Man is the Head

This last year I have struggled with God, my marriage, my husband and in some instances with others over a topic that has shaken my faith to its core. If I did not have this sure grasp of Gods character, I would have walked away from my church, all churches and probably God himself. I share this with you because what brought me through was the firm knowledge and understanding of WHO God is....His character, His love and perfect justice.

I am going to discuss first the covering theology and then discuss 1 Cor and Ephesians text showing that the man is the head. If the covering theology is not an issue for you, you can jump ahead to the other text.

The teaching that defames God's character is the “Covering” theology.

This may be a sacred cow for many but, I pray that you will see the research that has been done and the unparalleled evidence that rejects this theology.

We will look at defining “covering”, The use of Covering in Church settings and 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 text.

These are the “go to” text that states that “the man is the head of the woman”. To understand what truly the first century disciples meant by that phraze.

and then I will provide Seven indisputable reasons why “authority” is not the correct translation for the word “head”.

First, let me provide you some history. The Covering theology was first developed during the Shepherding Movement which is a controversial method of church leadership that grew out of the Charismatic/Pentacostal movement in the 1970s. It is also called the “Discipleship Movement” and began as “Christian Growth Ministries” in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida reached its peak in the 1980s. The Shepherding Movement has received well-deserved criticism for its cult-like manipulation and intimidation tactics and its emphasis on the non-biblical idea of a “spiritual covering.”

Members had to be submitted to a "shepherd", who in turn was submitted to someone higher up. It was kind of like a pyramid.

The covering theology takes on various forms depending on where you go but in essence it always places a “man” or “men” in a position of authority over others AND those under that theology need to “willingly” submit to that authority. In some congregations it is the church leaders over the entire congregation. I’m sad to say that in many congregations, it was the husband/Father having authority/responsibility over the wife or daughter.

But wait, doesn’t Scriptures support this?

Well, let us ask what exactly IS “covering “?

Covering definition: something that covers or conceals

Covers what? Conceals what?

I have asked many people over the last year and there really isn’t a clear understanding of its definition. However, three main answers and thoughts of what covering actually is were evident in almost all the answers. Some people would describe it as the “Authority”. The final authority. How can women be covered by authority?

Authority which the husband has over the wife. That he has the “final say” on spiritual matters. While others say not just spiritual matters but ALL household matters and both say that He is held to a higher standard by God for it.

While others say that the covering is not authority but instead, it is “responsibility”.

How can women be covered by responsibility? The belief is that the husband has the “responsibility” to do certain things and if he doesn’t, he will be the one held accountable by God.

While lastly, some will say that covering is “protection” over the wife- that he is the “protector” and that, THAT is what “covering” IS. That it is this “blanket of protection”.

Well, Let us look at each one of these thought processes. The first one is authority. If we look at the definition:

Authority –The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, and command, determine, or judge. By far, the majority of the people view “covering” over the wife as authority.

Then there isResponsibility-The definition is the obligation to carry forward an assigned task to a successful conclusion. With responsibility goes authority to direct and take the necessary action to ensure success.

So basically, responsibility IS the RESULT of having Authority. So if you have responsibility, you HAVE TO HAVE the authority also.

So whether you call it authority or call it responsibility it still all boils down to authority.

Someone else put it this way:

Authority is the legal right to give a command, order or instruction AND to compel the subordinates to do a certain act. Responsibility is the outcome of authority. It entails the obligation of the subordinate. When there is a superior-subordinate relationship, it is the authority which binds and provides a basis for responsibility.

Notice, for anyone to have authority OR responsibility, there is a superior/subordinate relationship.

Is this really how we see husband and wife? Is this the “echad” spoken of in Genesis? If the wife sins, does it now become the husbands sin because he had the authority and responsibility of the house?

Scripture comes into direct conflict with this thought.

(Deu 24:16) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

There is one additional understanding for covering and that is protection.

That the woman is under this umbrella or blanket of “protection” of the husband. This sounds very inviting and to some degree this is true because we are the weaker vessel however, the same people that profess that covering is “protection”, also believe that the man has more authority than the woman.

So the bottom line is that the consensus of what covering over a woman is, is AUTHORITY.

