If infant baptism is the imperative that the article states, why did God not set that example at Jesus’ birth? God could have certainly set the timing of John The Baptist’s arrival to coincide with the Jesus’ birth. It was the event of His baptism at age 30 that ushered in His ministry. I tend to believe that Jesus, sinless and in no need of salvation or baptism, set the example and significance of baptism as the conscious act of a disciple in obedience to God’s command. An infant cannot make such a choice.
Matthew 3:15: ...as a way to fulfill all righteousness" (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Well whose righteousness?
I doubt you & I would question Jesus' personal pre-baptismal righteousness.
So right away we know all of those other Scriptural reasons given for our baptisms don't apply to Jesus' baptism, right? Things like...
* regeneration (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)
* deliverance from death -- salvation (1 Pet. 3:21; Mark 16:16)
* justification (1 Cor. 6:11)
* conscience being delivered (Heb. 10:22)
* new heart (Eze 36:25-27)
* forgiveness/remission of sins (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16)
* Cleansing (Eph. 5:25-26; Zech 13:1)
Most commentators focus on Jesus' reason for baptism was "identification with sinners"...The Righteous One identifying with the unrighteous
Identification with sinners -- not only with baptism but his identification as a condemned man on the cross -- was best done as an adult. (I mean, God could have had His infant Son, Jesus, crucified as well as satisfactory atonement, obviously God wanted all of this to play out in front of a more public audience)