Sons of Thunder

"James and John, you are 'Sons of Thunder!'" What did Jesus mean when He said that? What did the brothers feel and understand when He said it of them? Most modern preachers and interpreters have translated that phrase to mean "impetuous" or "angry". But that cannot be a valid interpretation as we will see below. The following is an experpt from a paper I wrote for Biblical Hermeneutics. The paper was a synopsis of E.D. Hirsh's book, "Validity in Interpretation". The book is referenced throughout the following. The application section of the paper begins:

Perhaps the easiest way to clarify the principles of validity in interpretation is through the use of an example. I will attempt to repudiate what I believe to be a commonly held but invalid interpretation of Mark 3:17;

“¹⁶And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), ¹⁷and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder");” Mark 3:16-17 (NASB77).

The focus, for the sake of this exercise, will be on the interpretation of the phrase, “to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, “Sons of Thunder’.”

Virtually every interpretation of this phrase that I have read or heard over the years have interpreted the phrase “Sons of Thunder” in one of three ways; 1) the phrase points to the impetuous nature of James and John, 2) the phrase indicates that James and John have an anger problem, or 3) Zebedee, the father of James an John, has an anger problem and they are, therefore, “sons of an angry man.” There appears, however, to be no evidence to support the validity of any of these three interpretations. To the contrary, evidence from the Christian Bible seems to contraindicate or invalidate these interpretations. These interpretations appear to come from a contemporary, colloquial use of the word “thunder” with regards to individuals – that being that individuals who “thunder” are angry. In order to get a more valid interpretation of the meaning of the phrase “Sons of Thunder,” one must go back to the use of the word “thunder” in the context in which it was originally penned by the author to determine whether “anger” is an appropriate (valid) interpretation. Is it within the determinate meaning of the passage?

The author of this particular passage is Mark (John Mark?) who was an eye witness of the events which he documented in this particular text. The text is a “gospel” in the canon of the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The purpose of a “gospel” is to document the life, work, and teachings of Jesus Christ. Applying the principle of “genre” to the passage would require that one consider the passage in light of Jesus’ work and life. The assigning of the name “Sons of Thunder” is attributed by Mark to Jesus. As such it qualifies as an activity of Jesus Christ. Is the interpretation, “anger,” in keeping with the personality, character, and work of Jesus, the one to whom it is attributed? No, it is not. In this same passage we see Jesus renaming Simon, giving him the name Peter. In other passages of the Christian Bible we see God renaming other individuals. In each case, the new name given by God (Jesus) indicates a holier or better character than the individual’s old name indicated. Simon (pebbles) becomes Peter (rock), Abram (exalted father) becomes Abraham (father of nations; Gen 17:5), Sarai becomes Sarah (Princess; Gen. 17:15), Jacob (Deceiver) becomes Israel (One who strives with God; Gen 32:28;35:10). For Jesus to mean “Sons of Anger” or “Impetuous” when he calls James and John “Sons of Thunder” would be to give his best friends a new name that points to their old and fallen nature. This is not in keeping with His character and his activities elsewhere in scripture, so it must be discarded.

In order to determine a more valid interpretation of the word “thunder” and it’s application to James and John, one must apply the principles of “interpretive evidence” by reviewing other uses of the word “thunder” in Mark’s writing(s), other gospels, the New Testament, and the Christian bible as a whole. Unfortunately, there are no other uses of the Greek word for thunder in Mark’s only New Testament writing, the book of Mark. There is one occurrence of the word in John’s gospel ; “The multitude therefore, who stood by and heard it, said that it had thundered. Others said, ‘An angel has spoken to him.’” (John 12:29). There are a total of nine other uses of the word “thunder” in the New Testament, all in John, Son of Thunder’s writings, and 31 uses in the Old Testament. If we review these uses of the word “Thunder,” of which there are a total of 42 in the Christian Bible, we find the following distribution of meanings[1]:

See APPENDIX 1 – Uses of “Thunder” in Scripture for more details and disclaimers.

None of the cases use the term “thunder” to describe a personality trait or characteristic of a man or men. The only case in scripture where thunder refers to men is in Job 39:25 where it refers to the noise of battle. In 12 (28.6%) cases “thunder” refers to the literal weather phenomenon. In six (14.3%) cases it refers to noises heard in heaven made by the heavenly hosts (all in John’s Revelation.) In 22 (52%) cases the term “thunder” refers to the sound of God’s presence, God’s voice or word, or God’s power. It should also be noted that in each instance where “thunder” indicates the literal weather phenomenon, that weather is caused by God. Therefore 52-80% of cases in scripture where the term “thunder” is used it refers to God’s activity, presence, power, voice or word. The closest and most powerful evidence of the meaning of term is in John’s gospel (same genre). In this case (quoted above,) “thunder” clearly applies to the voice of God:

[Jesus said] ²⁸ "Father, glorify Thy name." There came therefore a voice out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." ²⁹ The multitude therefore, who stood by and heard it, were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him."

John 12:28-29 (NASB77) (Emphasis mine.)

If all 42 instances of “thunder” in the Christian Bible are reviewed, we find that the most frequent use of the term outside of it’s literal meaning is in reference to God’s activity and, more specifically, God’s voice or Word (eleven instances,) including John’s reference given above. Using raw numerical probability in the absence of other evidence would therefore indicate that a more valid interpretation of “Sons of Thunder” would be “Sons of God’s Word” or “Sons of My Word.”

Is there any other evidence that this last interpretation is more valid than others? I have not fully exhausted and evaluated the other possible interpretations, but I did review the character and writings of John to determine whether this “Son of Thunder” could be called the “Son of God’s Word.” In that light it is interesting to note that John uses the Greek word for “Word” in reference to Jesus or God 39 times in his writings, more frequently than any other New Testament author. Jesus as “the Word” was critically important to John “Son of God’s Word.”

While this example and it’s implementation may seem, to some, to be stretching the principles of validation, these various tests appear to indicate that “Son of God’s Word” is a more valid interpretation of “Son of Thunder” than is “Son of Anger.” This interpretation is 1) in character with Jesus Christ about whom Mark was writing in the passage in question, 2) in keeping with other uses of the term in closely related (genre) passages as well as other passages, 3) in keeping with the most common use of the term in the Christian Bible as a whole, and 4) in keeping with New Testament principles regarding the Christian’s “new name” given by Christ.

It is hoped that this example makes proper use of and helps to clarify the principles put forward by Mr. Hirsch in his book Validity in Interpretation.

Back to Top

List of Verses

Statistics

John's Use of "Word"

[1]The meanings attributed in this table and in Appendix 1 are based on cursory review of the passages in multiple English translations. A thorough review would require applying tests of interpretorial validity to each of these passages as well to be sure of the most valid interpretation of each.