The ABCs of Marital Happiness

Several days ago, over at Sunshinemary and the Dragon, the blog mistress asked a question which touches on a lot of Red Pill issues:

Do happy marriages depend on the husband’s status in the socio-sexual hierarchy?

After this she linked to Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy, and posted it for good measure, before continuing to seek to answer the fundamental question. Her closing paragraphs:

I always appreciate other women saying the same thing that I keep trying to say: my marriage isn’t happy because my husband is allegedly an alpha (and I don’t think he fits the personality type of Vox’s alpha category, anyway).  Having a naturally alpha personality and fitting into the social hierarchy as such is not the same thing as having control of your life and having positive masculine power.  A man can score well in all the LAMPS vectors (looks, athleticism, money, power, status) but still be a social beta.  And so what?  That doesn’t make him icky and weird, and it doesn’t mean that he will necessarily have poor success with women.  We don’t really have much control over the personality types that we were born with, but almost anyone can improve at least some areas of their LAMPS vectors, which will improve nearly every aspect of a man’s life, not just his romantic prospects.

In terms of a happy marriage, I agree with Novaseeker’s thoughts on attraction: it is extremely important.  It is more important that the woman be sexually attracted to her husband (and that this attraction be maintained) than that the man be an alpha in the socio-sexual hierarchy.  Keeping her sexually attracted, provided she had natural sexual attraction to him to begin with, almost entirely involves maintaining the proper biblical marital hierarchy of male headship and wifely submission and has almost nothing to do with whether one is an alpha, a beta, or a delta.

I was rather busy at the time, so I wasn’t able to provide my thoughts on the subject. Given that there are well over 400 comments at this point, and another post has followed, I decided to give my answer in a post of its own. So, lets look at that question one more time:

Do happy marriages depend on the husband’s status in the socio-sexual hierarchy?

There are actually several questions inherent in this question, the first of which  is this: do happy marriages depend on the woman’s happiness, the man’s happiness, or both? Scripture, and the nature of the present cultural and legal climate seem to make it clear that the woman’s happiness seems to be more important. So that leads to the next question: What does it take for a woman to be happy in a marriage? Here I have to agree with Novaseeker that attraction is likely paramount for determining a woman’s marital happiness. I’ve already taken a stab at answering what women find attractive in men with my LAMPS theory, so this leads us to the next question: how does a man’s LAMPS value relate to Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy?

After thinking on it, I realized I had trouble answering the question. The reason why is because I don’t exactly subscribe to Vox’s hierarchy. I find it to be a clever, but ultimately inaccurate attempt to try and categorize men. The key to the hierarchy is that it attempts to categorize men by virtue of their interactions with women. However, that is just another way of saying that it categorizes men by their attractiveness to women. Which, when you think of it, means that the Alpha/Sigma conundrum which Vox tries to explain away is merely his best effort to explain why men with very different attitudes and behaviors can still attract a lot of women. This reminds me of how the ancient astronomers created the concept of epicycles in order to explain away the problems with a geo-centric model of the solar system with perfect spheres. In short, it overly complicates a situation because you don’t want to let go of some root assumption. I think it is better to toss aside any notion of alpha, beta or any other letter of the Greek alphabet. Set aside any notions of a hierarchy, or lesser or greater. Instead, get to the root of the problem, attraction.

The question is, do women have to be attracted to the man to whom they are married in order to be happy?

I think the answer is yes. For the marriage, as a marriage (and not some kind of partnership or anything), to be a happy one the woman needs to have her sub-conscious desires met. Those desires, based on her 3 basic drives (Sex with a high-value man, Protection, and Provision), and filtered through Hypergamy, cannot be suppressed. A woman can fight against impulses like Fitness Testing, but there is no way for her to simply over-ride her subconscious. If these needs are not met, then she will not be happy. It is very important that to note that this unhappiness is intentional: it serves to alert the woman that something is wrong with the relationship. And that something wrong happens to be that she is in a relationship with an unattractive man, or said otherwise, she is in a relationship with a man who is not worthy to the be father of her children.

