Good question. In Matthew and John it does seem that Jesus was recognised immediately by John, which reduces the baptism to a rictual, insisted on by Jesus simply because it is righteous. But read on their own Mark and Luke would suggest that the descent of the dove (and the baptism?) caused (or coincided with) a significant change in Jesus...
I guess the accepted answer is that Mark and Luke simply omit John's recognition, and that baptism is a rictual Jesus wanted to endorse.

Eko's not a real priest, so maybe he could be forgiven a few theological lapses. How long did he pose as a priest anyway?

Jesus was baptized to fulfill the law, because the Lord as a man followed the law to the letter.

No, Jez, the Holy Spirit's descension on Jesus did not change him. It blessed him or anointed him before the audience as God's beloved son. They didn't quite understand that at the time, but it was certainly something to remember.

Jesus came to John to be baptized and John's verbal response would suggest that Jesus asked to be baptized.

But De...(I write the next sentences in pure jest). You're lost. The only night to watch television is Monday night. You see Jack Bauer would have cleansed Mr. Eko.

In all seriousness...I find your question thought provoking.

I agree with Raindream on Jesus following the law and fulfilling the law. The Rev. at the church I attend mentioned that the water didn't change Jesus but that Jesus changed the water and makes it a holy symbol for our own baptism.

If anyone thinks this if off base please, I'd like to hear your comments and arguements.

I'm not a Lost follower (is that an oxymoron), but caught the scene tonite with my 19 yo son. He thought the comment was about John, not about Jesus. It went by so quickly that I'm not sure. Maybe someone TiVo'ed it and can figure it out.

About Jesus being baptized, it's interesting that in Mark and Luke, it's just a passing statement, no big deal. In Matthew, whose Gospel is written mostly for Jews, there is much more detail. Here, Jesus explains why he wants to be baptized--because it is "fitting," and because it will "fulfill all righteousness." In the same way that baptism at the end of Matthew (28:18-20, the Great Commission) seems to be a kind of spiritual rite of membership in the new community of faith, Jesus' baptism, the descent of the dove (Holy Spirit?), and the blessing of God mark Christ as the first in that new community of His Spirit. His baptism was not for forgiveness of sins, but it was "fitting" for the ministry that was being initiated in that act, and for the future church that is prefigured in the drama surrounding it.

Incidentally, the grammar doesn't necessarily require that John performed the baptism. It only says, "he (John) permitted Him." Jesus could have done His own baptism. Keep in mind He was almost certainly baptized the Brethren way--kneeling, and face forward into the water--which does not require an active baptizer. This would be consistent with the wording of Him "coming up out of the water."

And, yes, I know that Mark and Luke say "baptized by John," but I was just noting the description in Matthew.

Um... I've never watched the show... But with all due respect, would this not be more than just a missed concept or a cringe inducing moment? The word which is in all caps and bold in my mind is Blasphemy.

Sorry to be a bummer... But I just don't understand being willing to tolerate that.

I think it shows the acceptance of the OT to the Transition of the new testament. You have the last Old testament prophet heralding Jesus, and then baptizing him, and then the ministry starts right after.

no idea though really

I noticed that bit of mistaken exegesis, too. What I'm wondering is, I know what I believe Jesus' baptism meant, and I know what baptism means to me (Baptist). But what were the writers of LOST trying to say or symbolize or indicate with baptism in the story? It certainly wasn't a sign that Baby Aaron was sealed into the covenant of God's people.

"But I just don't understand being willing to tolerate that."

You're right, Blest. To suggest that Jesus had sin is blasphemy. As someone who never used to watch TV, really (we even went without one for a few years) I find it interesting that I've gotten so into Lost and 24. Mainly because it's something Jill and I can do together. But I'm still sorting it all out.

The moment described above didn't completely shock me because all the spiritual themes in Lost come across slightly skewed, it seems. Sometimes they feel forced. Poor Mr. Eko is often found launching into these "where did that come from" Biblical expositions. It can make one nervous, because you're never quite sure where he's going with it.

At the end of the show he baptised Claire and her baby - I know there will be some development on that.

I'm so intrigued by where they're going with all this I'm sure we will keep watching, with discernment, hopefully. But I would never recommend Lost to anyone as a source for spiritual truth.

Sherry - regarding what they were trying to symbolize. I got the idea that it was "safety" - being baptised is a safe thing to do as it assures you a place in heaven. That was all but said. It wasn't until the very end Mr. Eko brought in the forgiveness angle, and that was bollixed with the reference to Jesus being forgiven.

