gengwall

As I mentioned above, hupakouo is used twice by Paul in the very next chapter of Ephesians. Certainly if he meant “obey” for wives, he would have said hupakouo. The fact that he didn’t, and even more significantly that hupotasso is passive while hupakouo is an active imperative, is a clear indication Paul had two very different ideas in mind. That applies to authority as well. Certainly Paul would teach that parents have authority over children because of the imperative for children to obey their parents, and in like manner masters have authority over their slaves[1]. The stark contrast in Ephesians 5 regarding the husband/wife relationship should at the very least cause someone pause if they think such an authority structure exists there as well. Not only does Paul not outline a marital authority structure in Ephesians 5, he directly rejects one by the very specific depiction of such structure in Ephesians 6. To assume authority over your wife you must not only believe that Ephesians 5:22, 6:1, and 6:5 are synonymous, a belief that is simply unsupportable, but you must also believe that a wife has no higher a station in relation to her husband than do children to their parents and slaves to their masters (which is exactly the position strict complimentarians take).

[1] Paul repeats this in Colossians 3:20,22, even including “in all things”. Clearly, the obedience in all things of children to their parents or slaves to their masters differs from the submission in all things asked of wives toward their husbands. The difference is clear. Our task is to mine out what that difference means, not try to make two obviously different things mean the same thing.