So I went to the Bible to try to find ANY text to support that the husband is to cover the wife as a weaker vessel and this is what I found

(1Pe 3:7) Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

This sounds more like equality than authority. When searching the Scriptures to find anywhere where the Bible refers to the man as a covering for the woman, I fell short. I could not find ONE single verse.

In fact, what I did find, looked more like the women should be covering the man.

Now I am NOT saying that the woman has authority over the man, I am just making a point:

She is to be the man’s spiritual protector which is shown in a Jewish wedding when she encircles him 7 times signifying that she has agreed to watch his back in protection. Also, the word “Help mate” reflects thiis same concept and an indepth study of that word is found in our other teaching “The helper to man”.

Man and woman are equal. In Genesis it states that they are to become one. The Hebrew word for “one” is echad. It reflects a unified oneness.

The reality is that, YHVH alone is our covering for-man AND woman.

(Psa 91:4) He will cover you with his feathers. Under his wings you will take refuge. His faithfulness is your shield and rampart.

(Isa 30:1) Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

Now that we have defined what specifically people believe covering to be, let’s move on to how Covering is used in the church setting?

How can a women protect herself and family when the Husband does not?

There are examples in the Bible of women who stepped up to do the right thing when their husband did not. There are many others but here is one example

(Exo 4:25-26) Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me.”(26) So he let him alone. Then she said, “You are a bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.

Remember this story? Zipporah did what Moses should have done and life was spared by God.

How do WE, as a congregation, handle this type of bold action by a woman today in the church?

Typically, We label her as rebellious, or a jezebel and say that she has “come out from her husband’s covering” as if she is in a place of sin and shame or that she opens herself up for spiritual attack.

There are those that would say the woman CAN usurp the authority of a husband when the husband is NOT doing Gods will, and at that point, it is ok for her to step up.

Well I would ask those people then, … when that happens…… WHO is the one that gets to make that decision? You know that the man would never agree that he is not doing Gods will.

So there is the entire problem! She will again be called rebellious or a jezebel and she is in a no win situation.

Now that we have defined covering, shown how it is used in the church setting, Let’s take a look at the one text that is the “go-to” that supports the man as having authority over the woman. We see it in Corinthians and also Ephesians but we will look at the Corinthians text first

(1Co 11:3) But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

When we read the word “head” most of us think of our physical head. We also think of the head being the one that makes the decisions and therefore, the one that has the authority/responsibility. You see, we are looking at the Scriptures from our western mindset. That thought process is Greek thinking.

In the Hebrew thought, the Disciples who wrote the Bible and wrote Corinthians, it is not the head, but the heart that is the decision maker. We all know this! But our Greek and Western culture sometimes clouds our thinking. Paul makes reference to this when he says

(Jas 2:18) Yes, a man will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

You see, what you say and think mean nothing if your action does not follow. Your action shows what is truly in your heart.

So what did the Greek word “Head” mean to the Hebrew disciples or even to Paul when he spoke it? AND, how can we conclusively find that out? Well, I'm glad you asked lol

The word “Head” is the Greek word is Kephal CG2776κεφαλήkephalēkef-al-ay'

In Paul's day, Kephal was the physical head, either human or animal.

The Strongs Concordance shows that the figurative meaning of Kephale is “head” but the Hebrew meaning is originator, source of life or source as in the head or beginning of a river.

I know this by viewing the Hebrew word for the Greek word Kaphale.

Brad Scott taught this (rest his soul). Brad Scott (I encourage you to go to wildbranch ministry to view Bad's teachings. He was an awesome Hebrew linguist) also taught us how to verify what the Disciples thought a particular Greek word meant. He taught us to go to the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is the earliest translation of the Old Testament into Greek and it was translated in the mid 3 century BC. That is important because we can now look at the Greek word and know for sure what Hebrew word the Disciples would have used for that same thought. The Disciples were Hebrews. They thought in the Hebrew way of thinking, not in the Greek way of thinking even though Greek was infiltrating their culture and was a common spoken language of that day, The Disciples still thought as the Hebrew culture. Many Scholars believe that the New Testament was originally penned in Hebrew and later translated into Greek

When we go to the Septuagint and search for the word Kaphal, its translation into the Hebrew word ROSH. Hebrew = H7218 Roshe

Why is this important? Because we want to know what the disciples’ understanding of the word Kaphal was as opposed to our current understanding.

