Does The Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-20 Contradict Acts?

Skeptics like to argue that the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 contradicts Acts because the church in Acts apparently didn't know that the Gospel was meant to go out to all the Gentile world. That's ridiculous since Acts was written by Luke and as a companion to his Gospel where he clearly teaches Jesus intended and taught His disciples that the Gospel was eventually to go out to the Gentiles/Goyim. All four canonical Gospel teach that. Regarding the Lukan corpus, see Luke 2:32 which quotes the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a "light to the Gentiles". Something which is taught in many Old Testament prophecies regarding how the Messiah would affect/touch the Gentile world. Even to the point of converting them to the knowledge of the true God of Israel. Michael L. Brown is considered by most to be foremost Messianic Jewish Apologist who deals with apologetics in relation to the Jewish people. In his lectures and books he repeatedly exegetes the Old Testament on how it prophecies that the Messiah would be the Savior of the world. See for example his lecture series on Youtube titled, "Answering Your Toughest Questions with Dr. Michael Brown".

However, another way to resolve the problem is by pointing out that the Greek word "nations" in Matt. 28:19 is ambiguous given its Jewish use by Jesus. The word can mean 1. to all the Gentile world, OR 2. "all the tribes of the land". J. Stuart Russell points this out in his book The Parousia:

 It is usual to regard this commission as if it were addressed to the whole Christian Church in all ages. No doubt it is allowable to infer from these words the perpetual obligation resting upon all Christians in all times, to propagate the Gospel among all nations ; but it is important to consider the words in their proper and original reference. It is Christ's commission to His chosen messengers, designating them to their evangelistic work, and assuring them of His constant presence and protection. It has a special application to the apostles which it cannot have to any others. We have already adverted to the fact that the disciples, to whom this charge was given, do not seem to have understood it as directing them to extend their evangelistic labours beyond the bounds of Palestine, or to preach the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles indiscriminately. It is certain that they did not immediately, nor yet for years, act upon this commission in its largest sense ; nor does it seem probable that they would ever have done so without an express revelation. As Dr. Burton has shown, no less than fifteen years elapsed between the conversion of St. Paul and his first apostolic journey to preach among the Gentiles. "Nor is there any evidence that during that period the other apostles passed the confines of Judaea." (4) There is much probability therefore in the opinion that the language of the apostolic commission did not convey to their minds the same idea that it does to us, and that, as we have already seen, the phrase 'all the nations ' [pa,nta ta. e[qnj] is really equivalent to 'all the tribes of the land.' [source]

While I lean toward partial preterism, I don't fully agree with Russell's statement here. Russell's book is more preteristic than partial preterism, but not as exhaustive as full preterism. The main point I cite this passage is to point out that the church may not have fully grasped the meaning and implications of Jesus' statement regarding the "nations" in Matt. 28:19. Only upon later reflection did they see and realized that He intended the Gospel to be preached to all Gentiles. But their biases and racial/ethnic and religious prejudices might have prevented them from grasping that fuller meaning for a time. One would have to read more fully Russell's book to appreciate the weight of this point about "nations" meaning "all the tribes of the land".  Even the quote I cited alludes to his previous comments on the topic earlier in his book. For example HERE.

Also where he write:

(2) There is great probability in the opinion that the phrase ' all the nations ' is equivalent to 'all the tribes of the land' (Matt. xxiv. 30). There is no impropriety in designating the tribes as nations. The promise of God to Abraham was that he should be the father of many nations (Gen. xvii. 5; Rom. iv. 17, 18).

     In our Lord's time it was usual to speak of the inhabitants of Palestine as consisting of several nations. Josephus speaks of ' the nation of the Samaritans,' 'the nation of the Batanaeans,' ' the nation of the Galileans,'-- using the very word (etnoj) which we find in the passage before us. Judea, was a distinct nation, often with a king of its own; so also was Samaria; and so with Idumea, Galilee, Paraea, Batanea, Trachonitis, Ituraea, Abilene,-- all of which had at different times princes with the title of Ethnarch, a name which signifies the ruler of a nation. It is doing no violence, then, to the language to understand (pa,nta ta. e;nh ) as referring, to 'all the nations' of Palestine, or ' all the tribes of the land.'

