There might be another way of looking at this.
Was it that Peter didn’t know? Or was it, shall we say, priorities? In other words, Peter wasn’t confused; his mind was simply set on, “I got to get this message to my fellow Israelites first.”
Even Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles says as much about this priority. Romans 1:16 (NASB2020)
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for
salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the
Greek.
Why “to the Jew first”?
I believe it was because the Jews had the historical and textual context within which to understand who Jesus was, what he accomplished, and what people were to do in response. They could effectively carry the message. Jesus did exactly this on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24:27: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”
Notice what happened in Acts 2. The “fellow Israelites” (Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, "Israelite Men"), being fully Jews, weren’t just Jews. They were Jews from all over the place, who spoke many different languages. Why would God, through Peter’s message in Acts 2, start the Church by directly addressing explicitly defined Jews? It was to get the message, as a Jewish, non-Pagan, person would understand it, out to an entire world of people. It’s not like every Tom, Dick, and Janie Gentile had a Bible on their coffee table. They were ignorant. There was a lot of foundational information that had to be laid, across an entire world.
And God had and has chosen to do that through interpersonal relationships characterized by good communication. [Sidebar: I’m fully aware of the Holy Spirit’s involvement here; successful messaging of the Gospel with integrity is impossible otherwise. But, from the evidence of what actually occurred—what can be seen—it appears that the Holy Spirit’s normal mode of operation is to work through people to other people. That requires communication and it requires healthy relationships. That should make sense since there’s nothing that more loudly proclaims the truth of the Gospel than healthy relationships. See: John 17:23, “I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and You loved them, just as You loved Me.”]
I’ve often marvelled at what that text says: The goal of Jesus’ prayer is that the world comes to know that God sent Jesus as the Christ. And it comes to that knowledge by the visible expression of maturity it sees in the Church.
Acts 3:24-26 speaks to this, too. This is Peter speaking.
“Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have
foretold these days. And you are heirs of the prophets and of the
covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your
offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ When God raised up
his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of
you from your wicked ways.”
Notice the phrases:
- “all the prophets” That is, the references to the Scriptures
- “through your [Abraham’s] offspring” That is, the Jews.
- “all the peoples” That is, the Gentiles
- “will be blessed” Which blessing is then defined by “turning.”
- “first to you” There was an assumed, chronological priority.
So, first part of an answer to the OP is that the Gospel was to go to the Jew first. And so, “first-ness” implies a length of time within which the Gospel would not, in any significant way, be presented to the “second-ness” group of the Gentiles. And Peter knew this chronological priority.
The second part of the answer is to take stock of how the narrative proceeds to chapter 10. If we proceed along with the story Luke is telling [and I use the term ‘story’ to emphasize the fact of a narrative, and not to question the historicity in any way], we’ll see an ever increasing move from a Jewish core to the fusion of Gentiles into the community. Gentile incorporation is not immediate, but step-wise. So, it’s not only Peter that seems to hold-back; it’s the narrative as God writes it in history. So, “first-ness” and “second-ness” implies a time span in between. We see this transition in the narrative.
In Acts 5, we basically have God saying to people, in a very in-your-face, stern way with Ananias and Sapphira, “Pick a side; no middle-road allowed at this juncture of expansion of the infant Church”. While this would have a dampening affect on the non-committed, it presents a fully engaged God. It’s like the 1,000 pound Gorilla is now clearly in the room backing up those who are committed. That is, align with God, and you align with a God that is fully engaged. Acts 6, then, paints a bit of a contrast via a complaint. But, the picture is that of an expansion from Jew to Gentile. A dispute erupts among two parties: the Hellenistic Jews and the native ones: Acts 6:1, “a complaint developed on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews,” (γογγυσμὸς τῶν Ἑλληνιστῶν πρὸς τοὺς Ἑβραίους. There’s πρός, the “face to face” preposition.) Interestingly, the solution is to form a committee, presumably from the entire group, with an odd number of people (majority rules). And “Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch” is explicitly called out as a proselyte. That is, he was not “of Abraham’s seed”. A Gentile, albeit a God-fearer, has risen to a position of authority within the Church. Prochorus and Parmenas also look like Greek names to me, so these are very likely men selected from the Hellenistic side of the dispute. This is a wise choice and recognized as such by the entire body. And it highlights the transition that is coming about.