We know that the meaning of words change over the years. The Greek word Kaphal translated into Hebrew is the word Rosh. Which means, literally, the head of a person or animal. It also has a figurative or palio meaning of beginning, origin or source as in the beginning or start of a river.

The most common Hebrew word we know and use often is Rosh Chodesh and rosh hashannah. Both these words depict this figurative meaning of beginning or origin.

Rosh Chodesh = beginning, start, first (head) of the month (moon)

Rosh Hashannah = Beginning, start, first (head) of the Year

The Septuagint reflects this figurative meaning also in the following texts:

(Gen 2:10) And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four ROSH-heads.- (beginning, start, origin)

The Septuagint uses the Greek word Kaphale in this text when translating it into Greek.

Notice that Rosh does not mean authority. Here is another text:

(Exo 12:2) This month shall be unto you the ROSH- (Greek-Kaphale) beginning-(head, start, origin) of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

If the Disciples, who spoke Hebrew, had wanted to say someone was the boss or authority they would have used a different Greek word. They would have used “archon” G758

G758ἄρχωνarchōn1) a ruler, commander, chief, leader

meaning leader, ruler or commander. (This was taken from the Septuagint, Liddel, Scott, Jones and McKenzie Lexicon. )

If they wanted to assume authority they would have used the Greek word Katexooseeadzo G2715katexousiazōThayer Definition: to exercise authority, wield power

Here is an example of a text that uses both these Greek words.

(Mat 20:25-26) But Jesus summoned them, and said, “You know that the rulers (G758) of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority (G2715) over them.It shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.

Neither of these Greek words was used in the Corinthian or Ephesian texts.

1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23, have been used to support a patriarchal chain-of-command structure in the home and the church. Even in society as a whole, men were supposed to be “in charge.”

When looking at some lexicon concordances, the Greek word Kaphale or Hebrew word Rosh both say they can be translated into the word “authority or chief”. However out of the 547 Hebrew words using ROSHE and the 68 Greek words using Kephale there is not one instance that “authority” could be applicable or is a valid translation. NOT ONE TIME! Yet the lexicon, which is to be a book that reflects the BIBLICAL TRANSLATION of words did not have one instance where it was rendered authority yet they still felt compelled to include it as a Biblical translation???

The 1 Corinthian and Ephesian texts are the only two verses where MAN has inserted the definition of authority for the Greek word Kafale.

Let us look at 7 reasons why “authority” is not supported as a correct understanding of the word Kafale. We have already discussed that:

1. There is no text where the Greek word “Kephale” is translated as authority and therefore should not be translated “authority” in the 1 Cor and Eph texts.

2. The Septuagint/Palio Hebrew translation for Kephale is “source, beginning or origin” and never authority.

3. There is No hierarchy in God- Elohim. When it says Giod is one it uses the same Hebrew word “Echad” that is used to describe when a woman leaves her father and mother and they become one-echad.

The idea of a divine chain-of-command that is to be duplicated on earth is said to be supported by these verses. But there is no ranking in Elohim-ECHAD the Unified One–no divine chain-of command! God the Father isn’t the boss, authority of Yeshua or the Holy Spirit. They are co-equal and co-eternal—they are GOD—Echad.

(Php 2:6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

(Joh 10:30) I and my Father are one.

(Isa 9:6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Yeshua HaMashiach, the Anointed One, the Messiah, is the Word made flesh. Granted that Yeshua chose to take on the limitations of mankind during his time on earth and therefore was reliant of the Father since he was not omnipresent but that alone does not support a hierarchy.

4. The text is simply out of order for a chain of command

If Paul was using the “head” as “authority” in that text, he would not have placed it in the wrong authority order.

(1Co 11:3) But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

I am going to list this “as-if” it meant authority and you will see by the imagry that it does not support the authority model.

Christ is the head of man

Christ

Man

The man is the head of the woman

Christ

Man

woman

God is the head of Christ

Christ

Man

Woman

God

Christ

If this was to truly depict an “authoritative structure”, Paul would not have placed it in this precarious order. He would have clearly stated that :

God is the head of Christ

Christ is the head of man

Man is the head of woman

Paul was careful to not indicate a chain-of-command.

