An Exploration of Conditional Clause Exegesis with Reference to Galatians 1,8-9 The semantics of the different classes of Greek conditional clauses have long been controversial. They manifest subtle differences in mood and tense, areas of syntax which have themselves been the subject of debate. It has accordingly proved difficult to assign particular meanings to the different types of conditional clause. Young has even proposed that grammatical analysis cannot throw much light on what these clauses signify, and advocates a pragmatic approach based on Speech Act Theory (1). Conditional clauses are widespread in the New Testament (2), and are often of exegetical importance. Indeed, Wallace suggests that “it is no overstatement to say that some of the great themes of biblical theology cannot be properly understood apart from a correct understanding of conditions” (3). The aim of this article is to explore conditional clause exegesis with reference to the two conditional statements found in Galatians 1,8-9. These conditional clauses are striking in having identical apodoses, and substantial similarities in their protases. The protases also have noteworthy differences; most significantly v. 8 uses ejavn with a subjunctive verb, whereas v. 9 uses eij with an indicative verb. Given the similarities in content, these clauses provide an intriguing test case for theories that suppose particular differences between these two types of condition. The first section of this paper considers the syntax and semantics of conditional clauses in general, and explores the distinctions between first and third, and third and fourth class conditions. Secondly, the semantics of the conditional clauses in Gal 1,8-9 are examined, and the third section investigates the pragmatic function of these clauses from the standpoint of Speech Act Theory. Finally the implications for exegesis of conditional clauses, and the key implications for understanding Gal 1,8-9, are summarized. (1) R.A. YOUNG, “A Classification of Conditional Sentences Based on Speech Act Theory”, GTJ 10/1 (1989) 30. (2) See D.B. WALLACE , Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids 1996) 680. (3) WALLACE, Grammar, 680.