Why Is Killing Mentioned in the Bible but Not Kidofili@?

 Why Is Killing Mentioned in the Bible but Not Kidofili@?

At first glance, it seems strange—and troubling—that the Bible speaks directly about murder, theft, adultery, and idolatry, yet says nothing explicitly about Kidofili@. In today’s moral framework, Kidofili@ is one of the most heinous evils imaginable. So why the silence?

To understand this, we have to approach the Bible not just as a moral list, but as an ancient document written to an ancient audience. The silence on Kidofilia is not permissive—it’s contextual.

1. Cultural Context:  Kidofilia Wasn’t a Norm in Ancient Israel

Unlike some of the surrounding pagan cultures—especially Greek and Roman societies where adult men often pursued sexual relationships with boys—ancient Israel had very strict sexual boundaries rooted in covenantal purity and family structure. The Torah’s sexual ethics centered on protecting the household, preserving generational integrity, and avoiding exploitation. While the specific term or concept of “Kidofillia” as we define it today isn’t named, sexual relations with anyone outside a proper covenant (i.e., marriage) were heavily restricted. Children were under the absolute protection of the household, and exploiting them sexually would have been considered a form of rape or abuse, already condemned under broader laws.

2. Children Were Under Fatherly Authority—and Protection

In Israelite society, children were not sexually available to anyone. The idea that an adult could “have” a child sexually was completely foreign to Israelite law and family structure. There was no place for that kind of access. Fathers were responsible for protecting their daughters' virginity until marriage (Deut. 22), and a sexual offense against a minor daughter was treated as a serious family and legal offense. Had someone sexually abused a child, they would have violated:

Laws against rape,

Laws against incest (Leviticus 18),

Laws against fornication,

And in a communal society, laws against bringing shame on the household.

Even if not called “Kidofilli@,” such acts would be treated as sexual violence, which the Law does condemn (see Deut. 22:25–27).

3. Honor-Shame Framework: Shameful Acts Didn’t Always Get Named

In honor-shame cultures, some acts were so vile they weren’t spoken of explicitly. Instead of listing every perversion, the Law uses phrases like:

“Do not do as they do in Egypt…” (Lev. 18:3)

“It is a perversion” (Lev. 18:23)

“Do not uncover the nakedness of…” (a euphemism for illicit sex)

These cover a broad range of sexually deviant acts, including those not spelled out in detail. The Law didn’t always name each act—because naming it was considered too shameful—but the categories covered them. This was especially true in Leviticus 18 and 20, where sexual boundaries were set to distinguish Israel from pagan nations.

4. Jesus' View: The Ultimate Condemnation

Even though the Law didn’t spell it out, Jesus makes the matter crystal clear. In Matthew 18:6, He says:

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

This is not abstract. Jesus places the highest judgment on anyone who harms or corrupts a child. He doesn’t need to name “kidofili@” because the heart of His warning is crystal clear: harm a child, and you face God's fiercest judgment.

5. Killing Is Explicit Because It’s Public; Kidophili@ Was Hidden

Murder was public and often political—it affected the whole tribe. That’s why it's explicitly condemned in the Ten Commandments: "You shall not murder." In contrast, sexual crimes were often hidden, private, and harder to prosecute unless there was testimony. But this doesn’t mean they were overlooked.

Conclusion 

Kidophili@ is not named because it didn’t need to be: it was already condemned under the broader laws against sexual immorality, rape, and child exploitation. Ancient Israel’s covenant structure protected children within family and community boundaries. The shame of such acts meant they were dealt with by category, not by name. Jesus offers the clearest judgment: any harm done to children will be avenged. The silence is not permission—it’s a cultural and legal shorthand for something too evil to name, but not too evil for judgment.