Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν ⸀Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν·

Ote de elthen rKephas eis Antiokheian, kata prosopon auto antesten, oti kategnosmenos en*

cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam in faciem ei restiti quia reprehensibilis erat

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.

But when Kaypha came to Antiakia, I rebuked him to his face because they were tripped up by him;

But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be condemned:

But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

When Cephas came to Antioch, I had to openly oppose him because he was completely wrong.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly wrong.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.

But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Now when Peter visited Antioch, I remonstrated with him to his face, because he had incurred just censure.

But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned.

But later, when Peter came to Antioch, I spoke against him. I told him clearly that he had done something wrong.

And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, because he was blameworthy,

But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to stand up against him because he was guilty.

And when Peter had come to Antioch, I opposed him to his face. For he was to be condemned.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, there was a problem. I got in his face and exposed him in front of everyone. He was clearly wrong.

But when Peter came to Antioch I had to oppose him publicly, speaking strongly against what he was doing, for it was very wrong.

However, when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.

But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I protested and opposed him to his face [concerning his conduct there], for he was blameable and stood condemned.

When Peter came to Antioch, I challenged him to his face, because he was wrong.

Later, when Peter came to Antioch, I had a face-to-face confrontation with him because he was clearly out of line. Here’s the situation. Earlier, before certain persons had come from James, Peter regularly ate with the non-Jews. But when that conservative group came from Jerusalem, he cautiously pulled back and put as much distance as he could manage between himself and his non-Jewish friends. That’s how fearful he was of the conservative Jewish clique that’s been pushing the old system of circumcision. Unfortunately, the rest of the Jews in the Antioch church joined in that hypocrisy so that even Barnabas was swept along in the charade.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly wrong.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;

And when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face. For he was worthy to be blamed.

But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I against-stood him in the face [I stood against him into the face], for he was worthy to be reproved.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I stood up to him face to face. He was in the wrong.

When Peter came to Antioch, I told him face to face that he was wrong.

But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Later, however, when Peter came to Antioch I had to oppose him publicly, for he was then plainly in the wrong. It happened like this. Until the arrival of some of James’ companions, he, Peter, was in the habit of eating his meals with the Gentiles. After they came, he withdrew and ate separately from the Gentiles—out of sheer fear of what the Jews might think. The other Jewish Christians carried out a similar piece of deception, and the force of their bad example was so great that even Barnabas was affected by it. But when I saw that this behaviour was a contradiction of the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter so that everyone could hear, “If you, who are a Jew, do not live like a Jew but like a Gentile, why on earth do you try to make Gentiles live like Jews?”

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood self-condemned,

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was wrong.

Now when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him face to face [about his conduct there], because he stood condemned [by his own actions].

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

[L But] When ·Peter [L Cephas; C Peter’s name in Aramaic; 1:18] came to Antioch, I challenged him to his face, because he ·was wrong [L stood condemned].

But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong—

But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

When Peter came to Antioch, I told him to his face that I was against what he was doing. He was clearly wrong.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Furthermore, when Kefa came to Antioch, I opposed him publicly, because he was clearly in the wrong.

One day Peter came to the city of Antioch. Then I had to tell him face to face that he had done wrong. He really was wrong!

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;

But when Kefa came to Antioch, I stood against him to his face, because there was found in him a dvar ashmah (a thing of guilt, condemnation).

When Cephas came to Antioch, I had to openly oppose him because he was completely wrong.

But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him face to face, because he stood condemned.

When Peter came to Antioch, he did something that was not right. I stood against him, because he was wrong.

When Peter came to Antioch, I was against him because he was wrong.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was condemned.

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face— because he was condemned.