Parsimony of Miracle Assumptions: Matthew 21:1-7

Or I might title this “Was Jesus a Horse Thieving Magician?”

I learned this story so long ago I don’t remember just when it was, but I got a Sunday School version that left me with the impression that because Jesus was God, either he knew everything, or his father revealed to him the location of the donkey, and the words to use so that the disciples could get away with it. Probably the divinity of Jesus and his command shone through his disciples, thus preventing their arrest as horse (or donkey) thieves.

This left a glow in my mind until I thought about the story some more later. I’ve observed this same interpretation in debates online. Someone objects to the story on the basis that Jesus is supposed to be sinless, so how could he steal a donkey? (Or perhaps merely borrow one without permission.) Sadly, in the most recent case I observed, the next comment from the defender of Christianity (non-professional variety) was that Jesus could take the donkey because he was God, and after all owned everything. So who was the owner to object?

While it’s true that in Christian theology Jesus is God, and God owns everything. But if you think about it a bit, such an argument could make the sinlessness of Jesus pretty meaningless. Why was he sinless? Well, anything he did could be justified by the fact that he was God.

Now real Christian apologists will generally regard this as a particularly weak stab at Christianity, though I would have to say that I take seriously those objections that objectors take seriously, even though it sometimes requires effort. There is, however, no reason to get stuck on this one.

There is no need to justify donkey stealing. Let’s go back to the start, sticking with only the version in Matthew 21. There is simply no suggestion of a miracle, such as miraculous knowledge of the donkey’s location. There is no suggestion that divinity needed to flash forth to make the story work. It is simply told bare bones. So supposing this is a modern scene, and you’re walking down a road with someone, and he says, “Go over to that farm you can see off to the left, and you’ll find a horse tied to a tree. Untie it, and bring it here. If anyone asks, say, ‘His owner needs him.'”

Would you assume that your walking partner had received a vision, or that he knew there was a horse normally tied up there, or perhaps had some valid reason to know there was one tied up there now? Would you assume that he was asking you to participate in a bold act of horse theft, or that he had the appropriate rights to use the animal? I suspect our first assumption would be that the person had naturally acquired information, and that unless he was some kind of criminal, that he was not choosing this casual means to launch a life of crime.

So why do we assume that Jesus did otherwise? We know he fed the 5,000, but we don’t assume that he miraculously produced every breakfast. We assume he’s sinless, so why would we assume an explanation here that opens him up to the charge of theft?

Imagine this story instead. The day before, Jesus was going through that village, and a follower there offered him the donkey for his use. He told the man that he didn’t need the donkey that day, but would call for it later, and they agree where it would be. When he was ready to use it, Jesus used this purely mundane information to call for a donkey to which he had every right. And that is hardly the only possible set of assumptions that works with the story.

So why didn’t Matthew fill in a few more blanks for us? First, I doubt he thought anyone would make the assumption that Jesus was stealing the donkey. Second, Matthew is trying to present Jesus as king, and telling the story in this bare bones way leaves open the impression of a sovereign requisitioning what he needed to accomplish his mission.

Most objections to scripture result more from what we say about scripture than from what scripture says itself. Don’t get stuck with unnecessary assumptions, even if they sound miraculous and holy.