When I read that, I could cite texts, teachers and commentary that would all disagree with it. I would say that the sutta seems to describe moving from the first to the second jhana using metta as the object, and I could get into nitty-gritty detail about how the object is treated and what the suttas seem to say.
But that seems counter to the teaching as it gives rise to conflict.
Rather, the question that really bears on my mind with this is "how much does such classification actually matter?"
I got in a very drawn-out argument with Ceisiwr for the sake of arguing for inclusivity towards interpretations. I feel validated in my studies in that regard but is debating worth it? I don't think I'm looking for validation so much as trying to discern truth. The truth seems to be pragmatic though. If it works, then it was right. And if that's the case, then what's the point of arguing? Sport? Defending a manual? Trying to be right? There's no reason for that, no reason to act like teenagers, like Eko Care said.