1. Returning to Jerusalem and teaching in the Temple
Jesus and the disciples come back into the city from Bethany. This is the day the disciples notice the withered fig tree (Mark 11:20–21), which becomes a lesson on faith and judgment.
2. A series of confrontations with religious leaders
Tuesday is the day when:
- The chief priests, scribes, and elders challenge His authority.
- The Pharisees try to trap Him with questions about paying taxes to Caesar.
- The Sadducees challenge Him with a question about resurrection.
- A scribe asks about the greatest commandment.
3. Teaching through parables of judgment
Jesus tells several parables aimed directly at Israel’s leadership:
- The Two Sons
- The Wicked Tenants
- The Wedding Banquet
4. The denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees
Matthew 23 records Jesus’s “woes”—a blistering critique of hypocrisy, spiritual blindness, and religious showmanship. This is one of the most dramatic public confrontations of His ministry.
5. The Olivet Discourse
Leaving the temple, Jesus goes with His disciples to the Mount of Olives and delivers His longest prophetic teaching:
- The destruction of the temple
- Signs of the end
- The coming of the Son of Man
- Parables about readiness (Ten Virgins, Talents)
- The final judgment (Sheep and Goats)
6. The plot to arrest Jesus intensifies
While Jesus teaches, the chief priests and elders meet to plan His arrest “by stealth” (Matthew 26:3–5). Judas’s arrangement with them likely occurs late Tuesday or early Wednesday.
Why Tuesday Matters
Tuesday is the last day Jesus teaches publicly. It’s the day:
- His identity is unmistakably declared.
- His opponents are fully exposed.
- His prophetic mission is laid out in detail.
- The countdown to the cross accelerates.
12 comments:
I think one of the things we lost in the Reformation is an emphasis on holy times like these. Putting Holy Week into perspective.
It was good for me today to reflect on the happenings of another, long-ago Tuesday and to consider their part in the timeline within Jesus’ final week on earth--this “countdown to the cross,” as you say. Without the Gospel narratives, we would miss all the benefits of “being there,” as it were, and knowing of all the events that led up to Resurrection Morn--with each exchange, discourse, lesson, etc., executed with purpose and intention by our Savior. Because the events of that week were recorded for all posterity, we can share in the blessings of new life that Jesus offered.
As a Protestant by conscientious choice and leading, I praise God for full and Spirit-assisted access to the Gospel narratives of Christ’s last week on earth. Only now is “Holy Week” in true and proper focus for me.
You seem to have a vehement hatred toward the Catholic Church, as if they didn't do a single good thing ever.
I am certain that my Catholic upbringing, subsequent conversion to biblical Christianity as a young adult, and decades of becoming educated on where and how those two belief systems intersect, correspond, and diverge all afford me a unique perspective that you (and others) would not likely fully comprehend or appreciate. In any case, I would not say that your assessment is completely accurate, as I would offer this: The primary “single good thing ever” the Catholic Church did was to attempt to bring the populace over whom it held power into the kingdom of God by promoting a form of Christianity generally drawn from the Bible (plus some noncanonical books). While the intentions were laudable, the methods were off-track and the results were dismal. (Thus my general alignment with Protestantism and appreciation for the Reformation, which attempted to return the Church to its biblical roots and make printed Bibles available for all.)
There is much more I can say on this topic, but I am not here to bash Catholicism (I don’t need to, as it condemns itself) but rather to endorse biblical Christianity. When the clear contrast between the two comes up here, I will feel led--even obligated--to speak up to help clarify the distinction, in alignment with my stated purpose for being here. I am also always willing to offer further information/clarification regarding anything I might say in a comment.
David, since you did not like my comment above, I will ask you this outright: What do you feel “we lost in the Reformation”--especially that which might curtail your free worship and “celebration” of “Holy Week”? I, for one, can’t think of a thing and actually felt the complete opposite--that since the Reformation we can finally have the proper emphasis you mentioned, because we understand the true gospel and the place of Christ’s suffering, death on the cross, and resurrection within that gospel, as part of a personal saving faith.
This is one, most Protestants hold no regard for holy days. Now certainly, the RCC puts the wrong emphasis on them, but in our separation we've run completely away from them. Another is one we discussed before that you hated, religious buildings that present a sense of the holy. Or a recognition of the uniqueness of Mary. Or personal confession. Basically anything the Catholic Church took too far but had good intentions in it's beginning. I don't want to be Catholic, but I believe we are missing out on some good things in our attempts to protest. We may not have thrown the baby out with the bath water, but it does seem to be missing some parts. These are certainly mostly things we can do in our own lives, but having the church reinforce them for the building up of the saints has been lost.
Thanks for clarifying for me what you meant.
I don’t want to make presumptions regarding your level of knowledge about Catholic doctrine/dogma and practice, but the impression I have received from your comments over the years is that you are favorably impressed by (perhaps even enamored with) some of the “bells and whistles” of the RCC without being truly aware of the “nature of the beast.” (This is a fairly common situation among those who are not ex-Catholics.)
As I understand it, the Reformers stripped away the extraneous teachings and practices in an attempt to return to basic biblical Christianity; they removed the excessive church trappings that had built up and refuted the doctrinal errors behind them. They did not overcorrect (in my opinion) but were as severe and effective as a surgeon’s scalpel as they removed improper and unnecessary emphases and misinterpretations. Using the idiom you quoted, the Reformers did not hesitate to “throw out the baby with the bathwater” because the “baby” in this case was as foul as the “bathwater.”