I believe that at the end the overriding theme of Lost will be redemption, as these are all flawed people who have deeply troubled pasts. Will the redemption be anything close to the real redemption God offers? I think it will have spiritual elements (unless the viewers reect less than positively to the somewhat sledgehammer spiritual approach currently being used in the show) but I am not counting on it being anything that points people to Christ.

Why did John baptise Jesus?

The answer to this question is, I think, the real starting point to the credo/paedo -baptism issue. Have fun.

Also, Lost rocks. (But I haven't watched my tape of last night's ep yet.)

My initial response would be that, like in real life, characters in books/shows/movies often say and do things that aren't theologically correct. If you haven't turned off Lost because Charlie is a heroin addict, Kate and Sawyer are murderers, children are kidnapped, and adultery is committed, I don't see why you should turn it off because one character doesn't "get" Jesus' sinlessness.
Just my 2 cents.

One thought Jared, and I'll leave ya alone and keep my thoughts on this issue to my own site...

You said - "just like in real life". But it's not real life. We interact with real people because a)we have to and b)we have the great commission. We can show grace and love to real people. We can correct real people's theological errors and we can reach real people with the truth.(speaking the truth in love, of course)

But as my husband so aptly said the other day "You can't witness to the people in the box"

And now that I've annoyed you enough for one morning... I will slink quietly back to my site. ;-)

Blest, that's true, but the case you seem to be making is one against art in general. You're right -- art (good or bad) isn't real life. Does that make it ipso facto unimportant or unworthy? The point I was trying to make is that books/movies/shows that strive for realistic characterization try to portray characters that act like people do in real life.

Now, I know there are people who prefer the characters in their books, movies, and TV shows act sinlessly or always say the right things. I'm not one of them, and I tend to think that more often than not, those works are not as good. I'm not saying Lost does this (and I'm not saying it doesn't), but no work of art can portray the message of grace without depicting sin or a "falling short" in some way. There's no need for grace if sin doesn't exist.

Again, though, if you think art is unnecessary anyway, this won't make a difference to you. But most of us like to read the occasional book or see the occasional movie or television show. I appreciate the call of some to abstention. But I think discernment and liberty are more important.

It's not fair to argue against all of my posts in a comment thread over here! You give me one little semi-snarky tweak....

Look. I am NOT arguing against all art. Not here - not in my series on my own site. Anymore than I was arguing against sex when I commented about that cd thing on Challies yesterday. I haven't told you or anyone else to pitch their books, tv's, cd's or anything else out the window.

"If you think art is unnecessary..." OH! I'm so angry at you I'm actually shaking. You know me better than that. Anyone who's ever read my site at all knows me better than that. Fine. Go ahead. Make up false positions for me and then deride them all you want. Or better yet, why don't you start providing me reasoned arguments and Scriptural backing for why it is totally acceptable to passively sit and watch sin for entertainment. Jesus walked and ate with sinners, but you know He never bought some popcorn and watched them sin while He laughed and clapped.

You know, I knew you wouldn't like my posts. Frankly I expected an argument before now. (And I knew that Liberty would be your rallying cry.) But I didn't expect to get one little dismissive, mocking winky comment on my site and have you grossly overstate my position somewhere else.

Bill - sorry to sidebar on your Baptism question. This time I really am taking it back to my cave. ;-)

Wow. Blest, I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to anger you. I wasn't really even trying to be sarcastic. That's just my normal debate "voice," and I assumed you were familiar with it. I apologize.

I know you're not against art, which is sort of the point I was making. If "Lost" isn't worth watching because someone blasphemes, then the point I was trying to make is that no work of art is worth consuming if it depicts sin. We both know the Bible says virtually nothing about entertainment, which is why I try to bring up consistency in these conversations. I know you read books other than the Bible, so I assume you make concessions of some sort. You do consume entertainment, so unless you're saying it should only come from Christians and have explicit Christian content, I think your call for a Scriptural support of entertainment is disingenuous. The question Bill posed was not "Should I stop watching this show?" but you were the one who brought that up. I wish I hadn't responded.

Yes, liberty is my rallying cry when I see it hasn't been included in the conversation.

Again, I'm sorry for hurting you. Wasn't my intention. I should have known that popping in here and there during my leave from the 'sphere wouldn't be fruitful.