Sunshinemary is correct that the biblical standard of marriage,where the wife is submissive to her husband or subject to his authority, and the husband is head of the household and family, greatly helps with this. Under the LAMPS theory, the P or (Masculine) Power attribute is the most important. And dominant behavior by a man is one of the strongest expressions of Masculine Power. By requiring the man be in a dominant position and the wife be in a submissive position, biblical marriage enhances the Power of the man. This improves his attractiveness, which in turn will make the wife happier in the marriage. Essentially, the purpose of wifely submission and husband headship inbiblical marriage is improve the wife’s happiness, not to oppress her.

[Interesting question: does biblical marriage exist as part of the feminine imperative, as it serves to make things better for women?]

So, to return to the original question, the answer is yes, assuming that “alpha male” equals an attractive man. Otherwise, the answer is no, all that is necessary is that the wife is attracted to her husband.

Advertisements

21 Comments

Filed under Alpha, LAMPS, Marriage, Red Pill, Women

21 responses to “The ABCs of Marital Happiness

  1. I actually like Vox’s categorization scheme quite a lot, because it talks about men as they relate to other men. Ranking a man based on his attractiveness to women is playing into the hands of the feminine imperative. We have all known guys we thought were awesome, that women weren’t attracted to, and complete assholes drowning in attention. Women are of course free to be attracted to whomever they like, but that doesn’t mean it has to influence how men think of each other.

    Further, by making alpha/beta be roles in a group rather than measures of attractiveness to women, it allows for some nuance. Who is more attractive: the “new guy” SEAL, or the leader of a Dungeons & Dragons group? The D&D guy is undeniably alpha within the group, but that doesn’t correlate to attractiveness. The SEAL is likely deferential and obedient, but he’d still be attractive.

  2. I actually like Vox’s categorization scheme quite a lot, because it talks about men as they relate to other men.

    Except this is not only irrelevant, it gets in the way of the analysis here. If you want to describe how men relate to one another, that is fine. But the hierarchy is socio-sexual in nature, meaning that it inherently is not about how men relate to other men, but at heart how those men relate to women. That ultimately gets to attractiveness. This has nothing to do with the feminine imperative; after all, this isn’t about power-relationships between men and women in society, or resource allocation. We are trying to get at the question of marital happiness here. I think you are trying to shoehorn Vox’s hierarchy into something it is not.

    Further, by making alpha/beta be roles in a group rather than measures of attractiveness to women, it allows for some nuance. Who is more attractive: the “new guy” SEAL, or the leader of a Dungeons & Dragons group? The D&D guy is undeniably alpha within the group, but that doesn’t correlate to attractiveness. The SEAL is likely deferential and obedient, but he’d still be attractive.

    Situational “Alpha” can be relevant, and in fact is pretty much a given. Also, roles in a group do affect how women find men attractive. Your point about trying to break away from Alpha=Attractive has merit in terms of social group analysis. But that is still not the question we are trying to answer here. The purpose of this post was to show how the premise of SSM’s original question was fundamentally flawed, and should be re-examined in order to gain true understanding.

  3. Hmm, there’s a lot to unpack here.

    |Except this is not only irrelevant, it gets in the way of the analysis here.
    There is certainly a danger of that. Game taught me that I wasn’t wrong about how to interact with girls when I was five, but I’m recently coming to the conclusion that I wasn’t totally wrong on how to judge men pre-RP either. The worth of a man to me is definitely different than his attractiveness to women, and by talking about the first, I run the risk of pretending that the second is the same. And yes, it is irrelevant to the point.

    That said, it may be the wrong point*. The retardedly Zen-like thing I have to keep reminding myself of is that the best way to keep her happy is to not be overly focused on her happiness. What I mean is that this post may be true, but not helpful.

    I guess another way to put it might be that, in terms of solidifying your frame, navigating male hierarchies is like benchpresses, and a marriage is like, a 5-lb freeweight or something**. While the second is undeniably important to get right, it may be more helpful to to focus on the first, because it prepares you for the second. It almost doesn’t even matter if you fail at the first, because women value Game (click the link…not what you think).

    So while I think you’re right that a guy’s particular place in the social (not sexual) hierarchy may be irrelevant, him caring about it is very relevant.

    *italics for clarity, not vehemence.

    **The concept of “frame” came out of PUA not because womens’ frames are freakishly strong; in fact they’re weak. The reason for the focus is not their strength, but their importance. Life sucks for everybody when women rule, as both Isaiah and you have written.

  4. Vox’s definitions were made to suit what Vox talks about. He doesn’t stick just to male/female relations, but also men, politics, and more. Drop it isn’t shoe horning Vox’s definition, rather you and SSM are because Vox’s breaks down when you look at details. But then, any broad generalizations do.

    If you want to talk about Marriage and attractiveness, either don’t use the terms or use the alpha/beta dichotomy. The dichotomy works for marriage much better than Vox’s, though to get detailed you really should just use long form rather than relying on vague terms as a short hand for meaning. Masculinity, leadership, assertive, etc work for the real elements that make up Alpha (which should be examined to see which work for a Christian marriage, if you’re looking at what is -MOST- important to a marriage) with submissiveness, emasculated, defferent, etc for Beta (to examine what kills the tingles). Hell, thats not even getting into the heavy meanings of the greek terms for virtues and faults, with carry with them some of the most powerful subtext available. All completely relevant to the conversations we’re having.

    Simply put….

    If you get frustrated by terms not working well, stop using made up terms and use concepts proven by time.

  5. If you want to talk about Marriage and attractiveness, either don’t use the terms or use the alpha/beta dichotomy.

    This is pretty much what I argued. I just explained why.

    Masculinity, leadership, assertive, etc work for the real elements that make up Alpha (which should be examined to see which work for a Christian marriage, if you’re looking at what is -MOST- important to a marriage) with submissiveness, emasculated, defferent, etc for Beta (to examine what kills the tingles).

    I have my own take on Alpha and Beta (just like pretty much everyone else). Although I have not really used it that much, and basically use those terms more to describe general position in society or a group (a bit like what Seriously talked about).

    If you get frustrated by terms not working well, stop using made up terms and use concepts proven by time.

    You are sounding a bit like Matt A there. Not that it makes you wrong, of course. The classical virtues are an excellent way to try and explain/describe Alpha and other types of men.

  6. Deep Strength

    The question is, do women have to be attracted to the man to whom they are married in order to be happy?

    This is the magic question. I think the answer is somewhere in between yes and no.

    Given that women now are supremely hypergamous (that is… some women 5s and 6s are looking to land male 9s and 10s) due to reinforced social status whoring, I believe the answer for these women is no if they completely wean themselves off status whoring and move to assortive mating strategies. That is they should be able to rewire themselves to find someone of the same level of value attractive.

    This is not unlike a man who was previously addicted to porn and can’t get it up for real women. Once he is free of porn (yourbrainonporn and other sites confirm as well as anecdotal experience from around the manosphere), then the brain will rewire itself to find real women attractive again.

    Can a woman 8 be satisfied with a male 6? Certainly it’s possible if she can find some shred of attraction within him although very unlikely. If they get married when they’re in their early 20s and somehow make it into their 30s and 40s the fact that her value will drop and his will increase will definitely help significantly for longer term commitment.

    For all intents and purposes this does happen somewhat in the church nowadays if there are 0 alpha males and some relatively attractive females, but it is a hard road. I know of one such couple that apparently just got married last Friday (he does play on the worship team and is pretty good so I guess that’s the 1 redeeming quality there?). God bless to them.

    In a truly submitted woman the answer shoud obviously be no — just as she would submit to Christ she would submit to her husband and thus find him attractive. However, reality doesn’t match up with perfection most of the time.

  7. Sorry, was exhausted when I originally wrote the comment. I’m on the last day of changing my sleep schedule to wake up at 4 AM for a new job.

    I meant it more as an agreement with your original post and it came off more combative than I intended.

    But yes, Matt A was influential in some of those ideas, and helped me when I decided to start a reading list of classical literature. I also just got to a point where alpha/beta didn’t help me personally in exploring the ways men work, so I avoid using them when I can. Plus they got boring.

  8. Good point Deep Strength about how rampant hypergamy makes this a lot more difficult. The question is, can women rewire their hypergamous tendencies, especially if they have gottencompletley out of whack? I think you are right that it should be possible to some degree, but I suspect it would be very difficult; much of that “training” starts at an early age and would be difficult to over-ride.

    The best thing going on here is the fact that male attractiveness is heavily dependent on the man’s behavior. That is something which can be changed, given enough time and will-power.

  9. Deep Strength

    Good point Deep Strength about how rampant hypergamy makes this a lot more difficult. The question is, can women rewire their hypergamous tendencies, especially if they have gottencompletley out of whack? I think you are right that it should be possible to some degree, but I suspect it would be very difficult; much of that “training” starts at an early age and would be difficult to over-ride.

    Unfortunately, most likely true. I think the elimination of social media would be a start, and combine that with reading, praying, and meditating on the Bible.

    I’m not sure how much can be reversed though. Given the manosphere and how men here have been changed significantly it seems that it is possible to a good exent, but women often don’t have the same self improvement drive that men do because they can get through life without it.

    The best thing going on here is the fact that male attractiveness is heavily dependent on the man’s behavior. That is something which can be changed, given enough time and will-power.

    The man must do his part in the marriage and lead, which can be taught and learned which is a very good thing.

    Unfortunately, that still leaves the conondrum of quality females… of which there are less than quality males. And the woman still has to follow God’s commands to submit. The man can’t make that choice for her.

    So it’s a two way street and unfortunately, and it seems that it will be mostly men holding up their end of the bargain in the end.

  10. For the marriage, as a marriage (and not some kind of partnership or anything), to be a happy one the woman needs to have her sub-conscious desires met.

    Classic Beta.

    If she can’t get her desires met with her Alpha husband, she is not submissive and thus not fit for male consumption.

  11. Not following what you are saying Paul. Are you equating “sub-conscious desires” with feelings or her stated needs or demands? Because if you are then that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about real subconscious behavior, the stuff she can’t even begin to vocalize.

  12. Deep Strength

    What Paul is saying it’s a slippery slope to believe that a husband can “make it easier” for a wife to submit to him. That’s what we were destroying Thankful Husband on at SSM’s a month or two ago.

    A woman must choose to submit in marriage as to honor the Lord and her husband.

    Three other things I think that are related to this are:

    1. Love is not a feeling, but an action to obey God’s commands.

    2. “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”

    Nowhere does it say that “happiness” is going to be any part of the Christian walk, especially in marriage.

    I do think happiness will result out of a God honoring relationship though, but it won’t be a happy-fest like everyone makes out marriage to be.

    3. Submission to God and Jesus, for a woman, should mirror her submission to her husband. It’s a conscious choice not to rebel against authority. That’s hard.

  13. The Scolds' Bridle

    This is a good analysis.

    The crucial factor is that the attributes that generate attraction are not perfectly cast in stone.

    It is easy to imagine that female attraction triggers in a Medieval Europe might be different than attraction triggers in 1990s Los Angeles.

    I suppose there is some sort of Maslow hierarchy that determines what general attraction triggers might be for a given time period.

    In modern America, with most of the basic needs of women met, there is nothing left to crank their engine but very high male value, since men are simply consumer products rather than necessities.

