Some critics suggest that Jesus misapprehended the property of others here. But simply put, we may ask, if the disciples were stealing the colt on Jesus' behalf, and committing a criminal act, why did the owners let them take it?

Consider a modern equivalent: if someone attempted to take a stranger's vehicle and justified it by saying "God needs it," the owner would undoubtedly intervene and seek assistance from authorities. Obviously, that didn't happen here -- the owners made no effort to stop what was going on, and the disciples were allowed to leave with the colt unhindered. So there is obviously more to this story.

It is charged that in riding the colt into Jerusalem, Jesus was intentionally trying to fulfill Zechariah 9:9. This was a deliberate act by Jesus. (It could hardly be otherwise; not many people ride a donkey by accident.) This, and the fact that the disciples were allowed to take the colt with a minimum of fuss, strongly suggests that the owners knew what was going on and had been approached by Jesus beforehand concerning use of the colt (or, at the very least, knew who Jesus was and had no objection).

Jesus probably bought or rented the services of the animals, or else been granted permission to use them; then he told the owners, "I will send my disciples to pick up the colt. Here is how you will know them.... Ask them why they are untying it." (Obviously, it would not be fitting for the Messiah to walk over and get the donkey himself.)

It's also possible - maybe probable - that he sent Judas to arrange the whole thing; from the Gospel of John, we know that he was the group's treasurer, and we gather that it was not unusual for Jesus to send him on errands that the other disciples didn't know about.

This is not a bit too cloak-and-dagger to be believable; judging by the accompanying tumult when Jesus rode in, it was likely that the people were to interpret this as a sign that Jesus was about to fulfill the expected Messianic role of defeating the Romans. So understandably, Jesus would want to keep the whole affair under wraps until the proper time.

It is also suggested that there was no advance permission, but that the owners of the animals knew of Jesus' reputation and gladly conceded to their use on account of that. If that is so, then the divine aspect of Jesus had foreknowledge of their acceptance, and again, there is no thievery.

Or else, as Harvey notes in Jesus and the Constraints of History (123), Jesus was simply exercising what at the time was the normal right of a king, general, or "even a respected rabbi" to procure transportation for himself. The phrase 'the master needs it' would be sufficient for the loan, provided the person's authority was recognized, which Jesus' evidently was - and again, no thievery. (Harvey also notes that Jesus in this episode adhered properly to the Jewish laws concerning borrowing.)

There is not a thing that is "gratuitous" about a pre-arranged scenario like this one: if it was not pre-arranged, how did Jesus manage to get the room?

We may add, finally, that since God owns everything, how can the Son of God taking anything be stealing?

Did Jesus sin by telling the disciples to take a donkey in Matt. 21:1-3, Mark 11:2-3; Luke 19:30–32?  There are two main reasons why He did not. First, since Jesus is God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8), the Scriptures about God owning everything applies to Him. Therefore, he could not steal because, ultimately, the donkey and colt belonged to Him. Please consider the following verses.

- Psalm 24:1, “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.”

- Psalm 50:10–11, “For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. 11 “I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine.”

- 1 Cor. 10:25–26, “Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains.”

So very quickly, we see that God owns everything, even the donkey and colt. Therefore, He could not have stolen them, which was not a sin.

Now, let’s look at the three accounts of the same of Jesus and the donkey in the gospels to see whether or not it was a sin.

- Matt. 21:1–3, “When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, ‘Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me. 3 “If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.’“

- Mark 11:2–3, “and said to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 3 “If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ you say, ‘The Lord has need of it’; and immediately he will send it back here.’ They went away and found a colt tied at the door, outside in the street; and they untied it. 5 Some of the bystanders were saying to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” 6 They spoke to them just as Jesus had told them, and they gave them permission.”

- Luke 19:30–31, “saying, “Go into the village ahead of you; there, as you enter, you will find a colt tied on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. 31 “If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of it.’ 32 So those who were sent went away and found it just as He had told them. 33 As they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, “Why are you untying the colt?” 34 They said, “The Lord has need of it.”

Previous Contact with Jesus?

The phrase the disciples are told to say to the animals’ owner is, “The Lord has need of it.” It doesn’t have any contextual preparation for the owner. Perhaps the owner of the animals had already encountered Jesus, and it was pre-arranged. After all, we see such a pre-arrangement in Mark 14:13-16 where the disciples are told to find a man carrying a waterpot and inquire about a Passover room – which had already been prepared. They were not aware of it, but Jesus was. This is either by supernatural intervention or by previous arrangement.

Permission from the owner

So Jesus tells them that they will find a donkey with a colt. He instructs them to untie them and bring them. Furthermore, if anyone asks what they’re doing, they must say, “The Lord has need of them.” At this, he will permit it. The permission of the owner means it is not theft.

Explanation to the crowd

Mark 11:5- 6 says some bystanders were asking why they were untying the colt, and upon explanation, they permitted the disciples. So it seems that Jesus was giving the disciples instructions as it would relate to the owner and bystanders. Interestingly, the bystanders would agree to let Jesus use the donkey. They undoubtedly knew who He was and would know it was never theft. Otherwise, why would “Lord” be used, and why would the bystanders understand so easily?  So no, Jesus did not sin by taking the donkey.