(3) This view receives strong confirmation from the fact that the same phrase in the apostolic commission (Matt. xxviii.19), 'Go and teach all the nations,' does not seem to have been understood by the disciples as referring to the whole population of the globe, or to any nations beyond Palestine. It is commonly supposed that the apostles knew that they had received a charge to evangelise the world. If they did know it, they were culpably remiss in not acting upon it. But it is presumable that the words of our Lord (lid not convey any such idea to their mind. The learned Professor Burton observes : "It was not until fourteen years after our Lord's ascension that St. Paul travelled -for the first time, and preached the gospel to the Gentiles. Nor is there any evidence that during that period the other apostles passed the confines of Judea.' (1)

     The fact seems to be that the language of the apostolic commission did not convey to the minds of the apostles any such ecumenical ideas. Nothing more astonished them than the discovery that 'God had granted to the Gentiles also repentance unto life' (Acts xi. 18). When St. Peter was challenged for going in 'to men uncircumcised, and eating with them,' it does not appear that he vindicated his conduct by an appeal to the terms of the apostolic commission. If the phrase ' all the nations' had been understood by the disciples in its literal and most comprehensive sense, it is difficult to imagine bow they could have failed to recognise ,it once the universal character of the gospel, and their commission to preach it alike to Jew and Gentile. It required a distinct revelation from heaven to overcome the Jewish prejudices of the apostles, and to make known to them the mystery 'that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ by the gospel ' (Ephes. iii. 6).

     In view of these considerations we hold it reasonable and warrantable to give the phrase ' all the nations' a restricted signification, and to limit it to the nations of Palestine. In this sense it harmonises well with the words of our Lord, " Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come' (Matt. x. 23). [source]

Regarding Jesus' Human Origins

As a Trinitarian I believe in Jesus' preexistence prior to His conception and birth. This blogpost deals with questions regarding Jesus human origins. Many atheists and skeptics question things like whether Jesus was really born in Bethlehem or whether there was a place called Nazareth during the time Jesus is said to have lived. I'll add links and resources as I find them regarding these types of issues.

Did Nazareth Exist? by Bart Ehrman

Was Jesus from Nazareth or was he from Bethlehem? by Craig Keener

Who Killed Goliath? A Question of Source Criticism

The following is my response to a common set of objections about the story of David that I repeatedly notice in Facebook groups. In purple is the set of objections. My response is below in black.

Who Killed Goliath? A Question of Source Criticism:

David and Goliath is a well-known story. The general storyline is simple. David is a "youth" who is untrained in warfare (v 33, 42). The giant Goliath comes out to challenge someone to fight him. David takes the challenge, hits Goliath square in the head with a stone, kills him, and then decapitates him.
However, as it often is with the Bible, things aren't that simple. It appears this story is a doublet: one of two stories about David's rise to be in Saul's court. The other is in 1 Samuel 16.

In 1 Samuel 16, David is brought in to play the harp for Saul. David is introduced to Saul and is described as "a man of valor, a man of war," (v. 17) and is later taken into Saul's service as his armor bearer. Saul "loved him greatly." (v. 21-22)
But then in 1 Samuel 17, David is a youth and not a warrior at all. Even more confusing, why is David not at war with Saul as his armor bearer? Worse yet, why would Saul ask "whose son is this youth," "Inquire whose son the boy is," and "whose son are you, young man?" (v. 55-58) Didn't he know David? Apparently not.
Perhaps one could argue this was in reverse, 1 Samuel 17 was actually a story from BEFORE 1 Samuel 16. But this wouldn't make sense either. David became Saul's son in law and a leader in his kingdom! (v. 25, 18:17-19)
These two stories are in complete conflict.
But complicating things further, there's another Biblical claimant to be Goliath's killer!
2 Samuel 21:19 "...Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam."
So who killed Goliath? Chronicles tried to cover this up by saying Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath, but that's a clear textual interpolation from a text AFTER the Exile... At least 500 years after David.
This is a classic case of source criticism. Whoever was compiling the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) was working with multiple sources that were combined. They're even named in various parts. This causes minor or even major discrepancies like this, and it helps us better understand the composition of the Bible.

