This interjection of the salvation status of little children can, I believe, best be explained as an undercurrent in the religious controversy that had plagued his people. Certainly, his teaching presumes some controversy on the subject. Benjamin opens with a hypothetical: “if it were possible that little children could sin.” He thus reminds the people of their understanding that little children are incapable of sin. Benjamin is not explaining this principle but simply using it as part of his example. He also takes for granted the people’s understanding that the ability of the children to sin depends on their age. There is a point where the same act changes from not being a sin to becoming a sin for that person. That point depends on some concept of the child’s no longer being “little.”
He next significantly comments that the Messiah’s blood atones for children’s sins—meaning things they do that would be sin were they capable of sinning. Other than simply stating that the Messiah atones for children, why is Benjamin bringing this up? It is critical to remember that this statement follows his declaration that Yahweh-Messiah makes efficacious even the atonement available through the law of Moses. He is contrasting the law of Moses to the future Messiah. His apparently unrelated comment about the children is part of that same carefully crafted contrast, one which he expects his audience to understand without his making it explicit.
Nephi’s teachings on baptism emphasize the choices that one must make to enter the baptismal covenant:
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. (2 Ne. 9:23–24)
And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water! (2 Ne. 31:5)
And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father? (2 Ne. 31:10)
In each statement, Nephi stresses that being baptized requires a purposive action—recognizing the need to repent, then repenting. Jesus was baptized as a man. Therefore, we follow his example. When we follow Jesus, we must keep commandments, which assumes our ability both to understand what a commandment requires and the ability to actually perform the action. In short, baptism requires the ability to make responsible choices. Modern Saints take such a requirement for granted, but would Benjamin’s people have done so?
Because Benjamin’s people followed the law of Moses, they believed that salvation came through the covenant, which was part of their birthright and was physically symbolized in males by circumcision at the age of eight days. Thus, according to the law of Moses, salvation begins with infants; yet according to the Messiah’s gospel, it must come later, when the person making the covenant is capable of responsible choices. For Benjamin’s people, the dissonance between the law of Moses and the hope in the Messiah concerning children was apparently a point of discussion, even of controversy. Benjamin is here bringing the Messiah’s atonement into an arena that dissenters would have claimed as the exclusive domain of the law of Moses—the salvation of children. While the atonement saves us from sin, it also saves us before sin. Just as the Messiah’s blood is the effective aspect of Mosaic atonement, so too is the Messiah’s blood the effective aspect of the salvation of children—not the blood of the circumcision.
The rest of Benjamin’s argument is important for understanding verse 19 below. Even though children are not capable of sin, they are still “fallen,” for “as in Adam, or by nature, they fall.” We expect the association of Adam and the fall, but the concept of “by nature” is unique to Benjamin. Benjamin equates “nature” with the fall. Because it occurs in children who cannot sin, the “fall/nature” is an inheritance of Adam, not a personal defect in the child. This definition is critical to understanding Benjamin’s discussion of the “natural man” (v. 19).