J. B. Lightfoot on Colossians 2:18

ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ καταβραβευέτω] ‘_rob of the prize, the_ βραβεῖον’; comp. Demosth. _Mid._ p. 544 (one of the documents) ἐπιστάμεθα Στράτωνα ὑπὸ Μειδίου _καταβραβευθέντα_ καὶ παρὰ πάντα τὰ δίκαια ἀτιμωθέντα, which presents a close parallel to the use of καταβραβεύειν here. See also Eustath. _in Il._ i. 403 sq. (p. 43) καταβραβεύει αὐτόν, ὥς φασιν οἱ πάλαιοι, ib. _Opusc._ 277, etc. The false teachers at Colossæ are not regarded as umpires nor as successful rivals, but simply as persons frustrating those who otherwise would have won the prize. The word καταβραβεύειν is wide enough to include such. The two compounds καταβραβεύειν and παραβραβεύειν (Plut. _Mor._ p. 535 C οἱ παραβραβεύοντες ἐν τοῖς ἀγῶσι) only differ in this respect, that _deprivation_ is the prominent idea in the former word and _trickery_ in the latter. Jerome, _Epist._ cxxi. _ad Algas._ (I. p. 879), sets down this word, which he wrongly interprets ‘bravium accipiat adversum vos’, as one of St Paul’s Cilicisms. The passages quoted (whether the document in the Midias be authentic or not) are sufficient to show that this statement is groundless. θέλων ἐν] ‘_taking delight in_’, ‘_devoting himself to_’. The expression is common in the LXX, most frequently as a translation of חפץ ב״, 1 Sam.חפץ xviii. 22, 2 Sam. xv. 26, 1 Kings x. 9, 2 Chron. ix. 8, Ps. cxi. 1, cxlvi. 10, but in one passage of רצה ב״, 1 Chron. xxviii. 4. So too _Test. xii. Patr._ Asher 1 ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ψυχὴ θέλῃ ἐν καλῷ. Comp. also 1 Macc. iv. 42 θελητὰς νόμου, and see ἐθελοθρησκεία below. Against this construction no valid objection has been urged. Otherwise θέλων is taken absolutely, and various senses have been assigned to it, such as ‘imperiously’ or ‘designedly’ or ‘wilfully’ or ‘gladly, readily’; but these are either unsupported by usage or inappropriate to the context. Leclerc (_ad loc._) and Bentley (_Crit. Sacr._ p. 59) conjectured θέλγων; Toup (_Emend. in Suid._ II. p. 63) more plausibly ἐλθών; but the passages quoted show that no correction is needed. ταπεινοφροσύνῃ] Humility is a vice with heathen moralists, but a virtue with Christian Apostles; see the note on Phil. ii. 3. In this passage, which (with ver. 23) forms the sole exception to the general language of the Apostles, the divergence is rather apparent than real. The disparagement is in the accompaniments and not in the word itself. Humility, when it becomes self-conscious, ceases to have any value; and self-consciousness at least, if not affectation, is implied by θέλων ἐν. Moreover the character of the ταπεινοφροσύνη in this case is further defined as θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων, which was altogether a perversion of the truth.