Sermon Tone Analysis

Overall tone of the sermon

This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.18UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.14UNLIKELY
Fear
0.13UNLIKELY
Joy
0.21UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.28UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.73LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.36UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.96LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.36UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.31UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.28UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.59LIKELY

Tone of specific sentences

Tones
Emotion
Anger
Disgust
Fear
Joy
Sadness
Language
Analytical
Confident
Tentative
Social Tendencies
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional Range
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
Johannine Metaphors~/Symbols linked to the Paraclete-Spirit and its Theological implications  
!!! 1. Introduction
The Johannine Gospel is well-known for its wealth and depth of figurative language, metaphors, and symbols.
John uses many different images.
Some of the most prominent Johannine images are that of lamb, king, bread, sheep, shepherd, vine, eating and drinking, etc.
In this article I am investigating the Johannine Paraclete-Spirit from the specific perspective of the metaphors and symbols the author used to enable the primary and secondary readers to come to a better understanding of the Paraclete-Spirit.
I will also consider the theological implications of the usage of these metaphors.
I am furthermore suggesting that there exists a close relationship between the different metaphors and images in the Johannine Gospel.
Looking at the theological debate of the past couple of decades, we could argue that one of the more modern trends in theology is that of metaphorical theology.
Theologians and biblical interpreters argue that metaphors provide the key for a general religious language.
To speak metaphorically is to speak of one thing in terms appropriate to another.
S. McFacgue (1982) and G. Green (1989) are exponents of this trend.
Their approaches have noticeable weaknesses.[1]
Some core symbols are expressed in the form of metaphors.
C. Koester (2003:6) indicates that symbols and metaphors are not identical, but are related on a continuum.[2]
However, we need to admit that Johannine metaphors linked to the Paraclete-Spirit are revealing more to us than what we often consider.
The usage of metaphors /per se/ is neither a modern trend nor only limited to the theological domain.
Aristotle, for instance defined a metaphor as:
…giving the thing a name that belongs to something else, the transference (epiphora) being either from genus to species or from species to genus or from species to species or on the grounds of analogy (/Poetics/ 1457).
From a philosophical, methodological and epistemological perspective E. Botha (1983:29-44) discusses the impasse of modern scientific models and methodology.
In her discussion, Botha focuses on the epistemological nature of metaphors.
She alludes to the fact that the obtaining of knowledge is often metaphorical in nature.
*2.
What is a metaphor?*
We can answer this question by focusing on the etymology of the word.
Then we would note that originally, /metaphor/ was a Greek word meaning "transfer".
The Greek etymology is from /meta/, implying "a change" and /pherein/ meaning "to bear, or carry".
In Modern Greek, the word /metaphor/ means /transport/ or /transfer/.
Historically it appears the two terms were used essentially as synonyms.
We can also answer this question from a lexicographical perspective.
For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary (1975:1315) describes a metaphor as:
The figure of speech in which a name or descriptive term is transferred to some object different from but analogous to, that to which it is properly applicable; an instance of this, a metaphorical expression.
Or we can attempt to address this question prom the perspective of the effective use of language.
If we follow this approach we can assert that within rhetorical theory, metaphor is generally considered to be a direct equation of terms that is more forceful and assertive than an analogy, although the two types of tropes are highly similar and often confused.
One distinguishing characteristic is that the assertiveness of a metaphor calls into question the underlying category structure, whereas in a rhetorical analogy the comparative differences between the categories remain salient and acknowledged.
We could also argue that metaphors are figures of speech in which words or phrases that ordinarily designate one thing are used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison.
According to all these descriptions metaphor are seen as figures of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object is used in place of another in order to suggest comparison between them.
Take all of the above into consideration the implication is that metaphors are not merely ornaments for ideas that might just as well be expressed literally.
Metaphors are used rather to convey specific knowledge in ways that communication in non-metaphorical terms cannot duplicate.
Seen this way the use of metaphors provide us with a tool to bring forward understanding and knowledge in areas where we find it difficult to express adequately what we mean.
I am suggesting that this is especially true when we consider a Johannine Pneumatology.
!!! 3. John and the use of metaphors
B. Malina (1985) argues persuasively that metaphors play a significant rule in the Johannine Gospel.
He shows that many of the great Johannine metaphors emerge in conversations.
Their metaphorical points are made in conversation, thus maintaining the resocialisation quality of the work in the reader's~/hearer's being addressed by Jesus in these conversations as the dialogue becomes monologue.
In the resocialisation process conversation relies heavily upon foregrounding and highlighting interpersonal meanings, and the great Johannine conversations surely do that.
