Q2. Public Confrontation

[tammie7]

Paul confronted Peter publicly because he was being a hypocrite.Yes I do and he did it again so he had to talk to him public.

It let them know about the circumcision.It help the Gentlie to understand that keeping the law do not get you saved.I think it put a lot on Paul because he had to talk to one of fellow leader in public about a problem that he was doing.

[Commissioned]

Q2. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately?

Paul confronted Peter because what he did was wrong and he wanted those who had witnessed it to know

that Peter's behavior was not te attitude of a Christian. The public rebuke was done because it needed to be

seen asan undesirable behavior.

Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously?

Paul may have spoken to Peter about this previously, as a friend, prior to making known publicly his aversion

to Paul's behavior.

How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians?

A public discussion of this benefitted the Jewish Christians because it brought to light a behavior that Christ

dying on the cross should have brought about a change in them. Letting go of traditions.

How did it benefit the Gentile Christians?

A public discussion of this benefitted the Gentile Christians as they now know the correct behavior that they

they themselves should emulate; that of loving all mankind and not judging them.

What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

Because Paul was taught the Gospel by Jesus Christ, he as not under any pressure when he told them of the

right thing to do. Paul's concern was seeing to it that all Christians was worthy of the call.

[Kerneydr]

Paul wasn't a coward he probably spoke to Peter about his hypocrisy. When he didn't repent Paul had to confront him before other and even to defend the gospel is for the gentiles according to the sacrifice of Jesus. To debate about this very hot topic in a public spectrum was helpful to all he was seeking a sound answer and Paul gave it to them. He argument was inspired, convincing, accepted and adopted.

[Jen]

Q2. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously? How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians? How did it benefit the Gentile Christians? What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

It needed to be seen by everyone there. The Judaizers needed to be debunked right then and there in their tracks and Peter should have done that. I don't think Paul was one to pussyfoot around.

Do I think Paul talked to Peter behind the scenes previously. Well judging from what I see in Peter's character I think he would have been suddenly sick and unable to attend the debunking ceremony if he had known.

It made the truth of the gospel plain and public. If anyone didn't like it that was their problem but the truth of the gospel was spelled out plain and clear.

It must have been a relief and gratifying thing to the Gentile Christians who were being pressured by the "cloutees" to conform to their rules so everything will be nicey nicey.

Let me put it this way. I know Paul did not like confrontation but the pressure on him than was better than the failure and accompanying quilt would have been if he had not acted as he did.

God Bless!

Jen

Romans15:13

[RileyDnwJ]

Q2a. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately?

Q2b. Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously?

Q2c. How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians?

Q2d. How did it benefit the Gentile Christians?

Q2e. What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

A2a. Because it was a public issue and the actions of the Peter and other Jews were influencing others - including Barnabas (v13) - and a public airing of the differences was required to settle the question or questions (primarily circumcision).

A2b. This had been addressed earlier in one form or another with Peter - see v11.

A2c. It was a reminder to them (and Gentiles familar with the law) of justification by faith vice justification by the law which was impossible (v15&16).

A2d. It removed the possilbity of 'required' circumcision and clairified justification comes by faith not the law (v15&16).

A2e. I don't know that it put any "pressure" on Paul as it gave him an opportunity to stress justificaiton by faith and the grace of God (v19-21).

[wilma m]

Q2. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously? How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians? How did it benefit the Gentile Christians? What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

We do not know from the text if Paul confronted Peter in private or not. He probably did- in Matt 18 it said if a person sin, you must talk to him in private and if he does not listen, then take one or two brethren with you and if he still continue in sin, make it public. Maybe that is what Paul was doing. I don't think for one moment that he wanted to embarrassed Peter or expose him in anyway, but he wanted Peter and especially the gentiles and the jewish believers to know that there is no favouritism with God, that Jesus died for all people and everybody who believes in Jesus are children of God. The Jews did not have a better standing before God because Jesus was born from them and because they have the law. I think his main reason was also that people should love each other as equals - that is what he wrote in 1 Kor 13 too, that peopls should love one another. In the new Way they should accept each other. If the Jews thought they were superior, they would not help the gentile christians in need and that way the gentiles might leave the faith. I think Paul did it in love for the church and most of all for his Love for Christ, yes, he did it boldly, he was not a coward but it was important for him that the truth be preach and that the leaders should be an example. He often said in his letters that they should follow his example so I think he was confident too.