"Lost" lost me a long time ago - it reminds me of "Twin Peaks" very compelling intially, but never really goes anywhere. I know I'm in the minority here, but my wife loves it! So I happened to be in the room to see the scene in question last night - as did my 17 year old daughter.

She picked right up on that - she asked "is that what Catholics believe - that John cleansed Jesus of sin?" I gave some heady theological answer like - "Catholicism can be just as sectarian as protestantism - some catholics believe all kinds of whacky stuff."

I think most important to Jesus' baptism was the conclusion - when the skys parted and the Lord descended and said "this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased".

It is the beginning of Jesus' ministry. As baptism for the believer is an outward expression of an inward reality (depending on your view) for Jesus it was the outward pronouncement to the world of his true inward reality - 100% God, 100% man.

[...] hat tip: Thinklings [...]

Jared, my friend, I'm really sorry too. I did things backward again. I lost my temper and responded in anger - then I went and prayed. Please forgive me. You've always reminded me so much of my extremely revered big brother, that I'm more sensitive to perceived criticism from you. (of course, I need to remember that a. you're not him and b.I'm actually the older one here! hee hee)

I know what you're saying. And I actually will get to those points later in my series. I actually am questioning other forms of entertainment in my life.

Well, I stepped away for a few minutes and all heck broke loose! :-)

A few thoughts.

- To be honest, I applaud anyone who decides to do without TV. Most of it is drek. I used to watch very little. I've recently gotten hooked on a few shows (24 and Lost) - mainly as excuses to hang out with my honey. :-) - but I don't consider non-TV-watchers are weird or anything. There are so many better ways to spend one's time. I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread, but it just kind of was on my mind.

- I knew when I posted this I'd get a number of "what do you expect? They're lost" comments from people. I was not shocked by what Mr. Eko said, because I wasn't expecting him to give the gospel on the show. I was a little surprised that (apparently) the writers of the show think the baptism of Christ cleansed him. It didn't come across to me as them intentionally putting false theology in Eko's mouth because he was a former drug-lord and not much of a priest. I honestly think they were trying to treat the subject of baptism seriously and just muffed it. But anytime the gospel is mangled that way, it's worth pointing out. If we're to care about art I think we should discuss it, evaluate it, etc. And keep in mind that I did not call for a boycott of the show, etc. This is a discussion of the effect of pop-art on people's understanding of Jesus.

- I was talking to a friend today and we both agreed that if Mr. Eko's words had been spoken by a noted Christian leader we would have really been ticked! As it was, I was just disappointed. There is an argument to be made that me watching Lost, which has some of the most overt spiritual themes of any show we've yet seen, is supporting the spread of faulty ideas about Jesus. I'm not sure to what degree that's true. I have to be honest, though - I've made the same argument toward Christians who read the Da Vinci code. Because they are monetarily supporting something that diminishes Christ.

- If my last statement offends any of you, we had a very respectful talk about it in the Da Vinci code thread, and it's been talked out pretty well. I'm not dogmatic about it. But I do, in my own life, ponder these things. I don't want to find out, at the very end, that in God's eyes I was just another lazy, carnal Christian. I feel a post coming on (but I think I'm too chicken to actually post it :-)

- Jill and I will still be watching Lost (until it gets uber-stupid, which could happen). I'm intrigued by where it's going, spiritually and otherwise. And I'll still probably post when something theologically stupid happens on the show :-)

Back to the original question about why Jesus was baptised...

I think we tend to forget that Jesus is the Messiah (sounds stupid I know) and that what he does it not for himself alone, but at every stage of his life he is acting on our behalf.

Reformed theology can struggle with questions like these because it tends to over-focus on the cross when considering how Christ's work is atoning, to the neglect of other equally important aspects of Jesus' saving work such as the incarnation or resurrection.

But if we consider that the whole of Jesus' life is a) part of his atoning work and b) is not for himself alone, but for others. Jesus undergoes a baptism for sins, not because he is a sinner, but because he is representing everyone else. We have gone astray from God but step by step, Christ brings us back to him. His baptism is part of this turning to God behalf of humanity.

Again, if we understand "righteousness" as covenantal-faithfulness, then Jesus' baptism fulfils all righteousness because it is an act of supreme faithfulness to God. We are supposed to be faithful to God, but we are not and so need to repent. We do not even do this, so Jesus does it on our behalf, beginning with his baptism. The rest is salvation history.

Jared - come back. The Thinklings needs you to blog again.

Thanks Steven. Your answer, though far more eloquent than what I would have written, matches my thoughts as well.

I've got something I'd like to say about art vs. entertainment. Blest talked about entertainment as "laughing and clapping along", which is what we'd do while at the circus watching the jugglers, trapeze artists and so on. It's what we do when we're impressed and amazed by the skill of a performer. There's an element of art in the showmanship of presenting that skill to best effect.
But art is, I think, something more. It is using a skill for some narrative of illustrative purpose. We're not merely impressed with a painter's skill with a brush, or even his draftmanship, but with the composition and perceptiveness of his work. In something like "lost" (I don't watch it), we're not only impressed with actors remembering lines or the director of photography organising the light properly, rather we're interested in the emotional and narrative content.
I agree with Jared that art about sinless or theologically "correct" characters are usually unable to offer insight into real worldly life.

Jared - come back. The Thinklings needs you to blog again.

Steven, thank you. That made my morning. ;-)

"I agree with Jared that art about sinless or theologically "correct" characters are usually unable to offer insight into real worldly life."

Well, I agree too. But the issue was never "I only want to see perfect people on TV". At least I never said that.

And, as I said, I will continue to watch Lost until/unless it gets ridiculous.

My issue is not "bad theology" or sin - Lost already had enough of that anyway. It's the fundamental denial of who Jesus was. I think in entertainment that's the only time I can't just shrug my shoulders and say "Oh well."

If Eko had said "Baptism is what gets you into heaven" I might have posted something, but I would have been bothered a lot less. That would have been me disagreeing with a theological point. But what he said was, effectively, "Jesus was a sinner".

That hits me on a far more personal level.

Really, it's rare in entertainment (well, in the entertainment I see at least) to hear something that misrepresents Jesus so badly. Misrepresenting Christians? Absolutely - you see that all the time. That doesn't bother me so much. Weird ideas about heaven, God, etc? Happens often. But direct slams against the claims of Christ? Not as often. I think those affect me more than anything.

This post wasn't meant to be a slam against art in general, and it was certainly not a call for sanitizing all entertainment (although I think a lot of it needs sanitizing, but that's another post).

Frankly, any portrayal of human beings as "sinless" would be creepy. Because it's not true. And TV shows that had characters spouting correct theology all the time would also be a little weird. That was never the point.

But more portrayals of people who are noble, pure, courageous and selfless isn't boring. Part of the allure of Lord of the Rings was the selflessness of many of the characters and their willingness to sacrifice all. It's what makes Aragorn such a compelling figure. Even 24 has these elements: has anyone ever known someone who is more willing to give his life for a greater cause than Jack Bauer? Not that he's always necessarily pure or noble, but he is selfless and courageous like crazy.

On the other hand, one reason Screwtape Letters is so helpful is because it does shed light on the human condition from a diabolical point of view.

But for me, it was just the slamming of Jesus that spawned this post. That's something that I don't think is necessary, ever.

I watched this episode, and would have posted on it the next day except that Jewel beat me to it.

It bugged me a lot, and here's why:

It's not because a TV writer has different theology than me.

It's not because a TV character has different theology than me.

It was because it was an inaccurate portayal of what Catholics (and other Christians) believe. I know, Eko isn't technically a priest, and hasn't been to seminary. Still I have a hard time believing that in his culture, (and don't you think he'd been catechized by the time he was kidnapped?) he wouldn't know basic catholic teachings!

Eko said that John saw a dove, and that it represented forgiveness that Jesus was receiving for his sins. So he messes up two things:

First, saying that Jesus had sin and need to be cleansed of them and
Second, saying that the dove represented forgiveness. The dove was the Holy Spirit dummy. Apparently, from other episodes, the dude knows his Bible. It's right there in the Bible in plain English. He knew the Josiah story, he can quote the 23rd Psalm. I think it's safe to say that this character has read the passage where Jesus is baptized. Yet he is totally wrong in his description of it.

I chalk this one up to TV writers who assume they know more about religion than they really do and are too lazy to do any real research. (Did one of them even bother to read the passage where Jesus is baptized before they wrote that?) I compare it to TV writers constant referral to the book of Revelation as "Revelations." Lost did that too, by the way. Eko was carving Scripture references on his stick and "Revelations" is on there.

So my beef is with accuracy in detail. Don't the writers of medical and legal dramas make some effort to make sure that when they describe a legal term or a surgical procedure that it is at least reasonably accurate? How hard would it have been for one of the writers to call up a priest and say, "Hey, what do Catholics believe about baptism, and about why Jesus was baptized?" At the very least, they could have read a few passages out of the Bible. They should have done some research. In my opinion, they are not deliberately showing a theologically flawed character. They were lazy and didn't do the proper research for an accurate representation of what others believe. It was ridiculous.

I'm going to keep watching too though... I love that show, even if this particular episode was a bit on the boring side. I think Charlie's going to turn out to be right somehow.

jez, I won't argue this too much here because a)no one wants to hear it and b)the bulk of my writing on this subject is up on my own site - but the reason we don't clap along at television is because it's not live. People did use to clap at the end of movies -sometimes they still do. And don't tell me we don't laugh at the sin on television. We laugh ourselves sick.

Also, I'm a little disturbed at this wholesale equivocation of television and Art. As if to attack or question the one is to cast aspersions on the totality of the other. Is all television art? Is all art good? If the sanctifying title of art may be applied to all television - no matter how much baseless behavior it portrays- may it not also be applied to p*rn? After all, "There's an element of art in the showmanship of presenting that skill to best effect."

But as you said, there are illustrative purposes. What are the purposes of people who make television shows? Is it all innocent? Is it just a warm-hearted desire to entertain, enlighten, and inspire? Was that whopper of a theological mistake just laziness or ignorance or faulty exegesis or some other relatively innocuous reason? How come no one wants to entertain the possibility that they know very well what we believe about Christ - that they knew quite well what the Bible said about Him - and they deny it and wish to lead people astray? Isn't that at least possible??

Okay. I really am done this time. ;-)

BWS, I hope you're never done, because you are one of our all time favorite commenters :-)

Shrode - I wouldn't mind so much if Charlie's character got offed. He is irritation personified. Although I do like it when he says "Bollix".

That being said, I expect redemption for his character and many others, somehow, as the show progresses. Unless Lost gets really, really stupid, which is an intense possibility! :-)

I think Charlie's going to turn out to be right somehow.

Yeah, that's what really bugged me about the ep. He's saying the baby's in danger, and they all blow him off even though EVERYBODY knows The Others have a thing about stealing kids and have already kidnapped Claire before (and didn't Rousseau kidnap Aaron before?). Charlie had a good point about how everyone else sees visions and strange things but then when he has them it has to be the heroin.

Of course, he is a smackhead . . . ;-)

Oh, and Locke went down a bunch of notches in my book when he smacked Charlie around. What was that all about? Unnecessary.

Personally,
I think the island is some kind of purgatory, or some type of "caught in the middle" afterlife. Just my opinion... :)

And you are right, Jared. No one took him seriously.

Though Locke punching Charlie actually made sense to me. I think he did the right thing. Charlie set a fire that could have killed people. He potentially put the baby at risk, and in a sense, betrayed the community. Charlie deserved some kind of punishment from the community. I think that was a way of saying, "You are wrong, man. You are officially out of the community." Charlie's going to have to redeem himself in their eyes somehow.

BTW, I found forums over at 2 official lost sites. People are talking about this, but it's mostly the religious nuts preaching at people rather than being reasonable about the whole thing.

Oh, and another thing about Locke punching Charlie...

just like Charlie tried to assume the role as Claire's husband, I think that Locke has assumed the role as Claire's father, and thus the baby's unofficial grandfather. (Locke making the crib, giving advice about care for the child, giving advice to both claire and charlie about their relationship, and in this episode holding the child, sleeping nearby to protect mother and child...)

Isn't punching someone who was a danger to your grandson something we would all want to do. In a "lawless" society like they live in, it seems appropriate that a "kinsman" dish out punishment.

I think Locke is awesome. :)

Actually, I like all the characters. The only two I didn't like have already been killed off. :)

Charlie's a great character. a member of a one-hit wonder rock band, and a drug user...I think it's great.

I think Locke knew at that point that Charlie had no intention of harming the baby. And at that moment, Charlie had already given the baby back and everyone was turning their back on him. It was fairly clear his ostracization had begun. That's why I found the smacking unnecessary; it was like piling on. I can understand him deserving it. I just don't think it was necessary, and I find it odd that Locke would, even with his rugged, survivalist thing going on.

I like Locke too. I did, then I didn't, and now I do again. I just didn't like the punching.

I like Charlie too.
Really, the only characters I don't like are Sawyer and Ana Lucia. They annoy me. And I think Kate's pretty boring. But then, the whole "bad boy/girl" thing never interested me.
I liked Boone and Shannon, though.

OK, so I spent some time over at two official Lost message boards. (Including the official site for the creative team - http://www.thefuselage.com/)

I thought I could write a nice note. There's already some Christians over there yelling, "Baptism doesn't save, Jesus didn't sin" I thought I could be a voice of reason and say, "Hey, how come you didn't represent Catholicism's views accurately? Was it an accident or just laziness?" But others have already asked, so I guess I can't add much. Hopefully the writers will get the message.

As far as Locke punching Charlie...I think Charlie needed to be sent a message. "You need to stay away for a while" already didn't work. Locke tried that. He needed to be sent a message, in a way that he could understand, that what he did was serious and unacceptable and that it would not be tolerated.

I would have punched Charlie too. :)

De - I only mean done on this thread!! I'm too hooked on you guys to quit! ;-)

LYMI!!!

...because you are one of our all time favorite commenters :-)

Man! It's amazing what one batch of fudge and some doggerel can accomplish!

Jared - you're too hard on Locke. For all he knew, Charlie had been using H. He had already found out that Charlie's a big liar about it. He had set a fire, stolen a baby (!), taken the little tike practically into the ocean.

That smackdown was well deserved. I at least enjoyed watching it.

BWS - you have to understand - that was some AMAZING fudge!

Oh, and I liked Shrode's point that Locke is acting as Claire's "dad".

At least I hope so. If they ever get too chummy . .

eeeewww.

I didn't say Charlie didn't deserve it. I just said it wasn't necessary, sort of like adding injury to insult.

Now I have to wrap my mind around our hardcore "turn the other cheek" guy enjoying Charlie getting his nose inverted . . . ;-)

"Now I have to wrap my mind around our hardcore "turn the other cheek" guy enjoying Charlie getting his nose inverted . . . ;-)"

I knew that was coming . . .

No contradiction. Locke was defending someone else. I wouldn't condemn you for smacking someone for doing something dangerous around your daughter or grandchild. Same thing.

The turn the other cheek thing relates to personal affront, insult, and (yes, I believe this, though I'm not sure how well I would live it if tested) personal physical attack. But it doesn't preclude protecting others.

I still don't get it. Protecting others? Who was Charlie attacking? He'd already handed the baby over, even though Locke himself knew Charlie had no intention of hurting the baby. Everyone else had walked away. Did Locke think Charlie was going to go attack Claire? I don't think so. I think he hit him not in any sort of defense but just as a sort of "shut up and be still"-type thing.

I was just joking about the "cheek" comment, btw, although your take does surprise me a bit.

Heh, we could argue this for awhile I guess. What fun!

"even though Locke himself knew Charlie had no intention of hurting the baby."

That is a bit of a stretch. I don't think Locke trusts Charlie, not as far as he could punch throw him. I don't think you can say Locke knows Charlie won't hurt the baby. And my guess is that if Charlie gets anywhere closer than 30 meters from Claire or Aaron Locke is going to smack him down again.

It's sad that she has to be guarded. But Charlie has lost it. No pun intended. Charlie did something completely crazy, endangering the lives and property of a number of people with the fire and with what he did with Aaron.

On my approval of the punch. I realize it might be surprising, but I have low, low tolerance for people who take advantage of those weaker than them. Charlie taking advantage of Claire and Aaron, for instance. Also for people taking ownership of things that aren't theres (the right to baptise Aaron). Hence my punch-approval.

Now, if Locke hadn't punched Charlie, I'd probably be OK with that too. But there are times in all of our lives when we need to get punched good and hard, because we're being idiots.

On another note, though - yes, Aaron is completely at risk of being kidnapped and you'd think more people would realize that. So in that way Charlie has a good point. I expect an Aaron episode soon, with something bad happening to him and (most likely) Charlie getting blamed. Hope not though.

Now, a better question: WHY DID LOCKE SECURE THE HEROIN IN THE HATCH, RATHER THAN DESTROY IT?

Locke sometimes gives me the creeps.

we could argue this for awhile I guess

We could, but we won't. I'm really just trying to understand the other perspective, since, while I get Locke's justification (the fire, etc., but not really "protection"), I just thought the beat-down was unnecessary. I'm surprised that others thought it was okay. The way I saw the scene was not Charlie attacking and Locke defending, but Locke giving a final, painful moment of humiliation to Charlie. It's entirely possible I mis-viewed it.

