Cheryl Schatz

I have only a little time left and need to get other things done.

Mark your last point.

5. Please don’t read too much into my comment about the relationship between Chapter 7 and 11. If we just play semantic games with my words it will never help our discussions. My point is that Paul does make a connection with Chapter 7 therefore that is one reason why I see this as dealing with husband/wife. However the context is not the same, nor his argument so it is not a problem to see this as husband/wife over men/women.

Since the book of 1 Corinthians is one long letter, the artificial divisions are not in the original. If Paul was talking about authority in chapter 11 we certainly could connect it to the only time that he actually uses the term in relation to the husband and that is in chapter 7. I understand why you don’t want to bolster your proof of the husband’s authority by going back to chapter 7. For chapter 7 as well as chapter 11 show equal responsibility and equal dependence. In fact there is not even one place where Paul gives the husband authority over the wife where the authority exists in a vacuum. Chapter 7 is the only place where either husbandly or wifely authority is appealed to and from there on servanthood and love and consideration of the other is the theme of the day.

If we deny that this could be dealing with husband/wife on the grounds of application to everyone we not only miss the point of Paul’s argument but we must then ignore a lot of other passages in which Paul deals with certain people e.g. Eph 5 and 6 do not apply to everyone.

Who is denying that “head” is in regarding to the husband alone and not all men? I think you are misunderstanding once again. I, for one, deny that 1 Cor. 11 makes all men the “head” of all women. But I do agree that the husband is the head “of” not “over” his own wife.