The Weight of Our Souls

Ezekiel 18 and the Myth of Inherited Sin

repentance Among the prophetic writings of Scripture, few passages speak with the clarity and moral force of Ezekiel 18. In a generation tempted to explain righteousness and wickedness through the lens of ancestry, culture or history, Ezekiel delivers a word that levels us all before God: every person stands accountable for their own moral choices.

The exiles in Babylon had developed a saying to explain their suffering: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (cf. Ezek 18:2). In other words, we are suffering because of what our ancestors did. This proverb allowed evasion of responsibility, for if the present generation was merely the victim of their fathers’ mistakes, then repentance was unnecessary. They were sufferers, not sinners.

In a generation tempted to explain righteousness and wickedness through the lens of ancestry, culture or history, Ezekiel delivers a word that levels us all before God: every person stands accountable for their own moral choices.

But YHWH rejects this proverb outright:

“As I live, declares the Lord YHWH, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel.” (Ezek 18:3)

God’s response is not only a rebuke; it is a restoration of moral reality. Each person; parent, child, grandchild, is judged by their own deeds: “The soul who sins shall die.” (Ezek. 18:20)

No one bears another’s guilt. A righteous son is not condemned for a wicked father. A wicked son is not excused because his father was righteous. God judges each person, not by lineage, not by heritage, not by generational patterns, but by the posture of their own heart.

The Hebraic Emphasis: Responsibility as Covenant Identity

From a Hebraic standpoint, this emphasis on personal responsibility is not a New Testament novelty; it is woven throughout Torah and the Prophets. Deuteronomy affirms:
“Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deut 24:16)

While consequences of sin can ripple across generations (as all human actions do), guilt does not.

This is covenantal justice. Israel’s God does not traffic in generational blame. While consequences of sin can ripple across generations (as all human actions do), guilt does not. The moral agency of each person is upheld as a sacred trust. The God of Israel calls each name individually.

Thus, Ezekiel 18 is not theological innovation; it is prophetic restatement.

At first glance, Daniel 9 may seem to contradict this thesis: “We have sinned and done wrong… to us belongs open shame.” (Dan 9:5-8)

However, Daniel is not repenting for the sins of dead ancestors in the way modern institutions attempt to do. Instead, he is identifying himself with the present covenant breach of Israel and standing as a righteous intercessor among the guilty generation. He is not saying, “They sinned but I didn’t.” He is saying, “We as a people are currently under covenant violation, and I am part of this generation.” Daniel is personally righteous – though, of course, not sinless – yet he lives among a presently guilty nation. His confession is, therefore, intercessory, not symbolic; covenantal, not ideological; present-tense, not ancestral theatrics. This is entirely consistent with Ezekiel 18. I will explain this further in a future article.

Why Does This Matter Now?

The modern world is obsessed with collective identity, inherited shame, and generational blame. Individuals are taught to see themselves primarily as extensions of historical groups rather than as moral agents standing directly before God. This framework promises liberation but delivers only a new form of bondage, binding people to sins they did not commit while subtly excusing the sins they do.

The modern world is obsessed with collective identity, inherited shame, and generational blame.

Ezekiel 18 cuts directly through this confusion.

God does not ask us to carry our father’s guilt.
God does not bind us to our nation’s past.
God will not judge us for crimes committed before we were born.

But neither will He excuse our present rebellion simply because our ancestors were faithful. This is the weight, and the dignity, of the human soul.

Each and every person stands alone before God, not as a representative of the dead, but as a living moral agent created in His image. This is not modern individualism. It is ancient covenant justice. It is the God of Israel refusing to allow history, heritage or identity to replace repentance.

A Modern Temptation: Repenting for the Dead

In recent years, many Christians, and indeed many nations, institutions, and secular bodies, have adopted practices of issuing “repentance statements” for historical sins. Governments apologise for injustices committed long before the current generation was born. Universities confess the sins of founders long deceased. Denominations and Christian organisations repent for the actions of members from earlier centuries.

These acts often emerge from a sincere desire for reconciliation, yet they risk distorting the biblical nature of repentance and the Hebraic understanding of moral responsibility.

Biblical repentance, teshuvah, is a personal turning back to God. It belongs to the living, not the dead.

Biblical repentance, teshuvah, is a personal turning back to God. It belongs to the living, not the dead. It concerns one's own transgression, not the transgression of those over whom one had no agency.

When repentance becomes corporate confession for historical wrongs, several risks emerge:

A False Dichotomy of Repentance

Scripture knows nothing of repentance on behalf of those who cannot repent for themselves. The prophets never instructed Israel to repent for Abraham’s failings, nor the judges for the sins of the patriarchs, nor the apostles for the failings of earlier generations. Repentance always concerns the living heart before the living God.

When nations or institutions “repent” for the dead, they create two forms of repentance:

a. Actual repentance for personal or present sin
b. Symbolic repentance for historic or inherited sin

But symbolic repentance is not repentance at all. It has no biblical category and no covenantal function. It can gesture toward moral sensitivity while avoiding the true moral demand: examine yourself.