  14. I should probably clarify something that I chose to leave mostly unstated in my OP.

    The reason I wrote that essay is because any time I try to discuss women and their feelings about sex or marriage, or I try to discuss something from my own marriage, I am told that I am suffering from such severe apex fallacy due to being married to an “alpha” that I cannot really give useful advice.

    The reason this bothers me is because I think it is a cop out. I think when men in the sphere hear about happy women such as myself, Elspeth, SD, S2E, Morticia, or Alte, they immediately blow us off and say, “Well, your husbands are all alphas, so you really don’t know what you’re talking about.” Several of us have tried to say, “You know, we can’t possibly all be married to alphas. There simply aren’t that many of them in the world. We think our husbands are normal men who are our alphas, rather than definitional alphas.” So we try to explain what our husbands have done that keeps us so happy, or things that we have done to help our marriages be happy ones, but men will tell us, “Nope, sorry. You can’t possibly know anything about what marriage is/would be like for average guys. We have no hope of ever having happy marriages.”

    I think that’s B.S. I think it’s men who want to blame all their relationship problems on “not being an alpha”. They don’t want to believe that they can (or should have to) do anything to improve their situation. It’s easier to assume that any man who has a decent marriage must just be some kind of natural alpha.

    You don’t have to pass fitness tests for every woman in the world and be some kind of uber-alpha. You just need to be attractive enough to pull the girl you want and be ready and able to deal with her fitness tests. I didn’t want to put in that bluntly in my own post, but that is essentially what I was trying to say.

    A second point that I didn’t address is biological attraction. It’s different for women; our attraction filters are much narrower than men’s, and a lot of it probably has to do with neurochemical and microbiome compatibility. And some men just smell wrong. I don’t know how else to put it; it’s not like they need to shower or something, it’s that neurochemically/microbially, they don’t mesh with me, I guess. Honestly, the smell of my husband’s sweat actually smells kind of good to me; I’ve been around other guys whose sweaty smell makes my skin crawl. I have no idea why.

    Does that same dynamic happen for men? Do you ever smell a girl and feel less attracted to her, not because she smells bad but because something about her is a bad match for you?

  15. I have no idea if your husband is an “Alpha Male” SSM. I have never met him (to the best of my knowledge). I probably won’t ever meet him. Or any of the husbands of the ladies around the ‘sphere. Part of me really doesn’t like the terms “Alpha Male” and “Beta Male.” I try not to use them. What I do know is that you are attracted to your husband, and strongly so. Likewise with most of the other women around these parts. Under the thinking of most of the manosphere, that means they must be Alpha Males. I don’t hold to that. I think wife can be attracted to her husband without him having to be an Apex Male, or being at the top of some hierarchy, or any such thing.

    I think that’s B.S. I think it’s men who want to blame all their relationship problems on “not being an alpha”. They don’t want to believe that they can (or should have to) do anything to improve their situation. It’s easier to assume that any man who has a decent marriage must just be some kind of natural alpha.

    Whiners will be whiners. Some people like to complain. I came into these parts, and did some of that myself before learning to shut my trap. Complaining “Woe is Me” is pathetic. No other way to describe it. And that is what some of those men are: pathetic. They don’t want to do anything with their lives, they don’t want to try to self improve, in short (pardon the crudity), they don’t have the balls to try and improve their lives. They refuse to play the game, decrying how unfair the rules are, how unjust the results tend to be, and so on and so forth. So what? Life isn’t fair. This is something they should have learned as children. Christians especially have no excuse. The honest truth is that these guys use the Apex Fallacy and a dozen other studies or bits of anecdotal evidence to justify their own inaction. They have already decided to lay over and play dead, they just want an excuse.

    A man can go his own way if he wants, but he shouldn’t be a whiner about it.