1. While I believe in Biblical Inerrancy, the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on Inerrancy. Christianity could still be true even if there were minor errors in the Bible.

2. Regarding 2 Sam. 21:19 the text is corrupted. Textual corruption is not inconsistent with the historical doctrine of Inerrancy. Notice the parallel passage in 1 Chron. 20:5. I'll post them next to each other. First Chron. 20:5 preserves the datum that Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath, and not Goliath himself.   

And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.- 2 Sam. 21:19

And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.- 1 Chron. 20:5

Here's what some commentaries say:

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

//where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite; the word "brother" is rightly supplied from 1 Chronicles 20:5; where his name is said to be Lahmi, for not Goliath himself was slain, though some so interpret it, and take Elhanan to be David; so Jarchi, and with which agrees the Targum; but he was slain not at Gob, but in the valley of Elah, nor had David any such name as Elhanan; he was one of David's worthies, 2 Samuel 23:24; where he is called the son of Dodo, and in 1 Chronicles 20:5, the son of Jair; and Lahmi there may not be the name of Goliath's brother, but, as here, the country name of Elhanan; for the words (z) there may be rendered,"and Elhanan the son of Jair, the Lehemite (i.e. the Bethlehemite), slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite,''and so perfectly agrees, with this:

the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam; not of Goliath's brother, but of Goliath himself, 1 Samuel 17:7.//

Adam Clarke's Commentary states:

//Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim - slew - Goliath the Gittite - Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1 Chronicles 20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: "Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam." This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that ארגים oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that בית הלחמי beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from את לחמי eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, etc.//

3. //So who killed Goliath? Chronicles tried to cover this up by saying Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath, but that's a clear textual interpolation from a text AFTER the Exile... At least 500 years after David.//

How do you know it's a "clear textual interpolation"? What's the evidence?

4. //David and Goliath is a well-known story. The general storyline is simple. David is a "youth" who is untrained in warfare (v 33, 42). //

It's not clear that 1 Sam. 17:33, 42 states that David is not a warrior. That's an unnecessary inference. The verses merely contrast David's youth with Goliath's status as a seasoned warrior. Moreover, if you take 1 Sam. 16:18 literally, then David was "a man of valor, a man of war" [i.e. a warrior]. Though, it's possible that 1 Sam. 16:18 was hyperbole on the part of Saul's servant who spoke and not literal (e.g. referring to David's courage/bravery).

5. //and is later taken into Saul's service as his armor bearer. Saul "loved him greatly." (v. 21-22)//

//Worse yet, why would Saul ask "whose son is this youth," "Inquire whose son the boy is," and "whose son are you, young man?" (v. 55-58) Didn't he know David? Apparently not.//

21 And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer.22 And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight."- 1 Sam. 16:21-22

Saul as King would have had multiple servants, musicians and armor-bearers. You wouldn't expect a King [or a modern day president or prime minister] to know all his assistants/servants by name and intimately. When it says Saul loved David greatly, it might merely mean that he enjoyed David's music and service so much that he instructed one of his servants to notify Jesse that the King wanted to take David into his service for a while. None of that requires Saul to have known David personally and intimately.

An added fact that can help explain Saul's lack of recognition is that David was growing. A boy without a beard will look vastly different once he starts maturing and developing a masculine physique and facial hair. Even hair color can change with age.

6. //Even more confusing, why is David not at war with Saul as his armor bearer? //

David's service as one of Saul's armor-bearers may have been temporary.

7. //Perhaps one could argue this was in reverse, 1 Samuel 17 was actually a story from BEFORE 1 Samuel 16. But this wouldn't make sense either. David became Saul's son in law and a leader in his kingdom! (v. 25, 18:17-19)//

That the story in 1 Sam. 17 may have occurred before 1 Sam. 16 is a legitimate possibility. Not all of the Biblical stories are chronologically recorded. So, that would solve some of the difficulties that were brought up earlier. That the stories may be chronologically reversed was something I was going to bring up earlier, but I figured it would be easier to address the apparent contradictions directly as if chapter 16 & 17 were chronological. It's argued that they couldn't be reversed because David became Saul's son-in-law. But David didn't IMMEDIATELY become Saul's son in law and a leader in his kingdom. That must be assumed in order to maintain the apparent contradiction. Reading chapter 18 (the next chapter) shows that David didn't immediately rise to prominence to rival Saul. It was a relatively quick ascendancy, but it still took time.

