Mark

Yes and Yes
The first is in relation to your blog. The second is in relation to your final comment
“We are not obligated, it is just a proposal, a human idea and suggested interpretation, don’t you think.”

This interpretation i am offering is of course how i believe the passage is laid out. Not everyone will agree with me, i understand that. However in relation to the evidence i know about kephale and the way it was used metaphorically in this grammatical construction, and the way i read the rest of the bible i feel that what i have offered here is reasonable. Of course i am a sinful man, not God and am open to the Spirit moulding me, which i’m sure he will do if i need correcting.
However i cannot see how one can claim for a ‘source’ interpretation and yet hold to this being about husbands/wives. It just doesn’t make sense. I know Cheryl sees this as husbands/wives, yet what i read of her interpretation of verse 3 seemed like she was referencing Adam/Eve. I might be reading Cheryl wrong here, but one cannot claim a husband/wife dualism and source, because the husband is not the source of his wife. Nor with what Paul details in chapter 15 about the final resurrection can i see his God/Christ reference referring to ‘source’.
In my opinion the only way ‘source’ can be the intended meaning here is if we abandon that it is husband/wife dualism. If we abandon that, Paul’s argument makes no sense. Also the way ‘source’ has to be manipulated, made into synonomous meanings in order to portray ones understanding of the 3 relationships seems a bit forced in my view.
But thankyou for your comments and questions.