    As for your second point, the intersection of biology into the Red Pill fascinates me. But then again I have always loved science. As for myself, I can’t think of an instance where a woman’s smell was wrong in the way you describe. Usually there was something concrete I could explain away as the problem (usually cigarettes). Thinking on it, the smell of a woman more often than not increased my attraction towards her. I can’t think of anything like you describe happening to me. Perhaps that is a fundamental difference between men and women. Hopefully more scientific studies will be directed that way in the future.

  16. Whiners will be whiners. Some people like to complain. I came into these parts, and did some of that myself before learning to shut my trap. Complaining “Woe is Me” is pathetic. No other way to describe it. And that is what some of those men are: pathetic. They don’t want to do anything with their lives, they don’t want to try to self improve, in short (pardon the crudity), they don’t have the balls to try and improve their lives. They refuse to play the game, decrying how unfair the rules are, how unjust the results tend to be, and so on and so forth. So what? Life isn’t fair. This is something they should have learned as children. Christians especially have no excuse. The honest truth is that these guys use the Apex Fallacy and a dozen other studies or bits of anecdotal evidence to justify their own inaction. They have already decided to lay over and play dead, they just want an excuse.

    That’s very well-said.

    What did you think of LaidNYC’s comment on encouraging masculinity in boys? He wrote:

    I think society’s pressures are irrelevant to a larger question, which is are traditionally masculine characteristics good for a man to have?

    I and many others say absolutely YES.

    For that I believe society is right to pressure men into being men, even if it is insensitive in some cases.

    Parents are doing well to prepare their son for a world that does not care for them. The way for a man to make his way in that world is with a strong masculine essence.

    Men are more likely to commit suicide or get their ass kicked because the harsh nature of our biology demands that men be competitive to be successful. There are winners and losers in competition. A society that encourages them to be emotional and show weakness does not prepare them for the inevitable competitions that await them in life.

    I sometimes worry that men read my site, which heavily critiques female behavior, and decide that their lives suck because women are so terrible. In some ways that may be true, but I wonder if some men use that to give themselves a pass on what LNYC calls the “inevitable competitions”.

  17. Encouraging masculine behavior in boys is vital and necessary. Men are made, not born. If you coddle a boy, he will grow up into a boy. Unfortunately, our society does its level best to encourage this.

    but I wonder if some men use that to give themselves a pass on what LNYC calls the “inevitable competitions”.

    Oh definitely. There are several commentators at your blog who I think might fit that bill. They seem to think that things will simply be given to them; that reeks of being coddled when younger. They fail to understand that if you want something in life, 99.99% of the time you have to go get it.

    Their principal complaint is that it is so much tougher to find a wife these days, and to keep her. This is all true, it was easier a century ago. But we don’t live in 1913. This is 2013. Times change, often for the worse.

    I feel for them, I really do. I am in the same boat. But I am not going to lie down and simply accept my fate. I may never find a women worthy of marriage who will marry me. I accept that is a possibility in my life, a very strong possibility. But I won’t let those odds keep from doing my utmost to find that woman and make her my bride. It is said that so many self-professed Christian men don’t seem to understand the importance of devoting the whole of your efforts to something worthwhile.

    45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; 46 on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.

    (Matthew 13:34-46)

    Matthew 7:7 is also appropriate.

  18. Deep Strength

    “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”

    Like I said, I don’t see “happiness” there… or conversely from some men of the manosphere “bitterness”, “jealousy”, “envy”, or “complaining”

    It is a choice to be bitter. Bitterness is rebellion against what God has for us. Bitterness is something that God can forgive and you can be healed from, but you have to ask God to do it and forgive any people/society/family/etc. may have wronged you.

  19. Well, happiness could be folded into joy or peace, so I’m not sure that hanging on a single word is the right thing to do. Little too much like the Pharisees sticking to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit. But I remember that Jesus warned us that it would be a narrow path we traveled. He made it pretty clear that the Way was not going to be easy, or always enjoyable.