InspiringPhiliosophy's YouTube Bible Playlists

InspiringPhilosophy is a terrific Christian apologetics YouTube channel. The following are links to playlists that deal with the Bible:


Alleged Bible Errors Refuted:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luH581hVdXw&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVnj0QVWnMTMzmpvuFqCpIv


Bible Contradictions Refuted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWq3fVQuSuA&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXRZs52bpnVfiPM9TD_Ukfo


The Reliability of the New Testament:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rml5Cif01g4&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY


Was Jesus a Copycat Savior?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FR08QtvapM&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVOYpPpjYhTUHXycJrY6P2I


The Resurrection of Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ErnJF_nwBk&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B

Resurrection Debate and Bible Contradictions

I just watched a debate between Christian apologist Jonathan McLatchie and atheist Jim Majors. Below is a link to the video along with my solutions to some of the alleged contradictions and discrepancies that Majors brought up. I've copied my YouTube comments and pasted them below.  In some instances explanation won't be necessary. Other times I'll either write an explanatory comment, or I'll supplement my YouTube comments with words in brackets so that those who haven't watched the debate can understand the context of my original comments.

https://youtu.be/f2a2U8Bkt8Y

 Was Jesus Unanimously Condemned to Death Or Not? I created a separate blogpost on this topic:

 Was Jesus Unanimously Condemned to Death Or Not?

Majors claims that Paul likely lied and made up his claim about 500 witnesses of seeing Jesus after His resurrection.

- Paul claiming 500 witness in the 1st century would be foolish because such a large number could easily be confirmed/disconfirmed. Such a number to might be used to trick us 2000 years later if Paul were trying to start a false religion he wanted to last for millenia, but he wasn't thinking in such long terms. He was writing to contemporaries who could easily call him out on his lies by a simple investigation.

- The discrepancies of the martyrdom of Peter and James [in the historical records] does nothing to undermine [the reality of] their martyrdom. Witnesses of the Titanic disagreed as to whether it sank whole or whether it split in two before sinking. But that doesn't call into question the general fact that the Titanic sank.

-Why would it be absolutely unthinkable that Joseph (Joe) and Nicodemus (Nick) would willingly defile themselves [by taking Jesus' body off the cross] and so keep them from participating in the week long feast of Unleavened Bread? Out of piety and and love toward Jesus they could. Especially if they took to heart Jesus' teachings on showing mercy and healing on the Sabbath. Besides, Joe, being rich, may have had others do the actual physical work to keep him and Nick from becoming ritually unclean. Joe and Nick may have had Gentile servants who didn't care about ritual purity. John 19:1 says, "Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him." It's understood that Pilate didn't personally do so, but had others do the flogging at his command. Likewise, why assume that Joe and Nick took Jesus down from the cross personally?

Is there a contradiction between Acts and Luke regarding the taking down of Jesus body?

-Acts 13:29ff. doesn't need to mention Joseph of Arimathea, since the same author mentions him in Luke 23:50ff. GLuke and Acts are volumes 1 & 2 by Luke.

-Why would the Gospel authors give different numbers of women? Because they may be highlighting some women whom they knew were there, while at the same time not mentioning the exact full number of women because they might not have known. Also, there was likely multiple visits to the tomb that morning. And some women might have arrived earlier and later than some others. It's difficult to coordinate such a meeting if they started out from different homes. There's no indication that they all met at a different location first before they all went to the tomb simultaneously together. There might have been multiple visits EVEN AFTER reports had come that Jesus' body was missing and rumors that men who were possibly angels claimed He rose from the dead.

-Why would the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus when Jesus was already anointed? Because Jesus was buried in haste before the rapidly approaching Sabbath and the job was likely unfinished.

