On Monday Jesus drew major attention to himself in the temple. If we are to follow Mark's account, it was not coincidental. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus overturns the tables on the same day as he enters Jerusalem for the first time (indeed, in Matthew he curses the fig tree on Tuesday and it immediately withers--he comes across as much more angerable).
But in Mark, he looks at the temple on Sunday, then goes away to come back on Monday, when he upsets the apple cart. If we follow Mark, the temple action was not a random act of anger, it was premeditated to make a statement and create a stir. It was intended to draw attention.
On Tuesday, Jesus has that attention. All the different groups of Jerusalem are engaging him: lawyers, Sadducees, even some Hellenists. He speaks of resurrection, the greatest commandment, whose son the messiah is. There is a strong political tone underlying most of the debate.
Resurrection implies the overthrow of the current establishments of the earth, both in Israel and in Rome. The discussion of whose son the messiah is might address the rumors that Jesus might be the messiah. "Yet how could that be, since he is from Nazareth and isn't in the Davidic line," or so they might have said.
"Whose coin is this?" a question to catch a messiah wanna be. He'll blow up when he sees that coin. He'll reveal his true agenda to overthrow the Romans.
The synoptics all present Jesus' eschatological discourse here. In its current form it predicts the temple's destruction. It fits the tone of this day, where Jesus seriously indicts Israel's leadership.
Mark has one parable here--the parable of the vineyard. It was based in the imagery of Isaiah and reinforced the action Jesus had made in the temple the previous day. The leaders of Israel had forgotten who truly owned the vineyard and were doing their own thing.
So on Monday he gave the paper cut. On Tuesday he put salt in it. Tomorrow they'll be plotting his death.