The weight of the term "Lord" lies on the hearer, right? If the hearer did not recognize the identity of the two disciples, how would they (the owner) be able to identify the "Lord" spoken of? We are not told that their identities were recognized. And there is nothing in the immediate context that uniquely identifies this "Lord" (which Christ's disciples spoke of) from some other "Lord." The text states they Jesus sent them "ahead," meaning that the owner would not have been "immediately aware" (situationally) of what was happening back at the Mount of Olives, where Christ was.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record this same event, and in each episode, the disciples are temporarily displaced from the "local context," where Jesus is. They are out trying to retrieve a donkey, meanwhile, Jesus is still hanging back here at the Mount of Olives. So without Jesus being physically present, how does this owner know that the "Lord" being spoken of is Jesus, "the miracle worker"? Especially in light that in each of the accounts, the name "Jesus" is never mentioned by the disciples. They simly refer to "the Lord," without uniquely identifying which Lord they are speaking about.

His spiritual awareness inspired him (the owner) - You nailed it, + 1.

@WilliamJordan - the donkey owner was not chosen at random. Don't you think divine intervention was present to accomplish this? Consider how Peter found a four-drachma coin in a fish's mouth (Matt 17:24-27). The owner was spiritually inspired. Furthermore, the weight of the term "Lord" lies on the hearer's spiritual insight.

@VincentWong Some form of divine intervention may have been present, but that is not explicit in any version of the episode. We can assume it is likely that some form of divine intervention is present, but the specifics are not detailed out. Divine intervention does not require anyone to be "spiritually inspired." The story of the life, trial, and crucifixion is a great example of divine intervention, but it does not require Jewish authorities (or other characters in the narrative) to be "spiritually inspired" or their "spiritual insights" for it to play out.

@VincentWong For example, Jn. 6:44-45 is a great example of "divine intervention," and likewise is Matt. 26:53-54. It is the authority of Christ that is "the" divine intervention that is echoed throughout the narrative. Of course, Christ could have made present something in the heart of the owner, just as God instills into the hearts of the Jewish audience a hardness of hearts.

@WilliamJordan - Divine intervention does not require anyone to be "spiritually inspired." However, spiritual inspiration certainly requires divine revelation. As you quote John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them."

@VincentWong Also, there is another example ("divine intervention") in the immediate context. Consider the episode found in Matt. 21:15-16, which I mentioned in the body of my question. The very text, speaks of "the Lord" as "calling forth praise" from the lips of children and infants. This is an allusion to Ps. 8, an OT text to the God of Israel instills His own praise into the hearts and mouths of babes.

@VincentWong But divine revelation does not require spiritual inspiration. Just because something is revealed to someone does not make them inspired, anymore than the revelation of Jesus Christ makes you (or any of our readers) inspired.

@VincentWong The point is: There is nothing in the context that suggests that the owner of the donkey is a self professing Christian. It is likely that Christ intervened in some supernatural way by suplanting something into their mind and heart, but that does not mean that the owner acknowledged Christ as "Lord." It requires a considerable amount of imagination to deduce that your specific type of "divine intervention" must be present in the text, when it could just as easily be Christ doing the intervening (of which normal human Lords are not able to do).

@WilliamJordan Chat is the best place to try and have conversations about things

I realise you disagree with Vincent's conclusions, but he's written a good and fair Answer, and your comments are more a discussion of it rather than constructive feedback.

I personally believe Jesus is God, but also wholeheartedly agree with Vincent's answer, and don't see the two in conflict. Not every usage of 'Lord' has to mean 'the LORD'

When it came to Passover, Jesus told the disciples to go ahead where they would find somebody with an upper room which had already been prepared for them. So it seems to me, most likely, that he had prepared for this final return trip, perhaps the last time he was in Jerusalem.

So in the same way that he had the venue planned for the Last Supper (interesting to think Jesus had this in mind many months before!) there's no reason he couldn't have either directly requested the donkey to be ready, or otherwise have known the owner from a previous encounter.

@WilliamJordan In spoken word, I would argue the weight of the term "Lord" actually lies on the speaker to make clear - most of our communication is non-verbal, after all. So it largely depends on what the disciples understood/meant by the term. If they were talking about Adonai, then you'd expect the nonverbal cues to indicate as such. But if they were talking about the man travelling with them (their lord), then you'd expect their tone of voice and gestures to indicate as such.

I realise your Question is anchored on Matthew, but it's interesting to consider Luke 19's parallel. 8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

which is followed not too long after by your v31, '‘The Lord needs it.’

But then also by v38, for the sake of argument, “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”

To me, I'd suggest that the author is trying to communicate that Jesus is Lord/God, but that to Zacchaeus and the owner of the donkeys that they just had Jesus in mind as an earthly lord/master.

It's not necessarily that I disagree with Vincent's conclusion. Keep in mind, that the question I asked is not really a question about whether Jesus is referred to as God. And this is where @AlexBelilo made his mistake: He thought I was posing a question to place emphasis on Christ's deity.

But that was never really the question. The question had always been very simple: How the recipient of the words "the Lord needs them" would have perceived them. We could argue til the cows come home over whether or not the recipient was a believer.

I do not think a positive case has been made that the recipient of these words ("the Lord needs them") was a believer, because their identity was never expressed: Neither their name, or as a fellow "believer."

To some extent, @VincentWong answer to help provide a possibility. My comments towards him are not necessarily words of disagreement, as much as they are a challenge to think through the implications. The point, is: Even if we grant some type of "divine intervention," the text does not tell detail that out for us, even in the episode you cite (Luke, Mark)

So it is still possible (and even likely) that there was "divine intervention," but that still does not necessarily answer who they thought "the Lord" may have been. The text does not tell us how the "divine intervention" played out. And if we assume, we could come up with all sorts of fanciful ideas.

We could even say that the words expressed by the disciples, "the Lord needs them" carried some power/authority with it that influenced the hearer. Does that not constitute some kind of "divine intervention"? Are there not countless times notated in the NT where words carry power and influence?

So that is really it. It is not that I disagree with Vincent, per se. But I do think that there are some assumptions made that are not totally dependent on the episdoes of Matthew 21, Luke 19, or Mark 11. I do not find it likely that the hearer of these words would find much authority behind the words, "the Lord needs them" if he was thinking of a human lord, unless that human lord also be his Lord. But again, that is not stated in the text.

May I offer my final comment on William Jordan's query, that how the phrase "the Lord needs them" powerfully influences the donkey's owner. In my observation, Bible verses are like a jigsaw puzzle. The supporting evidence is often located elsewhere and not immediately apparent in the surrounding text. Therefore this BH platform is an excellent place for exchanging our thoughts. Please note that I am merely presenting a possibility and welcome any open criticism.