[Old Jerry]

I think that Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately because he wanted his followers to know that he didn’t agree with what the men from James was saying. He wanted them to defend their opinion publicly so that they would have to explain it to those who did not believe them.

I think that Paul probably did talk to Peter about this but had been unsuccessful. Now the Jewish Christians could hear for themselves what this was all about and would be able to make an informed decision. And the same was true for the Gentile Christians.

I am sure that Paul check to make sure that he was right before confronting Peter on this.

[Jen<3]

* Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately?

I think Paul's confrontation publicly was necessary to be awakened to reach others too.

* Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously?

The Bible does not say one way or the other, but I think it's definitely possible that he talked with him in private first. On the other hand though, maybe not; this needed to be out in the open so all could hear and see, not just Peter.

* How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians?

They saw the truth in what Paul was saying about this subject. He made it more clear to them.

* How did it benefit the Gentile church?

It gave them a breath of relief in regards to the circumcision situation. Christ accepted them as they were!

* What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

This may of put extra pressure on Paul because here he was, the "new" apostle standing before all rebuking Peter, on of the "pillars" (Galatians 2:9).

[Bondservantmccue]

Q2. (Galatians 2:14)

Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? Living the life of a Christian, it is of great importance that you don't live above being rebuked. We all at times will want our way of thinking and doing things to be right. There is no one perfect except one. Confronting the issue opening is a great way to get the message across to many people at one time. Paul has assured everyone that he is under direct orders, not of man, but the only perfect Saviour of the world. When he says, “to his face,” Paul accuses the false apostles of slandering him behind his back. In his presence they dared not to open their mouths. He tells them, “I did not speak evil of Peter behind his back, but I withstood him frankly and openly.”

Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously? When he says, “to his face,” Paul accuses the false apostles of slandering him behind his back. In his presence they dared not to open their mouths. He tells them, “I did not speak evil of Peter behind his back, but I withstood him frankly and openly.”

How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians? As if the apostles had said to him: “We, Paul, do agree with you in all things. We are companions in doctrine. We have the same Gospel with this difference, that to you is committed the Gospel for the uncircumcised, while the Gospel for the circumcision is committed unto us. But this difference ought not to hinder our friendship, since we preach one and the same Gospel.”

How did it benefit the Gentile Christians? There is one Gospel for all, you cannot rely on just anything that people say. Paul was our connection to the Gospel being brought to us. Thank God.

What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul? It is marvelous how God preserved the Church by one single person. Paul alone stood up for the truth, for Barnabas, his companion, was lost to him, and Peter was against him. Sometimes one lone person can do more in a conference than the whole assembly.

[linda bass]

Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately because he thought peter's blatant hypocrisy was inexcusabe.

It's possible Paul had talked to Peter privately about this matter,but the influence of the others was probably too strong.

The public discussion benefitted the Jewish Christians by helping them know it was permissable to eat with gentile believers.

It benefitted the gentile believers by helping them know circumsion wasn't necessary for salvation.

This put pressure on Paul because he had to act like a kind of mediator between the two groups.

[JenniferLynn]

Paul probably tried to talk to him privately but Peter wasn't listening to him & the situation was getting worse instead of better. Yes he was probably using the policy of what Jesus said to do to solve the problem of the church. They would see that Peter wasn't above getting scolded when he was wrong. No one is so high up that he is unquestionable. The Gentile would be encouraged to know that they were just as important as the Jewish Christians. Paul was considered a traitor to the Christian because of his previous life. Paul thought of himself as abnormally born.

