorical option when interpreting the creation story, for the fundamental reason that it radically undermines and uproots our common understanding of Torah and does not allow for the possibility of miracles: 

“[It] destroys the Law [Torah] in its principle, [and] necessarily gives…lie to every miracle” (Ibid. [Pines, 328]). 

Instead, Maimonides chooses the creation theory of Plato over Aristotle, where the universe can be ‘shaped’ rather than ‘created,’ which makes space for miracles: 

“[T]he opinion of Plato—according to which the heavens too are subject to generation and corruption [by being ‘shaped’], this opinion would not destroy the foundations of the Law [Torah] and would be followed not by the lie being given to miracles” (Ibid. [Pines, 328]). 

A reappraisal of the stated ‘Maimonidean view’

I have quoted extensively from Maimonides’ Guide to show his apparent unquestionable view as he put it down in writing. However, as mentioned on numerous occasions before, Maimonides is probably the most elusive of all Jewish writers, and for the past eight hundred years his readers have been grappling with how to understand him because he wrote (by his own admission) in codes and for entirely different audiences. He intentionally differentiated between what he dared not say to the simple “ignorant masses” and more ethereal and philosophic ideas that he could share with the “intellectual elite.” 

But sometimes, even his “intellectual elites” also had to be shielded from his radical thinking. Along these very lines, Harel  acknowledges that: 

“Maimonides tries in The Guide of the Perplexed to defend the biblical position that the world was created… He tries with all his strength to prove the doctrine of creation, but he does not have a decisive and demonstrative proof of it. Therefore, according to [a.] his classical interpreters and [b.] the later interpretations of many scholars, Maimonides leaned toward the opinion of the eternity of the world [emphasis mine]” (Harel 2026). 

Some of these sources are enumerated below and can also be found in Harel’s book, Shalosh Negiot Philosofiot (2012: 216-224). He goes on to say that the assumption and acceptance of the creation narrative—over Aristotle’s theory of eternity (or even Plato’s theory of reshaping)—is regarded by Maimonides as the only safe pedagogical and educational option, as it does not undermine the biblical narrative. 

“Superficially, according to the Guide, Maimonides seems to agree with the doctrine of creation, and thus the great debate of eternity over creation should be resolved—but this is not the case. Maimonides’ position is that God undergoes no change, and despite his [open] critiques of Aristotelian physics, he was and remained an Aristotelian philosopher… But since Maimonides was not only a philosopher but also a religious leader and pedagogue, he presents the discussion of creation versus eternity in such a way that each person may decide according to his or her own understanding [emphasis mine]” (Harel 2026).  

Harel supports this thesis by noting the astonishing phenomenon that: 

רֹב הַמְּפָרְשִׁים טָעֲנוּ כִּי עָשָׂה זֹאת כְּדֵי לְהַסְתִּיר אֶת דַּעְתּוֹ הָאֲמִתִּית שֶׁהָעוֹלָם קַדְמוֹן

“The majority of [Maimonidean] commentators maintain that [Maimonides publicly supported the creation narrative over the Aristotelian view of eternity]  in order to hide his genuinely personal view that the world [was not created but, instead] existed eternally” (Harel 2026). 

If Harel is correct that: a) the “majority of [classical Maimonidean] commentators;” and b) the “classical interpreters and the later interpretations of many scholars” all maintain that Maimonides personally believed in eternity over creation—then we have here a fascinating example of a Maimonidean theology seemingly in epic tension with the Torah text and most of subsequent rabbinic tradition.

 

Bibliography 

Goodman, L,E., 1990, ‘Three meanings of the Idea  of Creation,’ in God and Creation: An Ecumenical, International Symposium, Edited by David B. Burrell and Bernard McGinn, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana, 85-113.

Hoffman D., 1993, ‘In Between Creating and Created Things: Maimonides’ Concept of the Creation,’ in La storia della filosofia ebraica (The History of Jewish Philosophy), Edited by Irene Kajon, Padova, 81-97.

Hyman, A., 1987, Maimonides on Creation and Emanation, Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Washington D.C., 45-61.

אבי הראל, 2012, שלוש נגיעות פילוסופיות, רבי סעדיה גאון , הרמב"ם , רבי לוי בן גרשון, ראובני ספרי צמרת

אבי הראל: חידוש העולם או קדמותו. שתי הערות מתודולוגיות של הרמב"ם

Online source:

אבי הראל: חידוש העולם או קדמותו. שתי הערות מתודולוגיות של הרמב"ם – ייצור ידע

Retrieved 8 October 2026 (Hebrew).

דינסטאג, י.י., תשנ״ד, בריאת העולם במשנת הרמב״ם ביבליוגרפיה, דעת 33/32, 247־267

נהונאי, מ.צ, 1996, כיצד הרמב״ם ניסח את השקפתו על הבריאה, דעת, 37, 119־126

נוריאל. א., תשכ״ד, חידוש העולם או קדמותו על פי הרמב״ם, תרביץ, ל״ג, 372־387

עברי, א., תשמ״ח־תש״ן,בריאת עולם לפי הרמב״ם, ספר היובל לשלמה פינס, ירושלים, חלק ב', 115־137

קליין־ברסלבי, ש., תשל״ח, פירוש הרמב״ם לסיפור בריאת העולם, ירושלים

קליין־ברסלבי, ש., תשמ״ו, פירוש הרמב״ם לפועל ברא ושאלת חידוש העול״ם, דעת, 16, 39־55

רביצקי, י., תשכ״ו, חידוש או קדמות העולם בתורת הרמב״ם, תביץ, ל״ה, 333־348

רביצקי, י., תשכ״ו, ספר המטורולוגיה לאריסתו ודרכי הפרשנות המיימונית למעשה בראשית, ספר היובל לשלמה פינס, חלק ב׳, ירושלים, תשמ״ח־תש״ן,225־250

---

[1] “Mutakalimun” refers generally to Islamic theologians who practiced Kalam (dialectical theology) using rationalist argumentation. The “Mutazilah” were one specific school within Kalam. The others were the “Asharites,” and “Māturīdiyyah.”