A Means of Claiming Moral Distance or Superiority

National or institutional repentance can become a public declaration of moral advancement: “We are not like them. We have evolved. We are enlightened.” This posture echoes the Pharisees’ self-justifying claim: “If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them…” (Matthew 23:30)

This is not humility. It is historical virtue signalling and self-congratulation.

The very act of condemning the sins of the past may become a platform for asserting contemporary virtue. It frames modern society as morally superior, its values more refined, its ethics more humane. This is not humility. It is historical virtue signalling and self-congratulation, using the failures of the dead as a backdrop for celebrating the morality of the living.

A Displacement of True Repentance

Nations and institutions often find it easier to confess the sins of centuries past than to confront the sins they are actively committing.

It is far simpler for a government to apologise for the wrongs of a previous regime than to examine its current injustices. It is easier for a university to denounce the prejudices of its founders than to address the moral compromises occurring in its lecture halls today. It is easier for churches to repent for ancestral failings than to face their present idols: self-indulgence, comfort, consumerism, tribalism, or apathy toward the poor.

The prophets never called Israel to repent for the sins of previous epochs. They called them to repent for the sins of their own generation: the injustices they were presently tolerating, the idols they presently bowed to.

A Confusion of Consequence With Guilt

Nations rightly acknowledge that they continue to experience the consequences of historical sin, broken trust, wounded relationships, lingering injustice. Yet consequence does not equal guilt. Ezekiel makes this distinction explicitly: “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.” (Ezekiel 18:20)

Nations rightly acknowledge that they continue to experience the consequences of historical sin, broken trust, wounded relationships, lingering injustice.

Ezekiel rebukes the idea that ancestral sin determines moral standing: “If a wicked man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done, he sees, and does not do likewise … he shall not die for his father’s iniquity.” (Ezekiel 18:14-17)

And likewise: “If the righteous man turns away from his righteousness…” then “none of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered.” (Ezekiel 18:24)

No one’s righteousness is inherited. No one’s guilt is inherited. God does not bind a person to the sins of their family or nation. He deals with the heart that stands before Him today.

The Gospel in Ezekiel: A God Who Delights in Present Repentance

Ezekiel 18 is not merely a treatise on moral agency; it is an expression of God’s compassion. YHWH does not wish to condemn anyone on the basis of what came before them. Instead, He invites every person to begin anew:

“Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.”
“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord YHWH; so turn, and live.” (Ezekiel 18:30, 32)

Here is the heartbeat of God: Turn. Live. Begin again. Not for your father. Not for your nation. Not for your ancestors. For you.

Concluding Thoughts: The Freedom of Standing Before God Alone

To embrace Ezekiel 18 is to embrace an emancipating truth: We are responsible for our own sins and free from the guilt of others’ sins. This is not modern individualism; it is ancient covenantal justice. It is God refusing to bind the living to the dead.

Repenting for the sins of past generations may feel humble, but it risks obscuring the biblical call. God does not ask us to revisit the guilt of the long-departed. He asks us to walk in righteousness today.

Our calling is not to repent for the dead, but to live faithfully for the Living God.

(Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay)

Nick Thompson, 05/12/2025

Feedback:

(page 1 2)

