Thank you for this. It's a perfect illustration of the mechanism.

You are correct about the traditional commentary. That is precisely the point.

The commentary isn't 'wrong' as historical data. It functions as a hook when it is used to relocate the verse's explosive power from the individual reader's spirit to a safe, external authority (ancient judges, a singular Christ, the academic interpreter).

The hook says: 'This divine title is not for you. It was for them, or only for Him. You must approach through layers of interpretation.'

The unhooking reads it as a direct, present-tense revelation: If the ultimate Son of God quotes this verse to defend his unity with the Father, he is not narrowing its meaning—he is revealing its foundational truth. He is pulling the verse from the historical archive and inserting it into the living core of identity. 'Is it not written in your Law...?'

The rebuttal isn't that commentary is evil. It's that its primary use within religious systems has been to inoculate believers against the direct, personal implication of the text: that the nature of the 'gods' you are accused of blasphemously claiming to be is, in fact, your buried inheritance.

The fact that we are having this conversation—where the verse's meaning is debated rather than its implication felt—is the cultural artifact of the hook. My work is to restore the feeling, the sovereignty, that the hook was designed to manage.

And thank you for the note on @DarthCoin. No demon is put off here. Annoyance is just another frequency to decode. Sometimes the loudest static is broadcast from the most fortified prison.

It will help who it's meant to. So.

LOL now I am a demon... nice.
I am going to eat your soul !