Colossians 2:9 tells us that “in [Christ] all the fullness of deity dwells bodily.”  The word here translated is θεοτης, which is accurately rendered as either deity or divinity.   As such, it is not denied that Jesus possess a divine nature, but this in itself it not something worthy of objection, for in the resurrection Christians are said to partake of such (2Pet. 1:4).   

Essentially θεοτης denotes that which makes a god a god.   In this case we are dealing with the fullness of that which makes a god a god.  It is argued that Christ must be the Almighty, for the claim is that none but the Almighty could have the fullness of deity in them.  If this text were to be isolated and removed from its context, there might be validity to this argument.  Yet in our quest for truth we must be careful to always keep texts within their given context.  

To understand the significant of the context, let us observe how Origen, a third century Christian, quotes the text. He records the following:  “Hence we shall have writings about Him without number, showing that Jesus is a multitude of goods; for from the things which can scarcely be numbered and which have been written we may make some conjecture of those things which actually exist in Him in whom 'it pleased God that the whole fullness of the Godhead should dwell bodily.' and which are not contained in writings.”[1] [emphasis added] 

In the provided quotation we observe that Origen actually combines this passage with what is stated in Colossians 1:19, which tells us that “in him all the fullness should dwell.”  Admittedly, this text does not contain the word θεοτης, but it does make use of the same word for fullness, πιηρωμα.  That θεοτης is absent is not particularly difficult as Vincent notes, stating: “Paul does not add of the Godhead to the fullness, as in ch. ii. 9, since the word occurs in direct connection with those which describe Christ's essential nature, and it would seem not to have occurred to the apostle that it could be understood in any other sense than as an expression of the plenitude of the divine attributes and powers.”[2] Robertson concurs as well, stating: “The same idea as in 2:9 pān to plērōma tēs theotētos (all the fulness of the Godhead). ‘A recognized technical term in theology, denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes’ (Lightfoot).”[3] 

As Trinitarians these commentators fail to observe is the significance of another word in 1:19, ευδοκεω.  This word is generally translated as “well pleased” or something similar, but it contains a significance that few note or are willing to admit.  This word, as Thayer’s Lexicon observes, carries with the meaning of to “choose, determine, decide.”[4]   BDAG supports this meaning, stating it as “to consider someth[ing] as good and therefore worthy of choice, consent, determine, resolve.”[5]   

The trouble with this view, as noted in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, is that it makes this fullness dwelling in Christ dependant on the Father’s will.  In other words, it is not because Christ is the Almighty God that the fullness of deity dwells in him, but because the Father chose for it to.   They explain: "Serious difficulties beset this view.  If we think of the eternal indwelling, we make it dependent on the Father's will, an Arian view, which Paul surely did not hold."   

Observing that Christ possess the fullness of deity by the will of the Father, it should not and can not be argued that this text proves Trinitarian thought.  The text, when taken within the proper context of 1:19, is actually quite damaging to the Trinitarian position in that it proves to be contrary to their view of the hypostatic union, where it is taught that two distinct natures dwell within the person of Christ, one being his eternal deity, the other being his humanity.  The deity or divinity in Christ is shown to be dependant upon the Father, thus demonstrating that Christ is not possessing a divine eternal nature, but it is that his divinity was something granted to him by his Father.