Jacob did not teach that baptism was required in his day

In my last post, I argue that "Alma introduced baptism to the Nephites" -- meaning the actual practice of baptism; clearly they were aware of the concept of baptism prior to Alma, but I think I've made a pretty strong case that the Nephites at Zarahemla at least did not practice baptism before Alma and did not consider baptism as such to be strictly necessary, since those who had already made Benjamin's non-baptismal covenant were not expected tp be baptized. See that post for the evidence.

At the end of that post, though, I wrote this:

Against this conclusion, we have 2 Ne. 9 and 2 Ne. 31, where the need to be baptized is taught by Jacob and Nephi, long before Alma. This, too, will be a subject for another post.

This is that promised follow-up post -- or rather the first of them, as I've decided to address the two problematic chapters separately. Here is the relevant portion of Jacob's sermon:

O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.

And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.

And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.

And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.

Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel.

But wo unto him that has the law given, yea, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us, and that transgresseth them, and that wasteth the days of his probation, for awful is his state! (2 Ne. 9:20-27)

Notice that Jacob begins by prophesying things that Jesus Christ will do in the future, expressing these future events in the present tense (with -eth). God "cometh into the word" in the future, "suffereth the pains of all men" in the future, and "commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name" -- and this command, implicitly, is also to be given in the future. It would be strange for Jacob to suddenly jump back in time at this point and mention a commandment that had already been given centuries before Christ.

Those who refuse baptism "must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it, wherefore he has given a law." That wherefore indicates that the "law" spoken of is the requirement to repent, believe, and be baptized. It is not the Law of Moses, in force in Jacob's time, but a new "law" that would be given by Christ in the future. Just as Jacob has been using the present tense to describe Christ's future actions, we must understand "has spoken it" and "has given a law" in the same way. Christ will command baptism, and so those who refuse baptism will be damned for breaking the law Christ has given (i.e., will, at that future time, have given).

Jacob immediately follows this with an explanation that "where there is no law given . . . there is no condemnation" -- meaning that those who have not yet received the command Christ will give in the future will not be damned for failing to do what that future law will require.

Against this interpretation we have v. 27, where Jacob speaks of "him that has the law given, that has all the commandments of God, like unto us." Taken literally, this implies that Jacob and his listeners have all the commandments of God -- including, implicitly, the commandment to be baptized. In context, though, I think it is clear that he means they have the current law of God (i.e. that given by Moses) in its entirety and are thus expected to obey it, not that they have all the commandments God  has ever given or will ever give. In what follows, Jacob speaks against lying, murder, whoredoms, etc. -- but never does he directly tell his listeners to be baptized.

So I think this chapter is fairly easy to reconcile with the hypothesis that the Nephites did not practice baptism before Alma. 2 Ne. 31 presents more of a challenge and will be addressed in another post.