Lev 20:10 And a man who commits adultery with a man's wife, who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 20:11 And the man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness. Both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them.
Lev 20:12 And if a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have performed a perversion; their blood shall be on them.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lies with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be on them.
Lev 20:14 And if a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, so that there may be no wickedness among you.

Where was the man or other woman? Strange that homosexuality is dealt with but not lesbianism.  

Lev 20:17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Lev 20:18 And if a man shall lie with a menstruous woman, and shall uncover her nakedness, he has discovered her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. And both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Lev 20:19 And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, nor of your father's sister. For he uncovers his near kin. They shall bear their iniquity.
Lev 20:20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness. They shall bear their sin. They shall die childless.
Lev 20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

Well from reading these few laws, it really seems they were very subjective. The first section was deserving of death but the latter was less severe, in fact bearing their sin and dying childless seems to be the worst for these crimes.  

Joh 8:7 But as they continued to ask Him, He lifted Himself up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.
Joh 8:8 And again bending down, He wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 And hearing, and being convicted by conscience, they went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, until the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
Joh 8:10 And bending back up, and seeing no one but the woman, Jesus said to her, Woman, where are the ones who accused you? Did not one give judgment against you?
Joh 8:11 And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more.

One would read into this that Jesus was without sin as He was the one that remained. He merely asks where are your accusers and then states that He too does not judge.

Is the message we are to get from this that Jesus was sinless or is it to show that no one is without sin or is it really to show that the law was subjective and that both of the offenders were not present? If you think about it, knowing the law and the consequences, would such an act not be done in secret? What is the likelihood that one would be caught in the very act? Remote?

Something that needs to be understood here is the culture of the Jews at this time. A man was allowed to put away a wife without a certificate of divorce meaning she could not marry and to survive would invariably resort to prostitution to survive. The wife was essentially dependant on either her family for support or her husband if she were married. Let us look at whores.  

Lev 19:29 You shall not prostitute your daughter, to cause her to be a whore, lest the land go whoring, and the land become full of wickedness.

Lev 21:7 They shall not take a wife who is a whore, or defiled. Neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband. For he is holy to his God.

Again we see here inconsistencies in the law. Not prostituting a daughter is fine however, once a whore always a whore?

When was a man allowed to put away his wife? Only in the case of fornication.  

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.

Mar 10:3 And He answered and said to them, What did Moses command you?
Mar 10:4 And they said, Moses allowed a bill of divorce to be written, and to put her away.
Mar 10:5 And Jesus answered and said to them, He wrote you this precept because of the hardness of your hearts.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife.
Mar 10:8 And the two of them shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put apart.
Mar 10:10 And in the house His disciples asked Him again about the same.
Mar 10:11 And He said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.
Mar 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband and marries to another, she commits adultery.

I think the Mark account is less biased. Why? Simple, Jesus says adultery is adultery just as the commandment stated in the OT; Thou shalt not commit adultery.

The Levitical laws made this law subjective. God's Law is black and white, hence Jesus called a spade a spade. Sexual immorality is sexual immorality. Now think about it, a man was allowed to remarry but the woman not where in the case of a divorce, neither should be allowed to marry. Men had concubines and that was OK and by all accounts women were degraded to nothing less than sex objects. Is that how God or Jesus saw women? I do not think so.

Was the issue that Jesus spoke on about adultery or was it Him addressing the futility of the Law?

We are told God hates sin but loves the sinner right? Where is that verse?

Anyway now that we have explored this adultery bit, what is the object lesson?  

1. Jesus was without sin
2. Both parties were not present
3. The subjectivity and futility of the law
4. No one is without sin

Chances are she was a prostitute, Jesus never asked her this question. The fact she was caught in the act leads me to believe it was a set-up by one of the Pharisees who would have indicated when said act was to take place. Just wondering if said Pharisee was allowed to complete the act before she was hauled away? Where was the man?

Remember Rahab the harlot?

If both parties were present, do you think Jesus may have carried out the law? I do not think so. I still believe He would say, "You who are without sin cast the first stone"

The law was futile. Jesus was challenged on it many times and He always managed to turn it against the accusers, why? Because He spoke the truth.  

Joh 8:11 And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more.

Now if she were a prostitute, she was a victim of circumstances she could not control, likely she would have gone back to her ways. Were she not a prostitute, she was anyway defiled and according to the law could not be married. She would be left with one recourse and that was to go back to her parents. What if they were dead?

We also know:  

Luk 7:36 And one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And going into the Pharisee's house, He reclined.
Luk 7:37 And behold, a woman, a sinner in the city, knowing that He reclined in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster vial of ointment.
Luk 7:38 And she stood behind Him, weeping at His feet, and she began to wash His feet with tears and wipe them with the hair of her head. And she ardently kissed His feet and anointed them with the ointment.
Luk 7:39 But seeing this, the Pharisee who had invited Him, spoke within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what kind of woman this is who touches him, for she is a sinner.

All we have is what we may infer that she was a prostitute/adulteress. What other sin would she be guilty of? What reputation would she have had if not for prostitution, seem the Pharisee knew her and I would hazard a guess intimately.

Jesus dealt with sin on a level that no one had ever before tried. Now here we have seen Jesus not judging and showing the compassion of the Loving Father. I would go so far as to say, God had no choice but to forgive us our sins even before the Cross. I think the laws had hidden this fact from the masses keeping them all in bondage to the religion of the day. Jesus brought this reality to light.

Only one sin is unforgivable, the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Seeing we can curse God and Jesus and that can be forgiven, this obviously has deeper meanings.

So in a nutshell:

Sin is not all that it is cracked up to be. There is no sacrifice for sin however we shall reap what we sow in this lifetime, thus it is better we do not sin.

Remember, Father loves us in spite of ourselves.

Next Study:John 8:12-27 The True Witness

Blessings

All references to MKJV quoted NKJV linked

Visit Father's Love Forum