🌀 Introduction: Why This Matters
For many believers, the concept of “headship” is treated as settled doctrine. The man is the head. The woman submits. End of story.
But what if we’ve misunderstood the very word Paul used?
In modern English, the word head almost always implies authority—the head of a company, the head of a department, the head of a household. But the ancient Greek word Paul actually used—kephalē—carried a very different meaning in his day.
And if we’re going to base an entire theology of marriage and gender roles on this word, then we need to be absolutely sure we understand what Paul was saying.
This isn’t about tossing out Scripture, It’s about recognizing how much of our understanding has been filtered through cultural assumptions rather than original context.—it’s about recovering the original design, not reinforcing the results of the fall.
🏛️ Context Matters: First-Century Ephesus
When Paul wrote to the believers in Ephesus, he wasn’t addressing people living in a modern Western democracy with nuclear families and suburban churches. He was writing into the heart of a Greco-Roman world steeped in imperial hierarchy, and pagan worship—most notably the cult of Artemis.
Ephesus was a city where power dynamics were deeply ingrained, both in civic life and religious practice. The Temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, was dominated by female priestesses, mysticism, and fertility rituals. Women held cultic authority in spiritual matters—often in direct opposition to early believers trying to walk in the ways of Mashiach (Messiah).
Paul wasn’t writing a systematic theology textbook. He was writing a letter—addressing real people, in a real place, facing real confusion about what it meant to follow Mashiach in the midst of spiritual and cultural chaos.
So here’s the tension:
Ephesus was both matriarchal (in spiritual culture) and patriarchal (in civil law). Paul was speaking into that double-layered context—not into a generic male-over-female hierarchy like many assume today.
He wasn’t reinforcing the Roman system or the Artemis cult—he was confronting both. He was introducing a third way: Messiah-like co-submission and source-based headship rooted in self-sacrificial love and covenantal faithfulness. His message in Ephesians 5 would have felt radically countercultural to both sides.
Which means if we’re going to understand what he says about “headship,” we have to start by understanding what they would’ve heard—not what we assume it means now.
🔍 Greek Word Study: What Does Kephalē Actually Mean?
The Greek word Paul uses in Eph’siym (Ephesians) 5—kephalē—has become something of a theological lightning rod, sparking much controversy over its true meaning.
In English, we instinctively equate “head” with authority. But in Paul’s day, kephalē didn’t carry that same automatic assumption. In classical and Koine Greek, it most often referred to a source or point of origin—like the headwaters of a river—not a position of rank or control.
This reading fits beautifully within the creation account. Woman came from man—not to indicate hierarchy, but to reveal shared substance, mutual design, and interdependence.
Paul isn’t suddenly inserting top-down authority into his letter. He’s continuing a consistent theme of covenantal relationship, where “head” means source and sustainer—not ruler or master.
Let’s look at how Paul uses kephalē elsewhere.
🌊 Biblical Examples: Source vs. Hierarchy
To truly understand what Paul meant by kephalē, we have to look at how he used it elsewhere. If we find consistency in meaning—especially within the same letter or body of work—it gives us a more accurate lens for interpreting Eph’siym (Ephesians) 5.
Let’s begin just one chapter earlier:
“But speaking the truth in love, we may grow up into him in all things, which is the head (kephalē), even Mashiach (Messiah): From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted…” -Eph’siym (Ephesians) 4:15–16, Cepher
Here, “head” isn’t a ruler demanding submission. It’s a source—a nourishing, life-giving origin. The body grows and functions because of what flows from the head. The focus is connection, not command.
We see this again in Paul’s letter to the believers in Colossae:
“And he is the head (kephalē) of the body, the assembly: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead…” -Qolasiym (Colossians) 1:18, Cepher
Mashiach is the beginning—the arche, the origin. Paul’s pattern is clear: kephalē describes where life begins and flows from, not a chain of command.
And again:
“But I would have you know, that the head (kephalē) of every man is Mashiach; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Mashiach is Elohiym (God).” -Qorintiym Ri’shon (1 Corinthians) 11:3, Cepher
Rather than building a hierarchy here, Paul is showing a sequence of source—Elohiym (God) as the source of Mashiach, Mashiach as the source of man, man as the source of woman (from the side of Adam, not from below his feet). If Elohiym and Meshiach are equals, different dimensions of the same being, how would it even make sense for one to have hierarchy over the other?
When we let Paul define his own terms, kephalē consistently points to origin—not authority. And in the context of Ephesus, where both patriarchal and matriarchal abuses were present, this meaning would have stood in stark contrast to the power structures they knew.
⚖️ Authority vs. Responsibility
One of the most damaging assumptions we’ve inherited is that spiritual leadership means hierarchical authority—a top-down power dynamic rooted in control. But that idea owes more to Roman law and Western tradition than it does to Scripture.
Paul’s use of kephalē reveals a different picture: not authority over, but responsibility toward.
In Hebraic thought—where Paul’s worldview was deeply rooted—covenant was everything. Leadership wasn’t about command; it was about accountability, covering, and remembrance. The zakar (male) was called to actively remember and act in alignment with Yahuah’s (The Lord’s) word. His role was to guard, provide, and sacrifice on behalf of others, not to dominate them.
So when Paul speaks of a man being the “head” of a woman, he’s not giving him permission to rule. He’s reminding him of his role as source and servant—someone who takes initiative not to control, but to lay down his life.
Just as Mashiach (Messiah) did.
That’s the context for Eph’siym (Ephesians) 5:23—not a power structure, but a call to mirror Mashiach’s covenantal love.
“For the man is the head of the woman, even as Mashiach is the head of the called-out assembly: and He is the savior of the body.”
-Eph’siym (Ephesians) 5:23, Cepher
Paul defines headship right there in the verse—not with the word “authority,” but with the word “savior.” Not ruler. Not dictator. Savior.
That changes everything.
🧭 “Are You Just Ignoring Paul?”
Maybe you’re thinking this sounds like a stretch.
Maybe it feels like I’m bending Scripture to fit a modern agenda.
Maybe you’re wondering, “Aren’t you just softening what Paul clearly said?”
I hear you.
But here’s the thing: I’m not questioning Paul’s words—I’m questioning how we’ve translated and taught them. Because Paul didn’t write in English. And he didn’t write into 21st-century assumptions about power, leadership, or marriage.
He wrote in Greek.
He thought in Hebrew.
And he lived in a cultural moment very different from ours.
When Paul used the word kephalē, he wasn’t importing the idea of a boss, a ruler, or a chain of command. He was pointing to origin, responsibility, and sacrificial love—a reflection of how Mashiach (Messiah) relates to His body. Not a structure of control, but a flow of life.
We’re not downplaying Paul’s instructions. We’re asking: What did he really mean?
🔚 Conclusion: Headship Is Not a Hierarchy
Paul wasn’t reinforcing the power structures of Rome—or the goddess worship of Ephesus. He was inviting both men and women into a radically different model: One rooted in source, service, and covenantal care.
When we read kephalē as “source” instead of “authority,” a beautiful picture emerges:
- Man and woman, formed in mutual design
- Marriage, reflecting the self-giving relationship of Mashiach (Messiah) and His assembly
- Headship, not as control, but as covenantal responsibility
And all of it, flowing from a shared posture of mutual submission.
That’s where we’ll go next.
Because if “headship” has been misunderstood, “submission” has been weaponized.
And it’s time to untangle the difference.
The Flocking Farm 
Leave a comment