Not so obvious. Have you ever witnessed the birth process, particularly when a woman's "water is broken"? Jesus was describing two separate births: natural and spiritual.
John 3:3-6, "Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit."
There is no mention of baptism; it's not even implied.
Really think about this for a moment.
Jesus said that in order to see God's kingdom we must be "born again", he clarifies this in verse 5, that to be born again, to see the kingdom, we must be what? We must be born (singular) of water and the Spirit.
"Water and the Spirit" is the new birth.
Jesus does not say we must be "born of water" and then "born of the Spirit", but that we must be "born of water and the Spirit".
Further, consider the absurdity of this idea: Why would Jesus have to explain to Nicodemus that a person has to first exist before being born again?
If you ask, "How can I enter a grocery store?" And I say, "Well first of all you have to have been born physically, and then you walk through the entrance of the store" Isn't that just a bit awkward? Who needs to be told they have to first be born physically?
The only people who are going to hear this, the only people who are going to read this, the only people who can be told this are people who have already exited the womb.
It is an absurd interpretation that simply does not work here. It arose as an ad hoc way to explain away the plain and simple meaning of what Jesus says.
Jesus inquires to how Nicodemus couldn't understand what He was talking about, in spite of being a learned rabbi. Why does Jesus say this? Because Nicodemus should have understood immediately what Jesus was saying, because Jesus was speaking from within a Jewish context.
In Judaism when a Gentile converts they have to go through a ritual washing of water called tevilah, which is done in a mikveh, a ritual bath. What is the meaning and significance of this? In Judaism through tevilah a non-Jew is born again as a Jew, as a member of God's covenant people. For males this also includes being circumcised, but circumcision applies to all Jewish males, not just converts; to convert one has to undergo ritual washing in the mikveh.
Nicodemus was not ignorant of this, he knew this--as a learned Jew and rabbi, he was fully aware that that a Gentile was made into a Jew, receives a kind of new birth as a Jew, through the ritual washing of tevilah.
It wasn't the only use of tevilah, but it was a very important use of tevilah in Judaism, and it still is.
From MyJewishLearning.com,
"
Submerging in a pool of water for the purpose not of using the water’s physical cleansing properties but expressly to symbolize a change-of-soul is a statement at once deeply spiritual and immensely compelling. No other symbolic act can so totally embrace a person as being submerged in water, which must touch and cover every lesion, every strand of hair, every birthmark. No other religious act is so freighted with meaning as this one which touches every aspect of life and proclaims a total commitment to a new idea and a new way of life as it swallows up the old and gives birth to the new.
The water of the mikveh is designed to ritually cleanse a person from deeds of the past. The convert is considered by Jewish law to be like a newborn child. By spiritually cleansing the convert, the mikveh water prepares him or her to confront God, life, and people with a fresh spirit and new eyes–it washes away the past, leaving only the future. Of course, this does not deny that there were good and beautiful aspects of the past. But, in the strictest religious sense, that past was only prologue to a future life as a Jew." -
The Mikveh's Significance in Traditional Conversion | My Jewish Learning
Jesus takes the old meaning, and like He does so often, reinvigorates it with new meaning; the old washing of water in the mikveh gives way to Christian Baptism. Which like the former way was still in water, but now "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19) and by the name and authority of Jesus Christ our Lord (Acts of the Apostles 2:38, Acts of the Apostles 19:5).
Biblically.
Historically.
Theologically.
Contextually.
Jesus is talking about Baptism.
Which, as it just so happens, is also what
literally every Christian from the time of the Apostles until modern history believed.
So I would encourage you to investigate, to ask yourself--how come nobody ever came up with the whole amniotic fluid theory until very recently? Protestant commentators, even those that rejected the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, still understood the meaning here to be baptism, so for example John Wesley writes in his explanatory notes on John 3:5,
"
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit — Except he experience that great inward change by the Spirit, and be baptized (wherever baptism can be had) as the outward sign and means of it."
-
John 3 Bible Commentary - Wesley’s Explanatory Notes
Matthew Henry in his commentary writes,
"
The regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is compared to water. It is also probable that Christ had reference to the ordinance of baptism. Not that all those, and those only, that are baptized, are saved; but without that new birth which is wrought by the Spirit, and signified by baptism, none shall be subjects of the kingdom of heaven." -
John 3 Bible Commentary - Matthew Henry (concise)
B.W. Johnson's commentary,
"
Jesus does not reply directly to the question of Nicodemus, but proceeds to give a more explicit statement concerning the new birth. One must be born of water and of the Spirit. Whatever this may mean, it will be admitted by all (1) that no one is a member of the kingdom of God until he is born again; (2) that the Savior declares the impossibility of one entering who is not born of water and of the Spirit. All agree that the birth of the Spirit refers to the inward, or spiritual change that takes place, and all candid authorities agree that born of water refers to baptism. So Alford, Wesley, Abbott, Whitby, Olshausen, Tholuck, Prof. Wm. Milligan, the Episcopal Prayer Book, the Westminister Confession, the M. E. Discipline, and M. E. Doctrinal Tracts, and also the writers of the early Church all declare. Alford says: "All attempts to get rid of this have sprung from doctrinal prejudices." Abbott says: "We are to understand Christ as he expected his auditor to understand him. John the Baptist baptized both Jew and Gentile as a sign of purification by repentance from past sins. Nicodemus would then have certainly understood by the expression, 'born of water,' a reference to this rite of baptism."" -
John 3 Bible Commentary - B. W. Johnson
In fact, this is so utterly ubiquitous in historical commentary and exegesis, that I have become utterly curious about the origins of the amniotic fluid interpretation.
It absolutely requires asking ourselves when did this idea start showing up? And why? It is so outside, so apart from the historic belief of Christianity that it deserves to be analyzed further--especially seeing so many Christians today being hoodwinked and deceived by this falsehood.
-CryptoLutheran