  20. Deep Strength

    See, that’s the problem without the Hebrew and Greek meanings of the words.

    Check it out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_Holy_Spirit

    Joy

    Joy (Greek: chara, Latin: gaudium) See also: Eudaimonia

    The Greek word for ‘joy’ is Kevo, derived from the word charis, which is the Greek word for ‘grace.’ This is significant to note, for chara is produced by the charis of God. This means ‘joy’ is not a human-based happiness that comes and goes but, rather, true ‘joy’ is divine in its origin. It is a Spirit-given expression that flourishes best in hard times. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 1:6,[10] the Thessalonians were under great stress due to persecution; yet in the midst of it all, they continued to experience great joy. The Greek strongly implies that their supernatural joy was due to the Holy Spirit working in them. Paul even called it the “joy of the Holy Ghost”. (Sparkling Gems from the Greek, Rick Renner)

    According to Nehemiah 8:10, “The joy of the Lord is your strength”,[11] which may be further understood to mean properly as “the awareness (of God’s) grace, favor; joy (“grace recognized”)”.[12]

    Joy is of divine origin and Spirit given — the same kind of joy we are supposed to rejoice in our suffering for God, and the joy of the Lord is our strength as noted.

    Not the human happiness that may come and go in a marriage.

    Peace or Shalom

    Peace is the result of resting in a relationship with God.[13] Peace is a tranquility, a state of rest, that comes from seeking after God, or, the opposite of chaos. Peace or eirḗnē is God’s gift of wholeness and derived from eirō, “to join, tie together into a whole”,[14] properly, when all essential parts are joined together as one or as a whole.

    The word “peace” comes from the Greek word eirene, the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word shalom, which expresses the idea of wholeness, completeness, or tranquility in the soul that is unaffected by the outward circumstances or pressures. The word eirene strongly suggests the rule of order in place of chaos. When a person is dominated by peace, he has a calm, inner stability that results in the ability to conduct himself peacefully, even in the midst of circumstances that would normally be very nerve-wracking, traumatic, or upsetting…Rather than allowing the difficulties and pressures of life to break him, a person who is possessed by peace is whole, complete, orderly, stable, and poised for blessing.[15]

    Jesus is described as the Prince of Peace, who brings peace to the hearts of those who desire it. He says in John 14:27:[16] “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid”. NKJV The only way to get this peace is to trust in the Jewish God, YHWH, as Isaiah says, “The steadfast of mind You will keep in perfect peace, because he trusts in You”.[17]

    “Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of God no matter what the conflict”. -Anonymous

    “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”.[18] “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit”.[19]

    When having peace with God through the sacrifice of Jesus, we are then able to make peace between men, and also between men and God, also called “evangelism”. It is understood that those who have peace with God, and are therefore sons of God, will act like their Father in heaven and become those who are able to make peace, or be peace makers, as Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God”[20] and “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me”.[21] So by saying this, Jesus is stating that only those who have received peace with God through Himself, the “sons of God”, are able to make peace, no one else. These sons of God are specified by John when he says, “None of those who are children of God continue to sin, for God’s very nature is in them; and because God is their Father, they cannot continue to sin”.[22] Paul also says, “Never pay back evil for evil. Take thought for what is right in the sight of all men”.[23] Peace, in the Bible, is much more than just a lack of yelling or lack of war, it is the presence of YHWH allowed into a place and a person. Only with the Jewish God is there peace, as Isaiah writes, “‘There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.'”[24] Jesus is the Jewish God,[25][26] and He is alive.[27]

    Basically, this sums it up completely:

    “The word “peace” comes from the Greek word eirene, the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word shalom, which expresses the idea of wholeness, completeness, or tranquility in the soul that is unaffected by the outward circumstances or pressures.”

    These are definitely not the human based “happiness” that may flow in and out in marriage…. we are not to be ruled by our emotions.

  21. When in doubt, always go back to the Greek. Thanks Deep Strength.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s