This is a tough one for me. But, because something is tough, does not mean it is not complementary.

Seeing that each of us can suffer the Spirit of Darkness, let us continue to examine how we can practice self care.

In this post we will examine generational curses.

1. Generational Curses
   • Who sinned Man or His Parents

Is it on him or his parents?

Link

1. ¹ Now as Jesus was passing by, He saw a man blind from birth,
2. ² and His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3. ³ Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him.
4. ⁴ While it is daytime, we must do the works of Him who sent Me. Night is coming, when no one can work.
5. ⁵ While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

1. ¹ Now as Jesus was passing by, He saw a man blind from birth,
   • Jesus is walking in the neighborhood
   • Jesus saw a man born blind from birth
2. ² and His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
   • His disciples questioned him whether his blindness is as a result of this man’s own sin or is it’s parents
3. ³ Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him.
   • Jesus was very clear and specific
   • Jesus said this man was not born blind due to his sins or his parents
   • Jesus that this man’s lot in life is to demonstrate God’s redemptive work
   • In this case God chose to work in the open
4. ⁴ While it is daytime, we must do the works of Him who sent Me. Night is coming, when no one can work.
   • Jesus is clear that there is daytime
   • Jesus is clear there is work to be done
   • Jesus is clear that the opportunity to work will not always be available
5. ⁵ While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
   • Jesus said while he is in the world, he is the light of the world

The Jesus of the bible spoke directly to things.

If generational curses is a myth, he would have said so.

He did not say generational curses is a man made concept, he handled the blind man’s case in specific terms.

(2) Who did sin, this man, or his parents?–The disciples noticed that He looked at the man, and it may be that He halted as He was walking by. Their attention is directed to the sufferer, and with suffering they connect the idea of sin. They ask a question which may have come to them many times before, and which has in various forms come to men’s hearts many times since. Some of them may have heard it discussed in Rabbinic schools, and may have wished to know what answer He whom they had come to regard as greater than the Rabbis, would give. But it is a question not of the learned only, but of men generally, and those who now ask it do not propound it as a matter for discussion, but as a mystery of human life brought home to them in all its darkness, and for which they seek a solution at His hands. His teaching on the wider questions of the existence of evil and the connection of sin and suffering, though coming in the order of events after these words, and in part probably arising out of them, has in the order of the record occurred before them, and has been already dealt with in Notes on Luke 13:1-5. What is special to the question, as it meets us here, is that what is deemed to be the punishment had come with birth before possibility of thought or action, and therefore, as we think, before possibility of sin.
The form of the question puts two alternatives on precisely the same grounds; and we have no right therefore to assume that one of them is excluded by the questioners themselves. The fact of sin is stated as beyond question. The problem is, “Was the sin that of the man himself, or that of his parents?” The latter alternative is familiar to us, and daily experience shows us that within limits it holds good in both the moral and the physical worlds. It was clearly taught in the Second Commandment, and there is abundant evidence that the belief was at this time widely spread. We have greater difficulty in tracing the origin of the former alternative. It is not easy to accept the view that they thought of sin in his mother’s womb, though it seems certain that the Jews currently interpreted such passages as Genesis 25:22, and Psalm 51:5 in this sense. That a more or less definite belief in the transmigration of souls was common among Jews at the time of our Lord’s ministry, is made probable by references in Philo and Josephus. We know it was a doctrine of the Essenes and of the Cabbala; and we find it in the nearly contemporary words of the Wisdom of Solomon, “Yea rather being good, I came into a body undefiled” (Wisdom Of Solomon 8:20). Still it has been urged that it is not likely that such a belief would have made its way among the fishermen of Galilee. We have to remember, however, that among the disciples there are now men of Jerusalem as well as of Galilee, and that questions which men found hard to understand were constantly being raised and answered in the Rabbinic schools. In the meetings of the yearly festivals the answers of great Rabbis would be talked over and become generally known, and be handed on as maxims to those who knew little of the principle on which they were based. It was, then, probably with some thought that the life in this maimed body may not have been the first stage of his existence, that they ask, Did this man sin?

Verse 2. – And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi. This honorific appellation is found in John 1:38, 49; John 3:2; John 4:31; John 6:25; John 11:8; but very rarely in the other Gospels. It is applied to John the Baptist (John 3:26). The question seems to denote a very different frame of mind from that with which the previous chapter terminated. Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? It was the current idea and popular doctrine, not only that all suffering in this life had its origin in sin, and was a witness to the damage done to our nature by sin, by the disruption of our normal relations with the living God, but furthermore that every peculiar disaster pointed to some special or particular sin. Doubtless the Book of Job was a formal discussion of the question. The writer of that work repudiates the right of any onlooker to infer special sins from peculiar punishments. Jesus, moreover (Luke 13:1-3); had repeatedly discouraged the tendency to judge, but he did this by the still more solemn assurance that all men deserved the special fate of some. Still, the calamity of congenital blindness, with all its hopelessness, provided a very apt occasion for raising the question, “Who did sin, this man, or his parents?” It is and always will be difficult to say whether the disciples thought that they had exhausted the alternatives, or believed that they had plausible reasons for thinking either alternative possible. Some have argued that they had Scripture ground for the second of the suppositions, that the sin of the parents of the blind man was the real cause of the blindness of their son. Thus (Exodus 20:5) the idea is embedded in the Decalogue, and it is repeated in Exodus 34:7 and Numbers 14:18, that the iniquities of fathers are visited upon their children. The forty years in the wilderness was a case in point (Numbers 14:33, 34; Jeremiah 32:18), and numerous examples may be given of the punishment descending from parent to child; e.g., upon the house of Ahab, and on the sufferers from exile in Babylon. Compare the continuous threatening of vengeance for unfaithfulness upon the generation to come. The argument may have been strengthened by observation of the lot of men who have brought poverty, disease, and disgrace upon their unborn children. Ezekiel had deliberately repudiated the inference that Israel had drawn from their Scriptures, in the dictum or proverb (Ezekiel 18:2) that “the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” and maintained with great and passionate earnestness, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” This may have led the disciples to put the conjectural solution. Did this man sin? Is there any way or sense in which the man’s own sin could be the cause of so great a calamity? It seems entirely gratuitous to derive from this passage any final conclusion as to the method in which they supposed it possible that the man’s personality preceded his birth, or any certain conviction that they meant more by their question than this – if sin is the cause of such fearful privation, it must either be the man’s parents’ or his own. It could not have been his own; was it then his parents’? There was sufficient discussion of the problem among the Jews for one or more vague and unsettled opinions to be floating in their minds.

Calling some of the darkness and limitations some of us face generational curses might be an overread.

But, please let me suggest to you that I and a lot of people have problems and issues that transcends us.

Once those areas are revealed, please take time with, be patient, and apply covering to the afflicted.

That is handle with care.