Can you summarize part 1, question 3 of Summa Theologica?

In part 1, question 3 of Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas delves into God's simplicity. We must, he asserts, examine God's mode of being from the perspective of what it is not, for our human minds cannot grasp what it is.

In article 1, Aquinas asks, “Is God a body?” He answers this question to the negative: God is not a body. God is the “unmoved mover,” and bodies must be moved by something else; therefore, God is not a body. There is nothing in potentiality in God, yet bodies are always in potentiality; therefore, God is not a body. A body cannot be “the most noble of beings” because it is living by virtue of a soul, yet God is “the most noble of beings”; therefore, God is not a body. Aquinas responds to objectives to his assertion by explaining that Scripture uses “likenesses drawn from corporeal things” to teach “spiritual and divine things,” but this is only analogical. It does not mean that God is actually a body.

In article 2, Aquinas asks, “Is there a composition of form and matter in God?” His answer is that there is no matter in God. Matter has potentially, but God does not. Further, matter has goodness only through its form, but God is good in Himself and not by participation. Finally, God is the first agent and first efficient cause. He is pure form and not matter. Again, Scripture speaks of God in analogical terms when it suggests that God has matter. He does not.

In article 3, Aquinas asks, “Is God the same as His essence or nature?” He responds that God is indeed “the same as His essence or nature” because God does not have matter, and matter is what distinguishes between individuals and essence. God is simply “His own divinity” and “His own life.” Our minds have difficulty grasping this, so we speak in terms we can understand. Also, God's effects exhibit composition, but God does not.

In article 4, Aquinas asks, “Is God's essence the same as His esse?” He replies to the affirmative. God is the “first efficient cause” and is, therefore, the esse that causes all things. Further, there is no potentiality or participation in God, so His essence and esse must be the same. Sometimes terms like esse can be taken in two different ways, so we must be precise in how we apply it to God.

In article 5, Aquinas asks, “Is God in a genus?” He responds that God is not in a genus because being in a genus suggests something prior, and there is nothing prior to God. God is being, and being cannot be in a genus. Further, things in a genus differ in esse, and God's essence is the same as His esse.

In article 6, Aquinas asks, “Are there any accidents in God?” He replies that there are not, for accidents are only in subjects, and God is not a subject that is related to accidents by potentiality. There is no potentiality in God. He is His own esse. He simply is.

In article 7, Aquinas asks, “Is God altogether simple?” He answers that God is indeed “altogether simple.” There is no composition of form and matter in God. He is not a body. He is the first being and the first cause. He has no potentiality as composite things do. As such, He is perfectly simple, and this is a higher state than composition.

In article 8, Aquinas asks, “Does God enter into composition with other things?” He responds that God does not do so. God is the cause of all things; He can not also be an effect. He is also “first among beings” and acts primarily in Himself.

Summarize questions 53 and 59 in part 3 of Summa Theologica.

In Part 3, Question 53, of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas deals with four questions about Christ's Resurrection. In Article 1, he asks “Whether it was necessary for Christ to rise again?” He answers in the affirmative and provides five reasons: 1. God justly exalts those who humble themselves; 2. Christ rose for our instruction, for the Resurrection supports our faith in His divinity; 3. the Resurrection raises our hope for our own resurrection; 4. the Resurrection orders the lives of the faithful; and 5. the Resurrection completes the work of salvation.

In Article 2, Aquinas deals with the question of “Whether it was fitting for Christ to rise again on the third day?” He responds that it was, for the Resurrection is necessary to faith, the number three is the perfect number, and the Resurrection begins the third epoch. Aquinas replies to objections by pointing out Christ's power and explaining the difficulties about the third day.

In Article 3, Aquinas asks “Whether Christ was the first to rise from the dead?” He answers that He was and notes that Christ's is the perfect Resurrection. Others who rose from the dead would die again; Christ will not. Aquinas also deals with the difficulties surrounding the statement about the Jerusalem tombs opening after Jesus's death.

In Article 4, Aquinas proposes the question of “Whether Christ was the cause of His own Resurrection?” He responds that He was because His Godhead was not separated from either His soul or His flesh by death. Therefore, because of the power of His Godhead, He “rose by His own power.”

In Question 59, Aquinas turns his attention to Jesus's judiciary power. In Article 1, he asks “Is judiciary power to be attributed to Christ?” He answers that such is the case, for Christ has the necessary power, zeal, and wisdom and is actually Truth in Himself, and the Father appropriates special judiciary power to Him.

In Article 2, Aquinas queries “Whether judiciary power belongs to Christ as man?” Again, he answers in the affirmative, for God has given Christ such power “even in His human nature” as “Head of the entire Church” because of His “kinship with men,” because of the last judgment, and because those judged should be able to see their judge.

In Article 3, Aquinas poses the question of “Whether Christ acquired His judiciary power by His merits?” He responds that Christ has judiciary powers because of His divinity but also from merit out of divine justice.

In Article 4, Aquinas asks “Whether judiciary power belongs to Christ with respect to all human affairs?” It does indeed, he answers, for Christ's soul is “filled with the truth of the Word of God” and therefore “passes judgment upon all things.” Further, “all human affairs are ordered for the end of beatitude,” for salvation, so they are all subject to Christ's judgment.

In Article 5, Aquinas wonders “Whether after the Judgment that takes place in the present time, there remains yet another General Judgment?” Aquinas answers that there will be a Judgment on the last day.

Finally, in Article 6, Aquinas asks “Whether Christ's judiciary power extends to the angels?” He replies that it does, for the angels are subject to Christ's divine power.