Avicenna contends that God’s essence is active and receptive of intelligible forms and believes this to be an example of the principle of the unity of activity and receptivity in simple entities in relation to their implications. In this article, we firstly elucidate the principle. Then, by applying the principle to three different interpretations of the relation between God and the intelligible forms, we show that in each interpretation, a specific meaning of divine activity and receptivity should be taken for granted. God’s reception of the intelligible forms in Suhrawardī’s interpretation implies passive receptivity, while in Mulla Sadra it means qualification and in a third interpretation, it means inseparability from God’s essence. The unity of activity and receptivity in each interpretation has its own problems and implications. The first interpretation implies accumulation of action and reception in God’s essence. The second interpretation can be justified only if one presumes the unity and objectivity of intelligible forms and God’s essence as well as the unity of intellect and intelligible. Finally, in the third interpretation there is no reason to admit that God’s essence is receptive of intelligible forms.