-Regarding the prophecy that "he made his grave with the wicked", there are many ways that could have been fulfilled. See commentaries on Isa. 53:9. For example, Benson Commentary states:

//...[It] does not denote the sameness of place, as if he should be buried in the same grave with other malefactors, but the sameness of condition. But the words may be rendered, A grave was appointed for him with the wicked; but he was with the rich at his death. Or, as Bishop Lowth reads it, His grave was appointed with the wicked; but with the rich man was his tomb. See his notes. “As our Lord was crucified between two thieves, it was doubtless intended he should be buried with them. ‘Thus his grave was appointed with the wicked;’ but Joseph of Arimathea came and asked for his body, and Pilate, convinced that he had committed no crime, readily granted Joseph’s request. Thus ‘he was with the rich at his death,’ that is, till his resurrection: and this took place contrary to the intention of his enemies....."//

-How did Paul recognize it was Jesus who appeared to him? McLatchie rightly points out that the apparition identified himself. But also, it's not impossible that Paul might have seen Jesus during His earthly ministry. Paul was from Tarsus, but as a faithful Jew he would have come to Jerusalem for various annual Holy Days. Since Jesus' ministry likely lasted about 3 years, it's not unlikely that Paul saw Jesus preach out of curiosity during one of those visits to Jerusalem. That might even be hinted at in 2 Cor. 5:16.

-It's not absolutely unthinkable that Pilate would make an exception in the case of Jesus for allowing His body to be taken down. If he was superstitious, then he might have taken seriously his wife's words sent to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream" (Matt. 27:19). IF Jesus really is the Son of God, then He would likely have had a presence and personality that was unique such that Pilate might see in Jesus something different and special. And that He might actually be innocent. If the story of Pilate washing his hands from the situation is true (Matt. 27:24), then that would lend credence to the possibility that he did have an unusual sense about Jesus. Notice that Matt. 27:24 is very close to Matt. 27:19. Remember that Jesus was crucified not on Roman instigation, but Jewish instigation. He was more of a threat to the Jewish leaders than to Roman rule over that area.

-Jim Majors points out that Jesus' scourging was unusually elaborate and cruel and uses that as a reason to think Pilate wouldn't want to allow Jesus' body taken down and buried. But the very reason why it was unusually cruel was likely because Pilate ordered it because he was likely trying to so brutalize Jesus that he hoped the Jewish leaders would see the horror of what they were doing to that innocent man (Jesus), feel remorse, and so change their minds about having him crucified. Crucifixion would be the point of no return and lead to Jesus' certain death. I suspect in Pilate's mind he thought that if the leaders changed their minds, Jesus might have survived the scourging. He hoped the leaders would be satisfied with the "pound of flesh" [nod to Shakespeare] literally taken from Jesus' body and allowed Him to live since He learned a lesson about opposing their authority. Since they didn't change their minds, the only way to show some mercy to that innocent man was for him (Pilate) to allow Jesus to be taken down and buried. All that in addition to what Jonathan McLatchie said makes a lot of sense.

- Regarding the issue of whether those with Paul saw, heard and understood the voice of Jesus on the road to Damascus, this is an old tired contradiction that has been refuted countless times in books and websites. The Greek words used in the relevant passages don't necessitate a contradiction.

//"Literally, that clause in 22:9 may be translated, “They did not hear the sound.” The NIV correctly translates the verse, because the verb “to hear” with the genitive case may mean “to hear a sound” and with the accusative case “to hear with understanding.” The genitive case is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9)."//1
1. Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press Publications, 1985.

//Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice” is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, “they heard not the voice,” the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived."//2
2. Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1981.

-Is there a contradiction between Matthew and Acts regarding how Judas died? There are various ways of resolving the apparent contradiction. It turned out that the way I prefer to reconcile the two accounts has been thought of by others as well. See this video here: https://youtu.be/Ado78pyEGIs

[Link to my blogpost on this topic here: The Death of Judas Iscariot a Contradiction?]

Basically, when Matt. 27:5 states Judas "hanged himself" it's a figure of speech to refer to committing suicide (by whatever means). This is especially fitting because of the story in the Old Testament where one of King David's trusted advisor's (Ahithophel) who had betrayed him eventually killed himself by hanging once it was evident that the side he joined himself to would lose to David's side. So, in order to save himself from humiliating indignities (and possible torture?), he got his affairs in order and then committed suicide by (literally) hanging himself. In essence, Matthew is saying that Judas got what he deserved as a traitor just as the traitor Ahithophel did by suffering the same fate.