	Peter Morrow (Guest)	05/12/2025 18:42
If this is true, and I think it is (while accepting the qualifications about ongoing consequences already mentioned), then it works in the other direction as well: we cannot claim or assume the so-called benefits of a 'Christian' past, nor the benefits of an institutional or State religion. The Gospel was always a call to personal repentance and to membership of the Church established by Christ. Ironically, of course, much of contemporary 'repentance', is a turning from a nominal Christian past; so, this - coupled with the fact that almost every Protestant and Catholic religious institution is crumbling before our eyes due to scandal and/or heresy - this may be the perfect time to relearn what we ought to have known all along, and help our society learn what real Christian faith is.
	Michael Petek	05/12/2025 19:09
Peter Morrow, the Church founded by Christ has always been a public assembly, a res publica in its own right, established for the purpose of rendering to God that worship which is due to Him. It is established for the sake of justice, in other words for the sake of who owes what to God, and why? In Acts 1;15 we read that there were about 120 members of the congregation. This is significant, in that 120 has always been regarded among the Jews as the quorum for a community which is to have its own sanhedrin (court of 23). The Church has judicial authority over the State to the extent necessary to hold public authorities to Christian obedience.
	Peter Morrow (Guest)	05/12/2025 19:14
Michael, thanks for your reply. I don't see much to disagree with in what you have said.
	JOHN FRENCH	06/12/2025 08:22
I wanted to comment on a unique event spoken of in Scripture, when all 12 tribes of Israel are going to be exiled. An event that will see the exile of the righteous and wicked. In Deuteronomy 28:64, when all twelve tribes of Israel will be exiled, an event that began in the period 70 AD to 135 AD, after which the Jewish people were scattered to all nations, fulfilling Moses' words. Ezekiel 21 looks forward to this event, and “both the righteous and the wicked” will be cut off. The righteous are caught up in the exile, just as Daniel, earlier in history, had been; though righteous, he still suffered exile to Babylon. Jason Staples, an American scholar, argues very persuasively that the Church is the restored house of Israel (the northern tribes). We know that Moses’ was warning all 12 tribes, something repeated by the later Hebrew prophets, Ezekiel 9:9, Hosea 5:5. To fulfil Moses' words, if the Church is the restored house of Israel, then it too is exiled by the early second century alongside its Jewish friends. When restoration comes, an event still awaited today, both the house of Israel and the house of Judah will be restored together, Jeremiah 23:6; Hosea 1:11. This restoration is foreseen by Moses in Leviticus 26, where he says “But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers….i will remember my covenant with Jacob.. Isaac…, and Abraham (Leviticus 26:40-42). The enormity of the final exile; casts a dark shadow over the whole world for nearly 2000 years. What is the great sin that Judaism and Christianity still need to confess? The following, serving, and worshipping of the other gods (Jeremiah 16:11). It appears to me that Christianity still needs to recognise its sins, and confess its sins and those of its ancestors that have brought darkness into the world, that it has not been the light to the world that Jesus intended.
	Michael Petek	06/12/2025 10:21
I lean to the view that the Church, as a sacred assembly (cf. Leviticus 23), stands in the place of all (12 tribes of) Israel as an agent (shaliach) stands in the place of the sender (meshaleach). This according to the principle "zachin le adam shelo be fanav" (lit. "merit of a man not in his presence"), a legal device by which a Jew can appoint himself as an agent of another, if it would be to the benefit of that other, provided he is unaware of the benefit.
	Jenny Yates	08/12/2025 20:38
Michael, on what Scriptural basis do you state; "The Church has judicial authority over the State to the extent necessary to hold public authorities to Christian obedience"? Nowhere does the Bible give the Church any such authority! On the contrary, Jesus said his kingdom "is not of this world," and by saying: "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God," he drew a clear distinction between Church and state. Far from the Church having "judicial authority over the State," Paul says believers should be subject TO the state, and pay our taxes, etc.(Romans 13). Similarly, Peter tells his readers to submit to "every authority instituted among men," (1 Pet.2:13-17). The only exception to this is if those authorities demand we do what God forbids, or forbid us to do what God commands, (Acts 4:19). Ancient Israel was a theocracy, where the Law of God was also the law of the nation, but we do not live in a theocracy. In the past, some Church leaders have tried to compel kings and their subjects to submit to their version of the Christian faith, with horrific consequences! We can easily see how the rulers of totalitarian, oppressive, theocratic regimes treat those who fail to kowtow to their demands. Try telling our brothers and sisters living in North Korea, China, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc. etc., that the Church has judicial authority over the state, and see what response you get!!
	Jane Carr-Jones (Guest)	08/12/2025 20:40
While we cannot REPENT (PERSONAL turning away of sins of others) we CAN CONFESS others sins. Both different meanings.
	hannah w	10/12/2025 11:23
While not disputing what Ezekiel said in the Name of the LORD, we do have exceptions to that rule. For example, the prolonged famine in David's time was revealed to be “because of Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.” (1 Sam. 21) Since our GOD is not capricious, we need to learn from such an exception, and understand why He made it. We also need to understand why there was a 30-40 year gap between Saul's sin and its consequences (best estimate by Bible scholars).
	John Shipton (Guest)	10/12/2025 13:21
The modern western Christian church is going nowhere as its erroneous teachings and practices it has embraced. In looking at the New Testament Church as described in the Bible is far from the concepts as laid down which the Apostles Paul and Peter preached and lived their lives accordingly. Repentance and Salvation is downgraded and Christ's commission has been watered down due to fear of and trying to accommodate other religions. For Churchianity has become its image while Christianity has been pushed aside. Occult practices have replaced the importance and the role of the Holy Spirit while prophetic utterances have become a sham. Indeed, the message of the Gospel is seen as not that significant when sin is accepted to be the norm, together with the shenanigans taking place behind closed doors when what is hidden is being revealed by the Lord God Almighty himself. More of this is coming to light when the sheep are being separated from the goats and who are the true shepherds of the flock when paid hirelings are at the helm of leadership. Fleecing the flock not only abounds within the political spectrum of society, it appears regularly of the so-called Christian Church, and likewise elsewhere when money and deception rules the hearts of people. What will happen to our nation, I dread to say as things are not going to get any better in the Last Days which many religious folk deny and find other explanations to exploit such as climate change using this as an escape clause when the Judgement of God is evident. Maranatha!
	Peter Morrow (Guest)	11/12/2025 10:44
I've thought a bit about this article during the week, and while I do think it is reasonable to say that we are not guilty of the sins of others, I have also found myself asking how this affects our understanding of the doctrine of original sin.