65 gengall,

Oh yes, and regarding this:

“I do think source makes the most sense in the passage speaking of Christ being the head of every man, man being the head of woman, and God being the head of Christ, however. ”

I tentatively agree, but I would argue that the (primary) social sphere being addressed in that passage is the church, not marriage.

I am not quite understanding where you are getting the church in this context. Paul speaks about the woman as coming from the man and that every man thereafter comes through the woman. This is a context of source as in “origin”. Perhaps you might want to explain how you see the church in this context.

At any rate, when I look at Ephesians 5, as a man, the focus for me is not so much the title of “head” as it is the actions of agapao love. In other words, “Headship” is exemplified by selfless love. From that perspective, “head”=”source” just doesn’t make much sense to me.

I haven’t done much on Ephesians 5 here on this blog, but I will likely do more on this area in the future.

I see a man as a “source” of the woman in that he should be the provider for her. He can be the starting point where the doors are opened for her to minister. If a man fights for a woman to allow her to minister in the church and if all husbands fought to open the door for their wives, there would be no closed doors for at least the married women. Can a husband be the source or provider for a woman to be elevated to an equality with him even while society holds to a lower view of women? This is how I see the man as a provider for his wife. Would this help at all to make “source” in line with “provider” for you?