[Eudora]

Q2. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously? How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians? How did it benefit the Gentile Christians? What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

Now Paul begins to share with the folks in Galatia about a confrontation that he had had with Peter when Peter had traveled to Antioch where Paul and Barnabas had been preaching the word of the Lord. He explains the situation where he felt that Peter was out of line. Peter regularly ate with the non-Jews but when a group came from Jerusalem; he distanced himself from the non-Jews. The group that came from Jerusalem had been pushing a teaching that for one to come into salvation they must first be circumcised to become a Jew.

By doing this Peter was in a sense saying that there were two gods, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile, thereby breaking the law and Jesus had torn down that barrier. (Ephesians 2:14) Evidently, the rest of the Jews in Antioch had begun to join in this hypocrisy and even Paul’s close companion Barnabas had been led astray by this. We must not forget that it was ok to eat with the sinners. Peter must have known because Jesus was evidently seen eating with sinners because he was accused of this by the Pharisees and scribes.

Luke 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, "This Man receives sinners and eats with them."

Paul did not expect Peter to abandon his Jewish ness. It is hard for us in this age to understand how important it was to a Jew who follows the Torah by the letter of it. (Prior to the crucifixion) Maybe Peter did not want these Jews to ‘think’ that he had eaten un-kosher with the non-Jews. (Gentiles) One may or may not know this but 1/6^th of the ‘traditions of the elders‘, (the oral law passed down) which later became the written Talmud was devoted to keeping the purity of the law, so this might give us an indication of what may have been going through Peter’s mindset. Being with Gentiles would have been considered an un-pure violation. Maybe he just did not want to be picked on.

Paul knew and understood that Jesus makes the un-pure, completely pure and Peter may or may not have known this. Maybe these critical Jews intimidated Peter. Nevertheless, whatever the case may be, Paul felt that Peter was being un-true to the gospel, which he now preached and admonished Peter for not being true to what he (Peter) believed. Peter was considered one of the leading emissaries of the ecclesia at that time so he should have known, but we just do not know. Paul however did.

It is my opinion that these folks were the folks who insisted that Gentiles must become Jews before they could believe in Jesus. Instead of Judaizers, we could call them the circumcisers. LOL

This incident occurred supposedly two years after the Cornelius conversion so the idea of circumcision before belief to salvation unto the Messiah had not died down yet. Maybe just maybe it was a moment of weakness on Peter’s part. He is human. Paul was not so perfect either according to Acts chapter 23: 3-5. He lost his temper after the high priest ordered him slapped across the mouth. Paul was human too

.

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

It was important that Paul admonish Peter publically for one thing it was lawful and because Peter’s actions of separation had led Barnabas astray too. Even though he himself should have known better, Peter was considered a leader. Just so we are all clear here, it was not really Peter that Paul was trying to protect; it was the truth of the Good News that was the central part of this confrontation. Paul certainly was not boasting that he held some glory because he had admonished a fellow believer.

Deuteronomy 13:11 "So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you.

1st Timothy 5:20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

[jahjanrod321@live.com]

Q2. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately?

Paul scolded Peter publicly because He (Peter) had experienced a vision of God's acceptance of the Gentiles, preached the gospel in the house of Cornelius in Caesarea (Acts 10), and then, defended to the church in Jerusalem his action to baptize them on the grounds that the Holy Spirit had led him to do it (Acts 11).

Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously?

I do not think Paul had spoken to Peter about his mission to the Gentiles based on Galatian :1 in which Paul stated, that upon his conversion he commenced his Jesus Ordained Mission at once and did not meet with Peter until his third and fourteenth year, meeting with him on the former for 15 days. Had he discussed it, he would have restated that fact, knowing he did not mix matter with his mission.

How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians?

It broke down the barriers that had separated Jews and Gentiles and created a new unity in Christ, a unity that transcends the ethnic, cultural and social divisions in the world.

How did it benefit the Gentile Christians?

The Gentiles became regarded as equal members in the body and work of Christ.

What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

I think Paul was under severe pressure to respond to the false teachings made by the Jewish Christians to his new converts, because ultimately the failure of his mission would have led to most peoples' exclusion from salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

[Dew drenched]

Q2. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately?

I think Paul had to publicly confront Peter for a number of reasons. One reason was that this act, of Peter and Barnabas and the other Jews with them, was a public act and it affected not only Peter but all people involved. This included both Jews and the Gentiles at Antioch. Another reason was that Peter was seen and respected as a leader of the church and had the greater responsibility and greater influence on the church. What he said and did had a greater impact on the church and any error had to be dealt with quickly. This was an urgent matter that had to be brought before all people. Correction had to be made publicly for all the Church to be brought in line with the Truth of the Gospel.

If it was only dealing with a case of Peter's hypocracy it could have been a private matter. But this was a great error and heresey that was affecting the whole church and the truth of the gospel was at stake, therefore Paul had no choice but to openly expose the error. He did not simply have to address Peter's mistake. It was an error that invovled Peter, the other Jews, Barnabas, the Gentile church, the Judiasing preachers who came as sent out from James, and the whole of the christian faith.

Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously?

Paul had spent time with Peter in the past, probably going over what experience each other had as ministers of the Gospel. Paul would have shared what he preached as the gospel to the gentiles. They were in relationship and fellowship and recognized each other in Christ.

I don’t doubt that Paul spoke to Peter about the correction that had to be immediately dealt with, but I can’t be positive. This may be the result of him withstanding Peter to the face because his action condemned him, before he took it to the rest of the people.

How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians?

For the Jewish believers, they would be able to accept fellowship with the Gentiles as brethren and equals. The Jewish believers then could enjoy the freedom and liberty that Gentiles experienced through the truth of the Gospel. This was the fact that righteousness comes through faith in Christ. They themselves have never been able to keep the law. The law was a constant burden to them.

How did it benefit the Gentile Christians?

They knew that they were accepted as sons and fellow heirs of the promise in Christ alone by faith in him. They knew that they were in no way second class citizens to the Jews. They would not have to bow to the pressure of the Jewish leaders to be circumcised and come under the Jewish customs and practices to be accept by God.

What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

Paul needed to have courage to stand up to Peter who was so revered by believers in churches all over the area; i.e. the churches of Judea which were in Christ. He knew this might back fire on him and his authority.

There was also the pressure to stand up for what the truth is and what the pure, unadulterated Gospel of Christ and his work on the cross is.

He had to face the "certain men who came from James". He had to take them face on in Antioch and beyond. This was an added pressure as well.

The pressure that was strongest was the pressure from God to establish once again the truth of the Gospel.

[yankpee]

Q2(Galatians)Why do think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? I think he confronted Peter privately but the situation was the same, that's why he confronted him publicly in front of the Jews and Gentiles.------ B,Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this privately? ---I expect that he talked with him privately before coming out to say it. _C, How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish christians / and did it benefit the Gentile christians? - Yes it benefited both the Jewish and Gentiles. D, What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul? --some men came down from Judea to antioch and they were teaching that unless you circumcised you cannot be save, this pressured Paul to go jerusalem to confirm about his preaching.

[wifee]

2a)Paul knew Peter’s position meant his influence was strong,public debate greater witness of their commitment,meant not ignored.This would have helped Paul.

b)He might have already but Peter’s actions still reinforcing class system so went public

.c)Public debate prompted the Council of Jerusalem to clrearly declare Jewish Christians not required to be circumcised/ follow Mosaic food laws&could eat with Gentiles.

d)Galation Christians shown equal treatment by inclusive gospel of Christ with Jewish believers not forced to follow Mosaic law,reinforcing Paul’s position.Shown Paul also need to persevere even when rebuked.

e)Lots of pressure, no letter before Councils judgement gave him authority. Paul had to confront Peter and angered his opponents.

[GoRaysXD]

"Q2. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously? How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians? How did it benefit the Gentile Christians? What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?"

 

 

 

 

 Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? Paul was convicted that this issue needed to be brought to a head by confronting Peter in public it forced Peter and the other Jewish-Christian's to deal with this issue.

