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]
