Paul confronted Peter because Peter, fearing the Jewish believers of the circumcision, withdrew from eating with Gentile believers at Antioch and was not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel.
In Galatians 2, Peter had been eating with Gentile believers, but when certain Jewish believers came from Jerusalem, he separated himself. Les Feldick says Peter still had the centuries-old Jewish separation mindset in his system. That is why Paul considered Peter blameworthy and opposed him face to face.
Galatians 2:11 — Records Paul's direct confrontation of Peter, the exact event this question asks about.
Galatians 2:11-13 tells how Paul withstood Peter to the face. Peter had been eating with the Gentiles, but when certain men came from James, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. Paul said Peter and the other Jews, even Barnabas, were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. In Galatians 2:14, Paul says he told Peter this before them all. Acts 11:2-3 shows the same mindset among Jewish believers in Jerusalem, who contended with Peter for going in to men uncircumcised and eating with them.
Les Feldick says the Galatians 2 confrontation happened because Peter could not get the law-keeping Jewish separation out of his system. For almost two thousand years, Israel had been told they were God's separated people, so it was hard for Peter to sit down and eat with Gentile believers in Antioch. When his fellow Jews came up from Jerusalem, Peter withdrew, and Paul called him on it. Les also explains that Peter, the good law-keeping Jew, had not really wanted to go to Cornelius, and even after that experience he did not begin a general Gentile ministry. Years later, Peter still admitted some things in Paul's writings were hard to understand, but he agreed Paul was on the right track.
According to Les Feldick, Peter had been fellowshipping with Gentile believers in Antioch, even to the point of sitting down and eating with them. When fellow Jews came up from Jerusalem, Paul said to Peter, 'You withdrew.' The Jewish believers at Jerusalem still had a law mentality and argued that a Jew could not eat with uncircumcised people. Peter's withdrawal was therefore a step back toward the law-based separation he had not fully left behind.
Les Feldick explains that Israel had been God's separated people for almost two thousand years, so it took time to get that out of their system. Peter was steeped in Judaism and legalism. Les even says Peter, the good law-keeping Jew, did not really want to go to Cornelius; God sovereignly forced that experience. After Cornelius, Peter went back to Jerusalem with no indication that his eyes had been opened to a general Gentile ministry. This background is why the Galatians 2 confrontation was real and not artificial.
Les Feldick shows from Acts 15 that Peter eventually came to Paul's defense. After much disputation over Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, Peter reminded the council that God had long ago chosen him to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Les says had Peter not come to Paul's defense, Christianity could have stopped in its tracks. Even so, Les notes that thirty years later Peter still found some things in Paul's writings hard to understand, but he agreed Paul was on the right track.
Why the Gospels Aren't for the Church — 2 Corinthians 5
the Church preaching and teaching is coming from the four Gospels. And they're missing the boat. Not that you ignore the Gospels. Oh, heaven forbid! I love to teach them. But you see, our basic doctrine for salvation, oh, now let me show you a verse in Peter. See that? That's the way I teach. I can't help that. Come back to Peter, I Peter, II Peter I mean, II Peter.
Peter's Withdrawal at Antioch
Les says the Galatians 2 confrontation happened because Peter could not get out of his system that he could sit down and eat with Gentile believers at Antioch; he withdrew when fellow Jews arrived.
Jerusalem Jews' Law Mentality
Les describes how Jewish believers contended with Peter for entering uncircumcised men's houses and eating with them, showing the law mentality Peter himself had to overcome.
Peter's Witness in Acts 15
Les points to Acts 15 as the place where Peter calls the situation what it really was, in the context of Paul's long ministry to the Gentiles.
Peter's Reluctance Toward Cornelius
Les explains Peter did not even want to go to Cornelius, and God sovereignly forced that experience, which later enabled Peter to defend Paul in Acts 15.
Peter's Gradual Change
Les notes Peter did not begin a general Gentile ministry after Cornelius; twelve years later at the Jerusalem council he defended Paul's Gentile work.
Peter's Lifelong Struggle with Legalism
Les says Peter was steeped in Judaism and legalism, and even thirty years later admitted Paul's writings contained things hard to understand, though he agreed Paul was on the right track.
Freedom From the Law Under Attack
Les explains the Jerusalem believers were shocked that Paul claimed Gentiles saved without keeping the law, and false brethren came to spy out the liberty from the law that Paul preached.
Galatians 2:11: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
This verse states plainly that Paul directly confronted Peter and considered him blameworthy.
Galatians 2:12: For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
This shows Peter's withdrawal from Gentile believers and his fear of the circumcision party.
Acts 11:3: Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
This reveals the Jerusalem believers' demand that Jews not eat with uncircumcised Gentiles.
Acts 15:7: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Peter's later defense of Paul's Gentile ministry at the Jerusalem council shows his change.
2 Peter 3:16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Peter's own admission that Paul's writings were hard to understand illustrates his continuing struggle.
Galatians 2:11 and 2:14 show that Paul withstood Peter to the face and spoke before them all. Les Feldick's teaching describes the withdrawal at Antioch as a real failure that needed direct correction.
No. Les Feldick says Peter could not get the old Jewish separation out of his system. He had fellowshipped with Gentiles at Antioch, but when Jewish believers arrived from Jerusalem, he withdrew because he still feared violating the law's separation.
Les notes from 2 Peter that Peter still found some things in Paul's epistles hard to understand, but he still agreed that Paul was on the right track.
Watch the Teaching: Why the Gospels Aren't for the Church — 2 Corinthians 5