The answer to all the problems in Mark’s description of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem is that none of it happened. Mark wants it for narrative reasons, not because Jesus ever did these things. We’ll see the same literary style appear again later when Jesus orders his disciples to make preparations for the “Last Supper.”
There are a number of reasons to regard this incident as a purely literary device rather than something that might have occurred just as described here. For one thing, it’s curious that Jesus would instruct his disciples to steal a colt for him to use. On a superficial level, at least, Jesus isn’t portrayed as caring very much about other people’s property. Did the disciples often go around telling people “the Lord hath need of this” and walk off with whatever they wanted? A nice racket, if people believe you.
One can argue that the owners knew what the colt was needed for, but then they wouldn’t need to be told by the disciples. There are no interpretations of this scene that don’t make Jesus and his disciples look ridiculous unless we simply accept it as a literary device. That is to say, it’s not something that can reasonably be treated as an event that really happened; instead, it’s a literary device designed to heighten the audience’s expectations about what is to come.
Why does Mark have the disciples refer to Jesus as “Lord” here? Thus far Jesus has taken great pains to hide is true identity and hasn’t referred to *himself as “Lord,” so the appearance here of such blatant Christological language is curious. This, too, indicates that we are dealing with a literary device rather than any sort of historical event.
Finally, we should keep in mind that Jesus’ eventual trial and execution turns largely on his claims to being messiah and/or king of the Jews. This being the case, it’s odd that this incident would not have been brought up during the proceedings. Here we have Jesus entering Jerusalem in a manner very reminiscent of the entry of royalty and his disciples described him as “Lord.” All could have been used as evidence against him, but the absence of even a brief reference is noteworthy.
