380 David J. Armitage gories’(86). “Cause and effect” means “the coming to pass of one event is (will be, etc.) followed by the coming to pass of another” (87). “Ground and inference”, on the other hand, expresses a relationship in which the concept expressed in the protasis presupposes the concept expressed in the apodosis (88). “Equivalence” conveys a relationship in which the concept in the protasis is explicated or defined by that in the apodosis (89). The conditions in Gal 1,8-9 can only be defined as “cause and effect”, since the apodoses contain an element of will, in the imperative e[stw. Since the imperative does not grammaticalize assertion, but presents something as intrinsically potential, these apodoses cannot define something else, nor can they express a presupposition on which something else is based (90). It will not work logically to say that “let them be anathema” can be inferred from the fact that someone is preaching apostasy (91). Describing the conditions of Gal 1,8-9 as “cause and effect” is not entirely adequate, since the use of a third person imperative in the apodosis introduces a projected action which depends on the will of a third party. The link between apostate preaching and ajnavqema e[stw is therefore indirect. 4. Semantic interrelationship of conditional clauses The two conditional clauses in Gal 1,8-9 are separated by the statement wJ" proeirhvkamen kai; a[rti pavlin levgw. wJ" proeirhvkamen could refer back to the statement in v. 8, or to a prior occasion. Bruce proposes the former, on the grounds that the issue addressed by Paul in this letter would not have arisen at the time he was with them (92). Alternatively Betz suggests that prior use of the conditional curse (86) H.C. NUTTING, “The Modes of Conditional Thought”, AJP 24 (1903) 284. J. MILLER, Second Thoughts on First and Third Class Conditions: Some Exegetical Distinctions [online] http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1811 [accessed 8/3/06] (2004)) notes that these categories cut across the different classes of Greek condition. (87) NUTTING, “Modes”, 284. (88) NUTTING, “Modes”, 288. (89) NUTTING, “Modes”, 290. (90) Cf. NUTTING, “Modes”, 286, 287 n. 1, 289. (91) Such an inference could work (logically if not theologically) given an indicative apodosis; apostasy would then be a consequence of anathema, rather than vice versa. (92) BRUCE, Epistle, 84.