[SpeakersCorner]

I'm not sure I see metonymy here, KSA. YP is correct in his explanation of what metonymy is and perhaps there is some going on here but I don't see it. However, I am open to further explanation of what both of you see here concerning this.

What is important in bringing this matter up is that metonymy is figurative language. If this verse is figurative then we must not take it as literal ... in which case the 2nd person of the trinity did not literally become the 3rd. He became it in figure in some way.

I'd like both of you to speak more on this matter. It isn't just a linguistics sidewater; it matters.


SC

P.S. I just re-read one of your above posts, KSA, and now I think I'm more clear on what you are calling metonymy. To wit: the "spiritual body" is the metonymy -- that is, the figure -- for the "life-giving spirit." Or is it the other way around? I'm still confused, I guess. At any rate, it just doesn't seem like a case of metonymy because neither term is a handy metaphorical shorthand for the other as far as I can tell.