 

 

 

 Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously? Peter needed to be confronted publicly need to be put on the spot, Why? Because Peter as a Christian knew that God no longer recognized national difference's Peter had lived as a Gentile eating their foods etc. By his recent refusal to eat with Gentiles Peter was implying  that observance's of Jewish laws and custom's was necessary for holiness and that the Gentile believer's would have to live as Jews

 

 

How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians? The public discussion would help the Jewish-Christian's understand the gospel ministry and it's application to the Gentile's.

 

 

How did it benefit the Gentile Christians? It would help both sides understand each other bond as Christian brothers and sisters.

 

 

 

What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul? I think this situation freed Paul from any pressure and put the pressure on Peter and the other Jewish-Christians, they now had to openly address the issues between Jewish and Gentiles Christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Craig]

Q2. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously? How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians? How did it benefit the Gentile Christians? What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

 

Paul was convicted that this issue needed to be brought to a head because of Peter's outrageous hypocrispy.  By confronting Peter in public it forced Peter and the other Jewish Christians to deal with this hypocrisy.  Peter needed to be confronted publicly and needed to be put on the spot.  Why?  Because Peter, as a Christian, knew that God no longer recongized national differences.  Peter had lived as a Gentile, eating their foods, etc.  By his  recent refusal to eat with Gentiles, Peter was impying that observances of Jewish laws and customs was necessary for holiness, and that the Gentile believers would have to live as Jews.  This needed to be addressed and debated out in the open for all to hear.

 

The real issue was Jewish superority over the Christian Gentiles.  This had to be brought to an end.  Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of all men.  The public discussion would help the Jewish Christians understand the gospel ministry and its application to the Gentiles.  It would help both sides understand each other and bond them closer as Christian brothers and sisters.

 

 I think this situation freed Paul from any pressure and put the pressure on Peter and the other Jewish-Christians.  They now had to openly address the issues between Jewish and Gentile Christians.  

 

[RD35]

Open discussions are always good for any congregation.  These were differences that were affecting the whole body of Christ and where everyone was involved.  So Paul must have confronted Peter publicly.  Moreover Paul was very bold and was not ashamed when it came to Christ.

 

I am sure that he had privately tried to reason the whole situation out. But the influence of the "men from James" was too strong.

 

The Jewish Christians saw how God accepted the Gentiles and understood the saving grace of Jesus. Thus showing them that keeping rituals or obeying law could not save them. 

 

If he didn't publicly confront the situation, the mission to the Gentiles would shrivel up and die. It would be no different than it had always been.  The Gentiles benefited as they would not be treated as second class Christians anymore and knew that they could be saved by accepting Jesus as their Lord.

 

It was a risky thing for Paul.

 

 

[Thanking Joan]

Paul confronted Peter publicly as he had to bring out the truth in the open before men both Jews and Gentiles that Peter being a apostle and a minister of the Gospel was not doing right by practicing the law and rules made by Jews. Peter was preaching one thing and doing something else which needed a open rebuke.

Yes he would have tried speaking to Peter privately too.

A public discussion like this benefited the Jewish Christians because Paul declared the truth that no rules will help them gain salvation.It benefited Gentile Christians because they were made to feel at the same level like Jews and Paul showed to them God loves them as much he loves the Jews and Gods saves by grace and not law.

It must have been pressurising for Paul to come out in the open and confront Paul and also stand before the Jews telling them the truth.

[Gift]

It became necessary for Paul to resort to open confrontation, first of all because the word of God supports an action such as this in this manner. Proverbs 25:7.

 

Again, it seems Peter should have known better. Recall that before He departs, Jesus gave the Great Commission... Go and preach to all nations......This should quickly be understood that the Gospel to be preached has nothing to do with jewish culture and tradition. After all Jesus did not preach the same thing.

 

Also Peter was the one who saw in a vision how to minister the Gospel or the new Way to gentiles. Has he soon forgotten all these?

 

Another reason is that in dealing with the issues of eternity, there should be no room for compromise.

