I am not sure I follow you on this. Do you mean that in a single instance of a
single word, John made use of the full semantic domain of that word? If that
is what you mean then I would take issue with it. I am willing under duress to
discover a word or phrase here and there which seems to bear more than one
sense in a single instance in a single context. But I need to be driven to this
conclusion by other indicators in the text which make a single sense reading
problematic. I think we are throwing all caution to the wind if we think that
an author is carting around the entire semantic domain for a word every time
he uses it in the text. James Barr covered all of this thirty some years ago,
in The Semantics of Biblical Language. I can't reproduce his argument form
memory but it was forceful and convincing.
If on the other hand you are saying that John uses a single word in different
contexts with different meanings then I would say this is a well documented
phenomena of language and no one will argue with you about it.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point