10:26
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.