Paul compares the Christian experience with the Jewish rite of circumcision, which was the sign of the covenant that God had made with the people of Israel (Gen 17.9-14); the rite, which consisted in cutting off the foreskin of every male child one week after birth, marked the boy as a true Israelite, a member of the covenant community. Paul says that there is a “Christian circumcision,” which is the common experience of all believers, as they are related by faith to Christ, as they are in union with Christ. In union with Christ may suggest not only the attendant circumstances but also the means, for example, “as you were united with Christ” or “by your being united with Christ.”

For people who are perfectly familiar with circumcision, there is usually no problem involved in using a general term to designate this rite. In some circumstances, however, even though circumcision is well known by the people, the expression used to refer to it may be regarded as vulgar. Therefore, one cannot use the normal designation. However, it is sometimes possible to employ a descriptive phrase such as “cutting of the body” or “cutting of the skin.” For those languages which have no term for circumcision, it is always possible to borrow a foreign term and to provide a descriptive explanation in a footnote or in a word list in the appendix. A somewhat better solution is a general descriptive expression which is sufficiently ambiguous as not to have vulgar connotations, for example, “a scar on the body” or “a marking in the skin.” Such an expression may, of course, be misinterpreted as referring to a tribal symbol of scarification, but this would constitute a rather close parallel, in that circumcision identified a Jew as belonging to a religious and ethnic community in the same way that certain patterns of scars on the face or body of people, particularly in Africa, identify tribal membership.

This circumcision is not made by men, that is, is not of human origin (lit. “not made with hands”; compare Mark 14.58, “a temple,” 2 Cor 5.1, “a house,” Heb 9.11, “the tent”). It is the circumcision made by Christ (see Beare); the literal “the circumcision of Christ” (Revised Standard Version) could be understood as the circumcision performed on Christ.

Not with the circumcision that is made by men may be rendered as “this is not the kind of circumcision that men cause” or “this is not the kind of cutting done by men” or “… by people.”

The contrastive expression but with the circumcision made by Christ can be badly misinterpreted if translated literally, for it would appear as though Christ himself was the one who circumcised each believer. It may, therefore, be necessary to say “but this circumcision is the one caused by Christ” or “… produced because of Christ.”

One of the principal difficulties involved in verse 11 is the fact that the particular type of circumcision being referred to is only described in the final clause. It may, therefore, be useful to place the final clause immediately after the first clause, that is to say, after in union with Christ you were circumcised.

This “Christian circumcision” is not a physical cutting off, but a spiritual one, defined as being freed from the power of this sinful self. The Jewish rite consisted of the removal of the foreskin; the Christian counterpart consists of the removal of “the body of flesh” (Revised Standard Version), which is Paul’s way of saying “sinful self,” that is, the whole person, not merely the physical or the sensual, which is characterized as sinful (compare Beare). The noun translated “putting off” (Revised Standard Version) occurs only here in the NT; compare the cognate verb in 2.15, and 3.9 (“put off the old self with its habits”). Beare: “the corrupt personality as a whole—what man is in himself apart from the regenerating grace of God.” New International Version is good; “the putting off of your sinful nature.”

In describing the circumcision made by Christ as being “the putting off of the body of flesh,” there is a kind of mixed metaphor involving a shift from “cutting” to “putting off (of clothing).” However, the idea of “shedding one’s sinful self” may cause certain complications, since the sinful nature can scarcely be regarded as merely some kind of clothing. In some languages a similar term may be used. For example, a snake shedding its skin or a butterfly escaping from a pupa might seem far more appropriate and has been used, in some instances, with effectiveness. The shift in the Good News Translation to being freed from the power of reflects a radical change in the metaphor. This concept can perhaps be expressed most effectively in some languages as “no longer being under the power of,” or “no longer being controlled by,” or even “no longer having the sinful self telling us what we must do.”

In a number of languages, it is extremely difficult to talk about this sinful self, though in some instances there is a somewhat parallel expression such as “the little man that lives within me” or “my innermost being.” More frequently, however, one must speak of some organ of the body as reflecting both desire and plan. In some languages one can say “no longer controlled by my heart which is sinful” or “… wishes to sin.” In other languages, however, it may be inappropriate to characterize the heart as being essentially sinful, since the heart is sometimes equivalent to the conscience. Accordingly, it may be better to use a somewhat more general term, for example, “that part of me which wants to sin” or “… do evil.”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .