The first birth has to be supplemented with the second birth(birth from the Spirit).The second birth is that which is being emphasized by the statement.
Looking through the Bible, one will notice that it is the birth through the Holy Spirit that is mentioned as being the means of our salvation.Water baptism is an act that takes place after our salvation.
Another thing we know is that faith/belief in Jesus Christ is what enables our birth through the Holy Spirit and is the only thing necessary for our salvation.
Interpreting being born of water to mean water baptism would then mean that faith in Jesus Christ isn’t the only thing necessary for our birth through the Spirit(but we know that it is only faith in Christ that saves us).
Jesus said we must be born again.Another interpretation is born from above.Another is born of the Spirit.Looking at John 3:5-6, you’ll notice that the two births mentioned were of water and Spirit, and also flesh and Spirit(vrs 6). Why was the explanation in verse 6 only about the birth in the Spirit as against the birth in the flesh? Why wasn’t the birth of water explained as the others were? Or are we to conclude that the birth in the Spirit includes the water birth? Of course not!!! The birth in the Spirit requires only faith in Jesus Christ. This just goes to say that the birth of water stands for the birth of flesh.Another way of putting the statement Jesus made in verse 5 is this- “Truly,truly I tell you,unless a person is born of water and from above(because being born of the Spirit is the same as being born from above) he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” It is just another way of saying unless a person has the first birth together/combined with the second birth in question……
Remember,the passage in question was talking about the requirements to be saved.We should know these points based on studying the bible:-
-being born again is the same thing as being born of the Spirit
-to be born again/born of the Spirit, all that is required is faith in Jesus Christ(John 1:12, John 3:16-18, Romans 10:9-13, etc).
These points should be borne in mind when reading and interpreting the passage in question.It is against the backdrop of these verses or should I say-it is the understanding from this verses that should help in interpreting the passage in question.
Water baptism represents the saving/cleansing work of Jesus in us.It does just that;represents!! Water baptism is not a requirement to be saved/justified.
It is a commandment to us to carry out after we have been saved.
Jesus did not command that we must be born physically/of water;the right interpretation is- he pointed out a state of being that needed another birth; and that is the birth of the Spirit.The water baptism is a commandment that takes place after a person has been saved;not before.

Thank you for stopping by and participating in this discussion. You said:

Jesus used that statement to let Nicodemus understand that his being physically born was necessary for him to be spiritually born(born of the Spirit)

This is one of the points I was trying to make – your assertion makes little sense. Jesus might as well have said “you must breathe to live”. Obviously the concept of being “born again” was confusing to Nicodemus. For Jesus to tell him that he “must” be born of his mother is redundant and unnecessary. Of course we must be physically born to one day be spiritually re-born. There is no need for Jesus to tell Nicodemus, or us, to be physically born. We have no say in the matter. Note that Jesus addressed the physical birth when he said flesh gives birth to flesh. By saying that Jesus showed that the birth of flesh has nothing to do with the birth of water and the Spirit.

Since this appears confusing to many today, as well as the original audience, we must look to the whole of scripture to see how this passage relates with the rest. If the birth of water is the waters of baptism it fits perfectly with Peter’s commandment in Acts 2:38. The only other conclusion is nonsensical – that Jesus commanded something over which we have no control. To not try and balance this passage with others is a poor method of Bible study and will limit our ability to understand difficult passages.

- I think Jesus was contrasting the two. Anyways, I will keep looking at this. I have looked at A.T. Robertson’s and others take from a Greek POV and they also do not see this as an imperative statement.

Verse 6
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.

From the times of Tertullian, the more discerning scholars have referred these words to the baptism of Christ in water (as the Greek reads here), and to his crucifixion (aptly described as his coming “in the blood”). Some have seen a reference here to John 19:34; and, as Bruce stated it, “I should not care to deny this.” F11 It undoubtedly refers to all of these events; and, even beyond this, it undoubtedly suggested to the apostle the two grand ordinances of the Christian religion: baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as indicated by his specific reference to them two verses later. However, the matter at hand in this verse related to the heresy of the Cerinthians who admitted that Jesus was the Christ after his baptism, but denied that he was the Christ in his crucifixion. Again from Bruce:

From their point of view, Christ came by water, but not by blood. Therefore, John emphasized that he came “not with water only, but with the water and with the blood”; with the clear meaning that Jesus was proclaimed as the Son of God as truly in his death as he was in his baptism. F12

John’s refutation of that heresy was as precise and devastating as any that could have been given.

from here:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=1jo&chapter=005

Can you tell me what verse you’re talking about?

In verse 6, Jesus Himself interprets the water as flesh (a physical birth)

No, you interpret water as flesh. Verse six says that flesh give birth to flesh. Not water gives birth to flesh. There are 3 things in view – water, Spirit and flesh. All 3 are distinct, and they are not to be substituted for one another.

The question I stated in the post is what you must answer – why would Jesus attach an imperative (must) to something over which Nicodemus had no control? Why would Jesus say that you MUST be born of your mother? Is that something you have control over? Jesus makes it clear that which is born of flesh is flesh. That is the physical birth and you will notice that Jesus attaches NO command to it. To do so is absurd as we have no part in our physical birth!

- I agree partly, but I still am open to other views at this point. I do lean towards your view, but not totally.

As to whether or not Nicodemus would have understood that it was a “born from above baptism”, look at the first thing he said to Jesus in verse 2. He knew Jesus had come “from God”. Would he understand that the baptism was a command directly from God? I think he would since he knew that Jesus’ teachings were straight from the Father. This understanding would only come after he fully grasped what Jesus was teaching though.

Was John’s baptism a “born from above baptism”? Clearly John’s baptism was “from God”, so I would say yes. Like I said before, the baptisms performed by Jesus’ disciples before His death were probably just like John’s baptism – preparatory baptisms of repentance in anticipation of the sacrifice of the Christ. That said, Nicodemus wouldn’t have seen baptism exactly like we see it preached on Pentecost and for us today, but he still would have seen it as a command of God.

Maybe within the context Nicodemus understood the subject was to be born from above ( which he seemed to be confused about ) and maybe he even connected water baptism with the statement “born of water”, but he didn’t understand baptism to be the place one contacts the blood of Christ – that is pretty much my point.

Was Johns baptism a “ born from above baptism” ? If not, how could Nicodemus understand water baptism as being born from above ?? Sure, he was familiar with Jewish baptisms, but he had no idea about water baptism being the place one contacts the blood of Christ – and is added to the church. We look at this verse and conclude born of water to mean “baptized into Christ” but put yourself in Nicodemus’s shoes….he had understanding of this at all….simply because Jesus hadn’t even went to the cross….did he even know at that point that Christ was the lamb of God who would pay the sin dept? Maybe “born of water” is the baptism we undergo today for the remission of sins…the place where we contact the blood…baptized into Christ…..but Nicodemus didn’t see “born of water” as we do today….