I don't think Locke trusts Charlie

You're right, and I thought the scene at the heroin stash was right on. What Locke said about "You've given up the right to be believed" or whatever was perfect.

I don't think you can say Locke knows Charlie won't hurt the baby.

Well, I was only basing that on what Locke said to Claire. He said Charlie didn't want to harm Aaron, that he wanted to, in his own misguided way, protect him.

Charlie did something completely crazy, endangering the lives and property of a number of people with the fire and with what he did with Aaron.

You're right. I agree he deserved the smacks.

Charlie taking advantage of Claire and Aaron, for instance. Also for people taking ownership of things that aren't theres (the right to baptise Aaron).

I'm unclear on the "taking advantage" thing. From my angle, he's tried to be a very good support for both Claire and the baby, and even Claire thought so before her post-kidnap mindswipe.

I also get the ownership thing. Charlie should have definitely obeyed the baby's mother's wishes. As Locke said, he's not the baby's family, he's not the baby's father.

My overarching concern, I guess, is that Charlie really was acting out of genuine concern. He wasn't just trying to baptize the kid because he thought it was the religiously right thing to do. This is an island where really weird crap goes on. People are seeing visions all the time. Strange phenomena occur. And The Others are constantly stealing children. It makes sense to me, within the context of the show and the paranormal goings-on on the island, that Charlie would believe based on his dreams that he needed to baptize the baby to protect it from danger. Everyone else, including most viewers apparently, see him as having "lost it." And definitely his credibility is shot b/c of the drugs. But has he really lost it? Do we forget just where they are and what has been going on? They ain't in Jamaica.

I'm willing to bet, as Shrode mentioned, that Charlie will eventually be vindicated and shown as right.

WHY DID LOCKE SECURE THE HEROIN IN THE HATCH?

Great question. I said the same thing out loud last night as he was doing it.

Bill, I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative. It's a bit of a lazy weekend for me after a couple of weeks of busy-ness and stress, and I'm enjoying discussing a really cool show. Sorry if it feels like I'm just debating for the heck of it. I'll back off if I'm getting annoying.

Despite my rant, I should remind myself that Claire did have Aaron (and herself) baptized at the end of the episode. So maybe Aaron is "protected" now. But I think Charlie will be vindicated somehow.

Jared,

Thanks - I never at any time found your comments irritating. It's great to talk to you! I miss that, a lot. I am enjoying this convo/arg, actually.

All my Charlie-bashing aside, I do hope he gets redemption and restoration.

You've got me thinking. Who is the more dangerous, long term? Locke? or Charlie?

I have to admit that, given a choice, I'd say Locke. Locke kind of lost me in some ways when he allowed Kate to go down the hatch first, and also when he put Boone in the danger that cost him his life (and didn't seem that upset about it, actually - being too consumed with his thoughts of the hatch).

I have something else to admit: Perhaps it would have been better had Locke not hit Charlie. I'm not surprised he did (because we have a more complete view of Charlie than Locke does), but I'm OK without the hits, after having thought about it :-)

Lost is entirely overrated. (Just kidding, I've never even seen the show).

Why was Jesus baptized?

Our interpretive key needs to be his Judaism, not later Christian theological developments; in other words, I don't think Jesus was necessarily thinking about such things. I think it's safe to say that the baptism of John was about repentance and identification with the remnant of Israel. It's a reconstitution of Israel (it's the Jordan River, remember) in terms of turning to Yahweh, and this outside the context of the Temple cult, which John and the Essenes probably thought was beyond saving. Jesus would in turn (if you follow our boy Bishop Tom) continue that reconstitution in terms of loyalty to himself and his preaching of the Kingdom.

"Jesus would in turn (if you follow our boy Bishop Tom) continue that reconstitution in terms of loyalty to himself and his preaching of the Kingdom."

I don't follow your boy Bishop Tom. Not because I don't think he has something good to say, but mainly because I hardly ever can make heads or tails of what he says. As in your last paragraph. "reconstitution in terms of loyalty to himself and his preaching of the Kingdom". Eh?