Notice also that Christ as the origin, beginning, source of man, man as the source of woman, and God as the source of Christ is also chronological (time) order on earth. God formed man, then woman and finally sent the Son, Yeshua . Clearly, Paul did not mean a chain-of-command “authority” structure by expressing it in the wrong authority order.

John 1:3 supports the foundation that Christ is the source or origin .

(Joh 1:3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Yeshua is the source of all life. “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.”

Throughout the New Testament kephale has the meaning of a physical head or when it is metaphorically used, it means “source” not “authority over” or “leader.”

(Gal 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Yeshua Messiah.

How can we be ONE in Yeshua yet “man” have authority over women on earth and it be prescribed by God? Many would say that God gave man dominion over woman while we are on earth but in heaven it won’t be that way.

Yeah, right??

(Mat 6:10) Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

God does not want earth to be different than heaven, he wants earth to conform to what is done in heaven so we can have heaven on earth.

(Mat 20:25-26) But Yeshua summoned them, and said, “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant.

5. Common Pagan belief during the First Century

Remember, Paul was writing to former pagans. He carefully chose kephalē to challenge two primary pagan beliefs.

One, that men and women came from two different sources with the source of men being superior to that of women, (not much different than today) and second, to refute (prove false) the Gnostic belief that Adam was brought to life by Eve.

6.. The Corinthian text continues to discuss the idea of source as you continue reading. If you do not just stop at 1 Corinthians 11: 3 where the “man is the head of woman” but, read on, the context of the entire thought here is about origin or source.

(1Co 11:8-12) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

Neither was the man created through the woman; but the woman through the man.For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

1 Corinthians 11 reinforce the use of “source” as the intended meaning of kephalē, and to show the interdependence of men and women.

Men and women need each other. They are interdependent upon each other. They are different but equal, and together they become the unified ONE

We HAVE the tools to research the Greek New Testament. There is NO error in the text, it is just difficult when you translate from one language to another to understand the meaning and intent of the word at the time it was spoken. I encourage you to not just stop at the Strongs or Theyers, Brown-Driver- Briggs but to go to the Septuagint to get a deeper and clearer meaning of the thought from the first century .

The last and final proof that Authority cannot be the correct translation of head in these texts is :

7. It is not Gods character

By looking at the Scriptures through the glasses of the Covering doctrine, it defames Gods character, defames his image and shows him to NOT be just and good.

(1Co 11:3) But I would have you know that the head (of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

C CHRIST-MAN-WOMAN-GOD-CHRIST

Notice that Man’s authority is Christ

His authority is perfect because Yeshua is perfect. But, woman, she has an authority over her that is imperfect. One that will not always provide good advice or cover her perfectly. Yet,we are told that this comes from a just God???

Woman is to look to Man not Yeshua for instruction and judgment and authority?? KNOWING all along that he cannot provide that perfectly?? And when he doesn’t do it perfectly, which he won’t, because he is human, then we, as women, have no means but to usurp his authority and walk out from his covering to be in a place of shame. This cannot be from God!!Also, men are set up for failure because they can never provide for the woman perfectly.

My thoughts were, that if this is truly from God, then he has knowingly set women and men up for failure.

Did God design it this way, setting woman and men up for failure?

I remembered God's character and stood firmly on that even when I had not thoroughly researched this out. I kept saying, I am not sure what the correct meaning is but I do know that this cannot be from God! I knew there had to be something wrong with the translation or word definition. This search took me all the way back to the Septuagint.

(1Ti 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

It sets MAN up to be the mediator in place of Messiah and sets up woman to make MAN her idol.

This theology is NOT from God.

I encourage you to take off the “covering” Glasses and view ALL the texts through the glasses of MERCY, GRACE, AND PROVISION instead of authority. By doing this, you will gain a closer walk with the Creator and begin to see His perfect loving character.

(Mic 6:8) He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

I pray for anyone that has been hurt by this false teaching and apologize to those that this theology has wounded. Feel free to and me a message if this teaching has helped you.