| 2. Linguistic Exegesis The conjunction hoste {ὥστε | hṓ-ste} ‘therefore, so then’ introduces a consequence drawn from the preceding argument about submission to rulers. The articular participle ho antitassomenos {ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος | ho an-ti-tas-só-me-nos} functions substantively as “the one who resists,” indicating an ongoing stance. The dative noun phrase tē exousia {τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ | tē ex-ou-sí-a} marks the indirect object of resistance. The appositional dative phrase tē tou theou diatage {τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ | tē toû the-oû di-a-ta-gḗ} specifies that the authority is God’s ordained order, with the genitive theou indicating divine source. The perfect verb anthesteken {ἀνθέστηκεν | an-thé-stē-ken} conveys a settled opposition. The plural article hoi with participle anthestekotes {οἱ δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες | hoi de an-the-stē-kó-tes} shifts the example to a general warning. The reflexive pronoun heautois {ἑαυτοῖς | he-au-toîs} emphasizes that the actors become recipients. Finally, krima {κρίμα | krí-ma} is the direct object of the future middle lempsontai {λήμψονται | lḗmp-son-tai}, underscoring that judgment returns on those who resist. |