You say, “I don’t want to be Catholic,” and I would ask, “Why not?” Why are you (and any of us who are) Protestant? I would assume it is for good reason (and hopefully not that you were raised that way). If you are like me, you are committed to a biblical faith and practice--one led by the teachings of God’s Word. I hate the things God hates (idolatry, false worship, hypocrisy, religiosity, judging the heart by outward appearances), and I love the things He loves (truth, grace, justice, faith, Spirit-led worship, integrity). I don’t add to or subtract from the teachings in the Bible to shape my orthodoxy or orthopraxy. I try to sort out core spiritual truth from worldly religious trappings. I don’t believe I am missing anything at all by rejecting the church life of the previous centuries--afterall, if I am led by God’s Word to a particular expression of worship or service to Him, I can follow that leading without needing any church’s direction or institution’s sanction. Members of the Body of Christ are connected to the Head of the Church directly through the Holy Spirit, with Jesus as our mediator to our heavenly Father--a glorious truth restored to its pinnacle in Christian faith and practice by the Reformation.
As to the particular points of departure from Catholicism that you mentioned, I would offer this cursory personal feedback:
-- “regard for holy days” -- Much of the liturgical calendar of the RCC is extra-biblical at worst or at best, formed by creating “feast days” based on events related in scripture that are not presented as “holy.” (Personally, I don’t see any “holy days” stipulated in the New Testament.)
-- “religious buildings that present a sense of the holy” -- These manmade objects are part of the “tinsel and glitter” of the RCC--mostly “whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones.” As I commented about this previously, the buildings themselves might be impressive to the human senses, but if biblical truth is not taught inside those buildings and/or false worship is promoted, they are nothing but an offense to God. (Personally, I don’t believe any earthly buildings, things, or places are “holy.”)
-- “a recognition of the uniqueness of Mary”-- The Protestant view of Mary is generally a proper one, in my experience. Years ago, I found this quote from Dan Phillips (formerly of Team Pyro) that I liked: “Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a pivotal yet relatively minor figure in the New Testament, of no more ongoing direct personal impact on the lives of Christians than any other exemplary (yet flawed) redeemed sinner depicted in the Bible.” Of course, she was “unique” and “blessed,” but as you know, the RCC dogma goes way, way beyond that.
-- “personal confession” -- The biblical practice you are thinking of is not interpreted or practiced by the RCC; rather, the “Sacrament of Reconciliation” is a misguided attempt to create a pure heart (i.e. “cleansed” by confession to/absolution by a priest, followed by “saying penance”), particularly in advance of ingesting the “Eucharist”--falsely taught to be Jesus. This practice is in denial of the Gospel and is therefore an offense to God.
P.S. David, I was a bit rushed as I finished up my last comment for submission, but I meant to close it by saying that I hope there was something helpful in what I wrote today and that it didn’t all come across to you as a lecture. I would also add that I know that we (you, me, and Stan) have previously discussed how the particular elements of some of the RCC traditions seem to present a more reverential tone towards God than Protestants might tend to demonstrate (see Stan’s 12/26/23 post “Catechism”). I am sure that this is the aspect that you are wishing to see more of in the Protestant church these days, and if so, I do understand that point of view. I am convinced, however, that it is misguided to look to an institution with so much error throughout it and expect to find there the God-honoring quality you desire; it must be found another way.
I look at the Roman Church because it is a part of our history, as believers and as westerners. For holy days, I'm not saying we need to have mandatory holy days like the Jews, but things like Easter, Christmas, Holy Week, where we pay particular attention to certain acts of God in history. They aren't salvific acts, but are helpful aids to sanctification. Or for holy buildings, God is clearly not opposed to buildings designed to draw our attention to Him. Yes, the Catholic Church eventually drew the attention in the wrong direction, but our modern stages and light shows and bland, ugly buildings do nothing to draw our attention where it should be. There needs to be a balance between the modern evangelical churches and the Roman Church. On Mary, there is very little acknowledgement of the example of faithfulness she displayed. I'm Protestant circles, she's mentioned as the mother of Jesus, but rarely is the extreme faithfulness she displayed talked about. Yes, the Roman Church takes it too far, but we've gone so far in the opposite direction as to basically ignore Mary. On confession, there is something good for the soul to confess our sins to another believer. I'm not calling for the absolution the priest "provides", but we've gone so far from confession that we believe we must keep our sins to ourselves, and now have a huge lack of accountability in the Church. I believe all these things, and more, had good intentions in their implementations in the early Catholic Church, and yes, they were corrupted. But does that mean we should flee as far from these things as possible, or perhaps we should reform them?
David, I don’t think you and I are talking about the same things here. I was concerned with doctrine, while you are discussing practice. That wasn’t clear to me in your very first comment, but it has become clear at this point (and I will mention as an aside that some of your observations differ from my personal experience). You seem to be saying, “I know the RCC’s doctrine is wrong, but I like their practice … until it went askew.” I would say, “I know the RCC’s doctrine is wrong, so I am not therefore surprised that the practice coming out of it is likewise askew.” Perhaps that will help clarify what you see as my “vehement hatred towards the Catholic Church,” which is actually an acute awareness of their error in doctrine and practice and a corresponding aversion to both.
I hope you are able to search out a local assembly that meets your requirements and satisfies your personal desires in these areas. (I have high standards myself, so I know the struggle.)
Post a Comment