Also, Acts 6 and 7 has people who are solidly Jews, “Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia,” stoning one of the believers, Stephen, a person who preaches from the Old Testament text. Paul, as Saul, an extremely devout Jew, is introduced to the narrative. What’s going on here? Answer: A very significant, trauma inducing conflict is placed into the story: Devout Jews are fighting against devout Jews (the later being Christian) who, in turn, appear as a group to be expanding into the Gentile world. Death, as a martyr, occurs. I say, “trauma inducing” because very basic, foundational, value systems are being very strongly fractured, even destroyed. This is the type of place where people don’t know who they are. I think of Hebrews 12:25-29. The world is shaking. Transition is happening.
Acts 8 paints the picture of further expansion. Notice that it’s Samaritan related, the half-breeds with a millennium of antagonistic history (this history started with Jeroboam and the dividing of the Kingdom). These people are transitional people; they’re half way in between. Acts 8 also refers to an Ethiopian who had influence at a high level of Gentile rule (“an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). Half-breeds and high ranking, but God-fearing, Gentiles are entering the Church.
Acts 9 presents the conversion of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul, though not yet ‘Paul’, is introduced. This rhetorical element is called ‘interlocking’. An author introduces something, but holds off immediately exploring the subject, going back to the topic at hand. It’s a rhetorical hint. The rhetorical element interlocks with what will be brought up later without disconnecting from the former topic. Peter is then brought back into the story with the conversions of two more, rather Gentile-like, people. What this means is that Luke is now closing out a major part of his narrative which will then transition to a new, interlocked, topic (which will be the ministry of Paul).
So, if Luke is closing out a major topic, Acts 10 (actually, Acts 10:1-11:18) is a critical part of the book of Acts. Linguists call this type of section “a narrative climax.”
What’s interesting here is the structure of the Acts 10 text. It’s God telling a parable sandwiched in between the introduction of Cornelius and the conversion of Cornelius. So, the parable is a core element of this story within the story. And, it’s a core within a climax! Gentiles have now been declared clean, by God speaking, not so much to Peter, as to the entire Church at that specific time.
To draw this to a point: I think the main purpose of Acts 10:1-11:18 is to summarize the Gentile expansion and to transition to a focus on Paul who is the Apostle to the Gentiles. It’s like going through a narrative doorway. We’re changing rooms, more like a lobby that transitions from outside the house to the living part of the house. Notice what 11:18, the end of this section, says:
When they [the circumcised believers] heard this [the Cornelius
story], they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So
then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
The “circumcised believers” are pointed to in Acts 11:2, διεκρίνοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς. I can’t develop this here, but I’ll note that again, we have the “face-to-face” preposition πρός, the sense of “two sides of a discussion” in διακρίνω, and the idea that people came out of something very Jewish that can’t be changed, περιτομή (Circumcision). The ἐκ (out of) is why the NASB2020 adds the word ‘believers’ to the single word περιτομή in the Greek.
On the other side of this narrative doorway is the full blown spread of the Gospel throughout the Gentile world. It was to be first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. And we’re now, in Acts 11:19 and following, in the second part of that sentence—"then to the Gentiles".
So, if you step back and view the entire panorama of the narrative to this point, Acts 10-11:18 takes on the sense of God, Himself, stepping in and saying,
“Now! There’s no more holding back. There’s now no reasonable
objection to the complete advancement of the Kingdom into the Gentile
world! My army is in place. All people are clean! Advance!!!”
The bugle has sounded.
So, I don’t think Peter didn’t know. I think the focus of the story is on stepping into an entirely new world. The old world has been shaken, is cracking, is failing. All things have become new.