Jim Majors uses Benny Hinn and the things that go on in his meetings as an analogy as to how people could begin to believe false experiences.

-Regarding "Benny Hinn's magic jacket" there are various possibilities. Jim Majors presupposes non-supernaturalism. If the supernatural is real, then it could be demons or God (or both at different times) who are actually causing people to be "slain in the Spirit". Another possibility is that sometimes the "slayings" might be due to some psychological phenomenon that has to do with group and peer pressure. Something similar to what Majors might be claiming. However, consciously or subconsciously submitting to being "slain in the Spirit" doesn't have as much a cost as being killed for one's faith as some of the disciples and Apostles were. In the latter case, one will be more circumspect and therefore more rational in their attitudes and behavior. Moreover, speaking of the supernatural, miracles and signs & wonders are still being performed throughout the world in the context of the Jesus message. If that's been happening for 2000 years, then that gives every generation suggestive evidence that Christianity is true. God might balance out the numbers and distribution of miracles so that there's enough to convince those who want to believe, yet not enough to force people who do not want to believe in the Gospel.

As Blaise Pascal wrote: //Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications [or "signs"] of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.//

- Do the Synoptics contradict GJohn on the day Christ was crucified in relation to the Passover? I recommend reading Brant Pitre's book "Jesus and the Last Supper". He wrote a ~122 page chapter (4th) on the topic of the apparent discrepancy and contradiction between the Synoptics and the GJohn regarding whether the Last Supper was or wasn't a Passover, and whether Jesus died at approximately the same time the Passover lambs were or afterwards. Pitre acknowledges there are many views on the topic, but lists four of the most popular views among scholars. Two of them attempt to reconcile the apparent discrepancy and two argue for real contradiction. He describes and then goes through each options' strengths and weaknesses, and then argues for the fourth position.

1. The Essene Hypothesis attempts to reconcile the discrepancy by appealing to two liturgical calendars among Jews at the time. So, it's both true that Jesus did and didn't observe the Passover.

2. The Johannine Hypothesis argues that John is right and the Synoptics are wrong. This is the most popular view among scholars. He argues that the main basis for its popularity is that it's grounded in astronomical considerations. However, he argues that when examined more carefully, the astronomical considerations are weak because they ultimately depend on atmospheric observations from the ground (not merely where the moon was in relation to the earth) during the relevant 1st century years. If I recall correctly, a cloudy day could delay the Passover up to 48 hours. Also, (if I recall) the calendar was dependent on when the season started, and that depended on the state of the crops.

3. The Synoptic Hypothesis argues that the Synoptics are right and GJohn is wrong.

4. The Passover Hypothesis argues that the Last Supper was a Passover (as the Synoptics clearly state) and that when properly read, GJohn actually agrees with the Synoptics. Pitre argues that when one takes into account the various ways the Jews at the time used the word Passover and other phrases to refer to the Passover season, John perfectly conforms to it such that the apparent contradiction disappears. Pitre says this is the least popular of the four among scholars (because neglected and dismissed), but argues that it's actually the best of the four options.

I've also got a blogpost on this topic here: What Day Did Christ Die?

Was Jesus Unanimously Condemned to Death Or Not?

An alleged Bible contradiction argues that the Gospels disagree whether the Sanhedrin unanimously condemned Jesus as deserving of death (Mark 14:64, 15:1) or whether there was at least one dissenter Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50-51). It's not clear whether Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin Council.

63    And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need?
64    You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.- Mark 14:63-64

And as soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole Council. And they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate.- Mark 15:1

Versus

50    Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,
51    who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God.- Luke 23:50-51

There are various ways around this alleged contradiction. I'll enumerate a few of them.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (JFB hereafter) states regarding Mark 14:64:

they all condemned him to be guilty of death—or of a capital crime, which blasphemy against God was according to the Jewish law (Le 24:16). Yet not absolutely all; for Joseph of Arimathea, "a good man and a just," was one of that Council, and "he was not a consenting party to the counsel and deed of them," for that is the strict sense of the words of Lu 23:50, 51. Probably he absented himself, and Nicodemus also, from this meeting of the Council, the temper of which they would know too well to expect their voice to be listened to; and in that case, the words of our Evangelist are to be taken strictly, that, without one dissentient voice, "all [present] condemned him to be guilty of death."