[JoanG]

I feel that Paul wanted to clear the air in front of witnesses. Peter already had a reputation to being a hypocrite. And Paul did not want to become a victim in Peter's game. I am really sure that Paul had talked to Peter before and knew just what he was like. The Gentile Christians came to realize just how much Paul did care for them. These believers were not going to be required to have their bodies altered against their wishes. They were able to keep their dignity. I think that Paul was not relieved because his ministry was safe and his work was not going to disappear within the Jewish faith.

[lighthouse2014]

Q2. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously? How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians? How did it benefit the Gentile Christians? What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

Paul had confronted Peter publicly rather than privately because he wanted to show Peter as well as the group from Jerusalem that they were wrong in trying to get the Gentiles to conform to jewish customs. Paul told them that Christians were not justified by the law but by faith in Jesus Christ.

I do not think Paul tried to confront Peter privately about imposing the Jewish custom of circumcision on the Gentiles. Plus Peter appeared to be afraid of the jewish cohort from Jerusalem. He had become unstable in his character, wishing not to be demeaned by group which was from James.

A public discussion of this benefit of living freely under the faith in Christ was important to the Jewish Christians, who were no longer under the law.

This discussion before the elders in Jerusalem was important to the Gentiles because the custom of circumcision would have discouraged them from coming to Christ if they needed to comply with Jewish customs, Gentiles were not under this custom to begin with.

This put a lot of pressure on Paul by the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem because he was not of the original 12 Apostles, but was later chosen by the Lord to be an Apostle to the gentiles.   

[Lionwolf]

Q2. (Galatians 2:14) Why do you think Paul confronted Peter publicly rather than privately? Do you expect Paul had talked with Peter about this previously? How did a public discussion of this benefit the Jewish Christians? How did it benefit the Gentile Christians? What kind of pressure do you think this put on Paul?

Putting this in the open left no margin for any misunderstanding. Everyone involved will be aware of the resolution of the issue. Paul may have discussed this with Peter privately but if he did there was no agreement. This benefited both the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians by showing the truth of Paul's ministry, faith over law. All Christians, Jewish and Gentile, are saved the same way. It was a beginning of the removal of barriers. Paul was now going to have to defend this position to the church in Jerusalem and the apostles. This was a critical point in the growth of the Church and Paul knew it was one that could determine the true future direction. 

[Annie343]

PAUL CONFRONTED PETER PUBLICLY RATHER THAN PRIVATELY: because the whole congregation was involved; it was a public event that could destroy and damage the Gentile Church; public scandal deserved a public rebuke; a severe blow to Christian fellowship; actions had started a domino effect with consequences; Paul had equal authority to admonish his wrong - Peter was walking an unrighteous path (harm and confusion to all); any degree of racial separation challenged the heart of the Gospel; felt compelled to rebuke Peter for him to not compromise based on how he would look by others

TALKED WITH PETER PREVIOUSLY: Yes, brought forth since regarded this as an insult to the  Gospel and the offense being serious and urgent; Peter influenced the other Jews; implying a difference  between Jews and Gentiles; that this was against God's revelation as witnessed by actions concerning Cornelius; made aware that this would be discussed in front of people and warned; the affect on others (to bring this out in the open and not secret) would be shown (what is right)

PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THIS BENEFIT THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS: defectors needed to hear of the truth that all men were accepted by God (equal); their actions and attitudes not consistent with salvation to all; Paul's actions were immediate and forceful; God's plan did not rest on keeping the law; they didn't need to take extreme action but the truth being affirmed; there was freedom in Christ; to reflect truth regardless of people; an illustration of acting out the truth would be evidenced (not relying on peer pressure to govern behavior)

BENEFIT THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS: that they weren't second-class believers and that the Jews were better than Gentiles; they needed to know it was not necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be saved; there would be no hurt feelings and confusion about the truth of the Gospel; there was conflict that had been resolved in a godly fashion

PRESSURE ON PAUL: he stood alone but boldly declared the truth even in being in the minority; felt the future of the Gospel should be explained and the Word not compromised; angry and frustrated