I admit this is certainly my problem/deficiency, not yours or N.T. Wright's. But I'm waiting for an N.T. Wright for Dummies book to come out (or for him to gain some Lewisian skills for making his theological ideas more accessible) :-)

I was actually going to say that I like Kyle's answer the best so far, if only because it is most similar to the one I would have given.

reconstitution in terms of loyalty to himself and his preaching of the Kingdom.

Translation: John's baptism, which reenacted the Exodus and the crossing of the Jordan of Israel into the Promised Land, was the sign of the new covenant when Jesus underwent it. Repentance, then, had less to do with "personal sins" (and in Jesus' case, nothing to do with personal sins) and more to do with Israel turning to a new way. (Wright talks a lot about "repentance from sins" in this national, corporate context too, so he doesn't deny baptism is connected to repentance from sin.)

Reconstitution, as Kyle channels Wright, means that Jesus was reorganizing Israel under a new covenant, reestablishing it in light of himself. So the new crossing is the first sign of Jesus defining all of Judaism's cultural markers and religion in terms of himself. The Law, the Temple cult, the rituals, the feasts, the Land, etc. -- all fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus was reforming Israel around and in himself, and his baptism under John was the official "coming out" of this mission. He was reenacting those valued and decisive moments in the young nation of Israel as a way of showing a new decisive moment has come for the nation.

Does that make more sense?

I really think "The Original Jesus" by Wright himself is sort of a "Wright for Dummies." Or at least "Wright's Jesus for Dummies."

I remember reading Original and finding it fairly accessible. It's just been a long time.

Does Wright consider repentance in baptism to only be in a corporate/national context?

I hadn't really thought about the significance of the Jordan as a new "Crossing".

Not sure I buy it, frankly. But I'm not much of a theologian.

I have always considered Jesus' baptism as the official coming out, as you say. Just haven't been able to take it much further than that. I'm not saying I disagree.

In addition to it being Jesus' official beginning of his ministry, I think that it was an important "lead by example" thing. He told his followers at the end of his ministry that they needed to baptize new disciples. Here at the beginning, he in a sense, goes first. Jesus did, after all, say, "Follow me" a lot, did he not?

(Oh, and hey, did any of you pedo-baptists notice that he was grown up, and baptized by immersion. Oh, wait, I'm being redundant, since baptize means immerse. He was immersed by immersion. :) Just some good natured, ribbing folks. I love pedo-sprinklers. Some of my best friends are pedo-sprinklers. Hey, I've even been sprinkled myself. ;-)

Oh, and hey, Jared and Jewel,
I really enjoyed your mini-debate. I just read it. Thanks guys. That was fun.

Man, my memory must be going, or I stopped the tape before it was over because I don't remember Locke putting the heroin in the hatch.

As for Charlie, I don't blame him for his behavior...oh wait, he set a fire. Yet, we the viewers at least sort of understand it, and I do think that Charlie will be vindicated later and/or he will redeem himself.

As for the beat-down, given what Locke knew, I still think it was the right thing.

You're right. I agree he deserved the smacks.

Jared, did I miss something? Did you change your mind. I thought originally you were against the smacks?

I view their situation as a survival, without an organized society, situation. LIke a dogpack, someone has to tell the young one's when they are out of line. A beating in a dogpack is appropriate discipline. Similarly, they are in a primitive situation, and Charlie was acting like a savage. I don't think Locke was trying to humiliate Charlie, or even getting revenge. I think Locke was wacking a puppie across a nose. The kid just wasn't going to get the message any other way. It's like saying, "Stay away. Seriously. And if you don't, I'm really going to puppy slap you."

Or to put it another way, without an organized legal system, vigalante justice is, while not preferred, sometimes a necessary, lesser of two evils way of dealing with criminals. This is why in the OT, God accomodated, meaning he never prohibited outright, the idea of a kinsman pursuing you and killing you for murdering his family member.

Charlie committed a crime, and someone needed to punish him and let him know it wasn't acceptable. If you think about it, he got off easy. :)

Baptism is for sinners.
Jesus was not a sinner.
Why baptised?
At the baptism Jesus identifies himself with sinful men. This leads ultimatly to the cross where Jesus identifies with sinful man by taking their penalty upon himself.
Thus the baptism of Jesus points to his work on the cross.

Jesus' identification with sinful man was God's will for Jesus. Thus when Jesus is baptised he fulfils rightousness (obedience to the Father) and this is acknowledged by God with the words "you are my son with whom I am well pleased" (which emphasise Jesus as an obedient son).