JFB speculates that Joseph and Nicodemus (who may have also been a Council member) left before the vote was taken because they strongly suspected ("knew") that the overwhelming majority of the Council was hostile toward Jesus and had already set their mind to condemn Him. Why would they leave before the vote? Maybe out of disgust for the evidently "kangaroo court" trial of Jesus that was happening that they left the assembly to privately pray for divine intervention so that Jesus wouldn't be condemned to death. Or maybe out of cowardice Joseph (and possibly Nicodemus too) absented himself from the vote because he didn't have the courage to openly oppose the clear majority who were hell bent on condemning Jesus. That might account for his later bold request of Pilate for Jesus' body. Maybe out of guilt, SHAME and repentance he decided to compensate for his cowardice with that audacious request. It might be argued that this would be inconsistent with Luke's description of Joseph as a "good and righteous man" (Luke 23:50). But like other statements in the rest of the Bible that talk about people being righteous and "perfect", it refers to the tenor of their lives. Not that they never sinned or committed evil. King David who committed murder was forgiven by God after his repentance and was eventually called affectionately "a man after My [God's] own heart". Even assuming Luke knew that Joseph was previously cowardly, it would have been in poor taste to mention that without Joseph's approval (unlike with Peter who openly admitted his cowardice and betrayal of Jesus in his preaching). Especially in light of what Joseph eventually did in mercifully preparing Jesus' body for burial. There would be no point in marring Joseph's reputation and memory by recording his cowardice. He was an elderly man at the time of the events [being a Council member] and possibly dead by the time Luke wrote his Gospel.

Admittedly, the natural (but possibly wrong and non-necessary) inference one can draw from Luke 23:50-51 is that Joseph was aware of the trial and was there for the vote. But the verses are also consistent with Joseph not being aware of the trial and/or not being present at the vote. It's true that Mark 15:1 states the whole Council was present in the morning. But there is a time gap between Mark 14:64 (when the vote was taken) and Mark 15:1. Therefore another possibility is that the Council members may have intentionally not informed Joseph of the orchestrated arrest and trial of Jesus precisely because they knew he would object and oppose them. They would do this especially if they knew that Joseph might hold a lot of sway during the proceedings and if he was known to be an especially pious Jew. So, they may have voted before Joseph became aware of the trial and decision. But he was eventually informed of it and arrived by the time of Mark 15:1 when it was too late (practically) to oppose what was happening because of the momentum for the call of His death.

Assuming the author of Mark knew that there was at least one dissenter, the "all" of Mark 14:64 may be hyperbole referring to the overwhelming majority. So, it need not be a contradiction. It was (and still is) common linguistic practice to be general or hyperbolic in communication. For example, when Matt. 3:5-6 states, "[t]hen Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to" be baptized by John the Baptist, the reader is expected to understand that not every single person in that region literally went to hear John preach and (all the more) to be baptized. Even today, if someone was to travel 385 miles from point A to point B for a vacation, it's not normally considered a lie for the person to say he traveled 400 miles. Another logical possibility is that the author of Mark didn't know there were any dissenters and so wrote, and intended to convey, that there weren't any. But strictly (though not literally) speaking, GMark's words in the text are consistent with there being a very small minority or a single dissenter given normal human communication that speaks in generalities and with imprecision. Take for example Hebrews 3:16-19:

16    For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?
17    And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
18    And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?
19    So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Literally speaking, verse 16 states "all" (everyone) who left Egypt led by Moses rebelled against God and died in the wilderness. Yet, in this famous story it was universally known that Joshua and Caleb didn't rebel and didn't die in the wilderness. But lived long enough to enter the Promised Land. Only if one takes Heb. 3:16 in a WOODENLY literal way could one possibly insist on a Bible contradiction. In a similar way, Mark 14:64 is consistent with there being a very small dissenting party. And especially a single dissenter (assuming Nicodemus wasn't a Council member).

"The Bible Has Problems, and It's a Good Thing, Too!" by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

"The Bible Has Problems, and It's a Good Thing, Too!"
by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

https://youtu.be/mK9wycYPUgQ