A Harmonized Examination of Matthew 21:1–7, Mark 11:1–7, Luke 19:29–35, and Zechariah 9:9

Introduction: Was There One Donkey or Two?

The Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, just days before His crucifixion on Nisan 14, 33 C.E., is recorded in all four Gospels. However, the Synoptic Gospels offer the most detail concerning the preparation and selection of the animal Jesus rode. The core question for this article is whether one or two donkeys were involved, and whether the Gospel accounts are contradictory or complementary.

Matthew 21:2–7 clearly refers to two animals, whereas Mark 11:2–7 and Luke 19:30–35 mention only one—a donkey colt. Critics have sometimes charged Matthew with inventing the second animal to create a more literal fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, accusing him of misunderstanding Hebrew parallelism. But this is both an incorrect reading of the Hebrew text and an uninformed view of how the Gospels function in reporting historical events.

By using a sound Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation and maintaining a high view of Scripture’s inerrancy, it becomes evident that there is no contradiction. Instead, Matthew, as an eyewitness, reports additional detail regarding the presence of the mother donkey, while Mark and Luke focus exclusively on the donkey Jesus rode, which was the colt.

Matthew 21:2–7: Two Donkeys Are Explicitly Mentioned

In Matthew 21:2, Jesus gives instructions to His disciples:

“Go into the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there with her colt. Untie them and bring them to Me.”

Verse 5 is a quotation of Zechariah 9:9:

“Tell the daughter of Zion, ‘Look, your King is coming to you, gentle and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’”

Verse 7 continues:

“They brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their cloaks on them, and He sat on them.”

While some liberal-critical interpreters have suggested that “He sat on them” must refer to Jesus riding both animals, this conclusion does not align with Greek syntax or ancient riding practice. The Greek construction allows “them” to refer to the cloaks spread over the animals, not that Jesus somehow straddled both donkeys simultaneously. There is no absurdity here; the plural “them” simply refers to the garments, not to Jesus mounting two animals.

The key here is the specific mention of the mother donkey alongside the colt, which was “a colt, the foal of a donkey,” as stated in Zechariah 9:9. Matthew alone mentions the mother, and does so because her presence fulfilled a practical function, even though Jesus only rode the colt.

Mark 11:2–7 and Luke 19:30–35: Focus on the Colt Alone

Mark 11:2:

“Go into the village ahead of you. As soon as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it here.”

Luke 19:30 is nearly identical:

“Go into the village ahead of you. As you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it.”

Both Mark and Luke are careful to emphasize that this colt had never been ridden, which is significant for symbolic and prophetic reasons. An animal never before ridden was often used for sacred purposes (cf. Numbers 19:2; Deuteronomy 21:3), and the fact that Jesus rode such an unbroken animal underscored the messianic significance of the event.

But neither Mark nor Luke mentions the mother donkey at all. Is this a contradiction? Not at all. A non-mention is not a denial. Neither writer claims only one animal was present. Their purpose is to focus on the animal Jesus rode, which is entirely consistent with eyewitness reporting that prioritizes different aspects of an event.

To suppose that Matthew invented the mother donkey to fabricate a more literal fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 is both unnecessary and unreasonable. If the mother’s presence served a practical function, then Matthew’s inclusion of her is a sign of his eyewitness accuracy—not theological embellishment.

The Practical Reason for the Mother Donkey’s Presence

The donkey Jesus rode was a colt, explicitly one that had never been ridden before (Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30). Such an animal would naturally be more easily led and calmed if accompanied by its mother, especially in a noisy, crowded environment like the road into Jerusalem during Passover week.

It would have been entirely consistent with animal handling practices of the time to bring both the mother and the colt if the goal was to allow the untrained colt to be ridden. The mother could walk in front, guiding the younger animal by her presence, making it more willing to go where it was led—particularly through shouting crowds laying cloaks and branches on the road (Matthew 21:8).

This is not an unusual or extraordinary interpretation but one that makes perfect historical and behavioral sense. Therefore, Matthew’s inclusion of both animals reflects practical reality, not literary invention.

Zechariah 9:9: Poetry or Prophecy?

Zechariah 9:9 reads:

“Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is righteous and endowed with salvation, humble and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

Some interpreters have suggested this verse should be understood as Hebrew poetic parallelism, with “donkey” and “colt” referring to one and the same animal. While Hebrew poetry often does employ synonymous parallelism, this does not preclude the presence of two actual animals. The second line, “even on a colt, the foal of a donkey,” could serve both as poetic restatement and prophetic specification.

Matthew, under inspiration, saw in the original Hebrew wording an opportunity to highlight the literal fulfillment. Far from misunderstanding the poetic structure, he faithfully recorded the actual presence of both animals at the scene, in harmony with the double reference in Zechariah.

To claim Matthew misunderstood the Hebrew is to underestimate both his linguistic competence as a first-century Jewish man and the Spirit-inspired accuracy of his Gospel account.

The Eyewitness Factor

There is good internal reason to believe that Matthew was an eyewitness to the events of the Triumphal Entry. His Gospel regularly includes details that reflect first-hand observation—additional persons present (Matthew 8:28; 20:30), subtle behaviors, and verbal exchanges not recorded in the other Synoptics.

Matthew’s mention of both the mother and the colt fits this pattern. He records what he saw: the disciples bringing both animals, the cloaks laid on both, and Jesus riding on the younger one. Mark and Luke may not have been eyewitnesses and chose to focus their narratives more narrowly on Jesus’ action and the prophetic symbolism, rather than on the logistics of donkey handling.

The fact that Matthew alone mentions the two animals does not in any way create conflict with the other accounts. It is supplemental detail, not contradictory testimony.

Summary of Harmonization

• Matthew 21:2, 7: Two animals mentioned—the donkey and her colt. Jesus rides the colt.

• Mark 11:2, 7; Luke 19:30, 35: Only the colt is mentioned, but no statement denies the presence of the mother donkey.

• Zechariah 9:9: Describes a donkey and a colt, likely reflecting both poetic parallelism and literal dual reference.

• Practical consideration: A colt never ridden would benefit from the calming presence of its mother.

• Conclusion: There were two animals present, but Jesus rode only one, the colt. No Gospel denies this, and Matthew’s report supplies additional eyewitness data.

Conclusion: No Contradiction, Only Complementary Accounts

There were two donkeys involved in the Triumphal Entry—the mother and her colt. Jesus rode only the colt, fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 in precise detail. Matthew, likely an eyewitness, records the presence of both animals because of their practical involvement in the event. Mark and Luke, focusing solely on the messianic symbolism, mention only the colt.

There is no contradiction here, only varying levels of detail consistent with the intention and style of each Gospel writer. Such variation is typical of truthful eyewitness testimony and further underscores the historical reliability of the Gospel narratives.

You May Also Enjoy

Does the Bible Contain Contradictions, Mistakes, and Errors?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS