It is not so "hands down" natural birth. "enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" The way into the Kingdom is the context. It seems unnatural logic to think that he is saying you must be born of the flesh and of the spirit when he just got through saying that which is born of the flesh is flesh.. He has moved on from flesh to a different concept "water and spirit" This is also an interpretation and which one is more natural is the question.
The view that water is referring to natural birth might be correct. If I had an example of ancient text that referred to a natural birth in this way it would be strong evidence that Jesus meant natural birth. Maybe there is such an cultural textual reference.
If not, then the "water and spirit" being the "spiritual" antithesis of "flesh" seems a more natural interpretation especially since they were baptizing people and preaching baptism which was what everyone knew about Jesus and his disciples.
Think about it. Jesus and his disciples are going from town to town baptizing people and preaching repentance and the Kingdom of Heaven. They are famous for it. They just baptized 200 at the river that day. And then Jesus makes the comment "you must be born of water and the spirit" as the opposite of being born of flesh. Put yourself there in Nicodemus place. What would you think?
I doubt the average man had detailed knowledge about fluids involved in birth as they did not accompany their wives when they gave birth but left it to midwives and women to take care of. This idea that it would be understood that being born of water had to do with a natural birth seems to have been invented. Does anyone know when it first shows up in commentaries or church writers?
The view that water is referring to natural birth might be correct. If I had an example of ancient text that referred to a natural birth in this way it would be strong evidence that Jesus meant natural birth. Maybe there is such an cultural textual reference.
If not, then the "water and spirit" being the "spiritual" antithesis of "flesh" seems a more natural interpretation especially since they were baptizing people and preaching baptism which was what everyone knew about Jesus and his disciples.
Think about it. Jesus and his disciples are going from town to town baptizing people and preaching repentance and the Kingdom of Heaven. They are famous for it. They just baptized 200 at the river that day. And then Jesus makes the comment "you must be born of water and the spirit" as the opposite of being born of flesh. Put yourself there in Nicodemus place. What would you think?
I doubt the average man had detailed knowledge about fluids involved in birth as they did not accompany their wives when they gave birth but left it to midwives and women to take care of. This idea that it would be understood that being born of water had to do with a natural birth seems to have been invented. Does anyone know when it first shows up in commentaries or church writers?