We know from Nicodums' reply to Jesus' statement that he thought Jesus was talking about physical birth. Nicodemus didn't get that being born again/from above wasn't about literal physical birth, so it should not be a surprise that he also didn't get that Jesus was not necessarily talking about physical birth when he referred to being born of water.
Nicodemus did not recognize the scriptural precedent of the waters of Noah's flood and Israel passing through the Red Sea as a kind of baptism/birth by water. Many also miss that to this day and immediately think in terms of amniotic fluid when Jesus refers to being born of water rather than the scriptural precedent of baptism and birth by water in the old testament scriptures, and which both Paul and Peter make reference to.
Your interpretation that 'born of water/flesh births flesh' means natural physical birth is not the only one that makes sense. Surely, there is the teaching about men being born according to the adamic nature and the requirement to be born 'again' according to the divine nature of God, but to say that is the only interpretation that makes sense and fits what Jesus is saying is simply false. When you take the whole context of the scriptures into consideration you can see the depth of what Jesus is saying. And it helps that Paul plainly explains what it means, metaphorically, to birth a son according to and by the flesh vs. birthing a son by the Spirit.
In the first sentence of your reply you’ve actually conceded the decisive point:
Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about physical birth. That means the dialogue begins with a literal misunderstanding about
natural birth, not about repentance, covenant effort, or Old Testament typology. Jesus’s correction only makes sense if He is clarifying that misunderstanding — the contrast He gives is between
natural birth (“flesh”) and
supernatural birth (“Spirit”).
And just to be clear again:
I have never said “born of water = physical birth.” In John 3, the category for natural birth is
flesh, not water. Jesus defines His own terms:
“That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.” You keep attributing to me an interpretation I have explicitly rejected.
Appealing to
Noah, the
Red Sea,
Luke,
Peter, or
Paul cannot override the narrative logic of John 3. Nicodemus is not confused about typology — he is confused about
physical birth. His question is literal:
“Can a man enter his mother’s womb a second time?” If
“born of flesh” does not refer to natural birth, then Nicodemus’s question becomes unintelligible and Jesus’s correction becomes incoherent.
And this is the key point you still haven’t addressed:
If “born of flesh” does not refer to natural birth, what birth is Nicodemus talking about when he asks whether a man can enter his mother’s womb a second time?
Jesus’s correction only works if
“born of flesh” refers to natural birth and
“born of Spirit” refers to supernatural birth. If “water” is repentance and “flesh” is covenant‑life, then Nicodemus’s question makes no sense, Jesus’s correction makes no sense, and the dialogue collapses — because neither category addresses the physical‑birth misunderstanding Nicodemus just expressed.