He rightly states that metaphors constitute the element of antilanguage that is present in all language to some extent.
For much of everyday language is in fact metaphorical, e.g.
horsepower in an automobile, a cell in biology, conceiving ideas.
The Johannine tendency to use metaphors to convey information is also mentioned by J. Van der Watt (2000).
For instance, in his discussion of comparison as a metaphorical device Van der Watt (2000:87) indicates that a comparison differs from a metaphor in that it states the point that is to be compared clearly and it is more specific than metaphor.
By way of comparison, two situations are paralleled.
He also indicates that John makes good use of comparison on different levels.
Among others Van der Watt (2000:87) mentions the following examples:
In John 1:51 an implicit comparison is made through which the symbolic value of the Jacob narrative is applied to the Son of Man, while in John 1:32 the Spirit is compared to a dove.
In John 3:8 the work of the Spirit is compared to the wind.
It is not a single comparison (i.e.
only one point is compared) but a complex comparison.
A ‘story’ of the wind is compared to a ‘story’ of the Spirit.[3]
With the abovementioned examples in mind, we could argue that metaphorical expression is part and parcel of Johannine style.
It is an integral part of the Johannine author’s attempt to enable people to understand his message better.
However, to complicate matters more we need to admit, when we consider for instance John 6:22-71, John 7:1-53a and  John 10:1-19, that Jesus uses metaphorical language, and is, consequently, not understood fully or understood at all.
The implication is that although metaphorical language has the possibility to enlighten, it does not always achieve enlightenment.
We could argue the case by listing the proof texts.
However, one example would suffice.
In 1 John 1:5b the author states: ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν.
The metaphorical image or vehicle here is the contrast between light and darkness and the theme or tenor is truth versus falsehood.[4]
This metaphor has one true subject, which tenor and vehicle conjointly depicts and illumines and a secondary subject that is used since its attributes are known by the ones to whom this metaphorical saying is addressed.
The true or primary subject is ὁ θεὸς and the secondary subject is φῶς.
In other words through this metaphorical description John reveals to us that God is in himself unapproachable, infinite, omnipresent, unchangeable, the source of life and of safety because in those days this was what they thought of light.
However, it is not only God’s attributes that John has in mind, but what God means for man is addressed by this metaphor.
In other words, since God has all the abovementioned attributes, men must follow him and not falsehood.
It is therefore clear that the metaphor works through a system of associated implications that are known from the secondary subject.
It selects, emphasises, represses, and organise characteristics of the primary subject through the implication of characteristics that is usually known about the secondary subject.
In the context of a metaphoric statement, interaction between the two subjects takes place.
The presence of the primary subject causes the hearer to select certain characteristics of the secondary subject to apply with regards to the primary subject.
This implies that metaphors are alive and always dependent on the frame of reference of the hearers.
It also means that metaphors will change their meaning as audiences with different frames of reference come into play.
We should therefore restrain ourselves from giving metaphors fixed meanings applicable to all situations.
The frequent association of metaphor with image has led some commentators to suggest that all metaphors are necessarily visual.[5]
C. Koester (2003:2-3) states that earthly images could be used to bear witness to divine realities, because the earth is God’s creation.
These earthly images have the ability to communicate things that cannot be expressed adequately by other means.
The Johannine author sought to disclose the abiding significance of what Jesus had said and done in the conviction Jesus himself continues to abide among people through the Paraclete-Spirit (John 14:15-17 and 23).[6]
This Paraclete-Spirit will not bring new revelation on the same order Jesus did, but will manifest Jesus’ presence and will disclose his message to people after his departure (John 14:26).[7]
!!! 4. Johannine metaphors regarding the Paraclete-Spirit
A Van den Heever (1992:94) states that
The metaphors in John are all embedded in contexts made up by other metaphorical expressions: descent~/ascent, living in you~/you in me, partaking of Me as food, walking in the light, etcetera.
It means that the connoted micro-level metaphors must be understood macro-metaphorically.
With is in mind we can ask /whether/ and if indeed /what/ metaphors are in use in the Johannine Gospel that reveal something about the Paraclete-Spirit?
In the exegetical undertaking of my study (Joubert, 2006) I argued that we find three micro-level metaphors that the Johannine author used to enable his readers to come to a better understanding of who the Paraclete-Spirit is and what we can expect from Him.
I am also contending that we should consider interpreting these metaphors on a macro-metaphorical level.
The three metaphors I would like to investigate are that of dove, water and wind.
*4.1.
The Johannine Paraclete-Spirit and the Dove metaphor*
In John 1:32 the Baptist witnesses regarding Jesus.
He said: Τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.
We need to interpret this text in its broader context.
Some scholars argue that according to John 1:32 there must have been a physical presentation of a dove.[8]
Although this is of course possible, it does not take proper account of ἔμεινεν.
Did this dove stayed with Jesus?
Therefore, it seems more appropriate to interpret this reference to περιστερὰν in the metaphorical sense explained earlier.[9]
How should we interpret this reference to the dove?
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9