I thought I did address it.I'm not "spinning it"; I'm making crucial distinctions so as to protect Christianity from moral relativism and to protect morality from being based on arbitrary fiat rather than God's eternally holy nature.
At any other time in history the man would have been sinning in stabbing the prophet. But that time, it was just the opposite. It was a sin not to. And there isn't any moral relativism or arbitrariness involved.1Ki 20:35 And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his fellow at the command of the LORD, "Strike me, please." But the man refused to strike him.
1Ki 20:36 Then he said to him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as you have gone from me, a lion shall strike you down." And as soon as he had departed from him, a lion met him and struck him down.
Just like killing babies. You could go down to Compton or up to SanFran and find a crack house with the same sorts of people or worse than were in Canaan, and it would be a sin to kill their babies. The degree of sin involved has nothing to do with the law against killing babies. God forbids it, just like he forbids marrying a whore
or anything else He says to do. If God says to do something, by it's very nature the action isn't sinful, and not arbitrary or morally relative.Hos 1:2 When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, "Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD."