Lydia

“I remember now that when I first learned of the complementarian view I had also learned of a hierarchal view of the Trinity from the same complementarian”

This fits in with their view of “Jesus” reporting to God in the OT. Their hierarchal ordering of the Trinity fits with this view. Which is how they can map Eph 5 as:

God to man.
Woman to church.

So, they map His essence as God/authority to the husband …instead of mapping His humanity, which gave up His life for us, to the husband.

They map the essence of God but not the loving action of Christ the human, to husbands.

That is what I meant by taking a metaphor way to far. It is a metaphor of LOVE. Not heirarchy.

His two natures are outlined here in Phil 2:

6 In his very nature he was God.
But he did not think that being equal with God was something he should hold on to.
7 Instead, he made himself nothing.
He took on the very nature of a servant.
He was made in human form.
8 He appeared as a man.
He came down to the lowest level.
He obeyed God completely, even though it led to his death.
In fact, he died on a cross.
9 So God lifted him up to the highest place.
He gave him the name that is above every name.
10 When the name of Jesus is spoken, everyone’s knee will bow to worship him.
Every knee in heaven and on earth and under the earth will bow to worship him.
11 Everyone’s mouth will say that Jesus Christ is Lord.
And God the Father will receive the glory.