Kronman interprets Aristotle's First Cause pantheistically, as I'd be inclined to do too. The First Cause would be the general intelligibility of nature which philosophers approach when they recognize this profound fact. The "life" of this First Cause" is somehow identified with philosophers who actually think the profound thoughts. That's how Kronman interprets it, as I recall. Quoting Aristotle is hardly sufficient since it's a pretty obscure idea he has in mind. Evidently it can be interpreted in different ways.

In any case, Aristotle's First Cause isn't a supernatural person, but something like the set of Plato's Forms brought down to Earth as nature's starting point. They're not entirely immaterial since they have "magnetic" power to attract the multiplicity of natural beings. The First Cause is also the Final Cause, the purpose that everything strives for. But again, Aristotle was a naturalist, so however obscure this foundational intelligibility may be, it's a level of nature, as far as he's concerned, according to Kronman, at least.

The bottom line is that pantheism is a fairer reading of Aristotle's Final Cause than monotheism, given the naturalistic standpoint of Aristotle's whole philosophy. His "theology" needs to be read in the context of his whole philosophy.