Blog by a WoF opponent:

…the context of Mark 11 is not about giving you the right to have what you say, but is about giving you the right to forgive and move the mountain of apostasy around those that have focused upon the world and it's wealth. The lesson that is being taught is about Israel being Apostate and Christ's judgment toward that nation. They had forsaken the covenant and turn it to a "prosperity" message, where the money changers had entered into the temple. Because of this, Israel the nation, had been cursed by God and had dried up from the root. She no longer was bringing forth the fruit necessary for a Covenant nation.

The Disciple's marveled that the fig tree was withered, after Christ had spoken to it. But Christ taught them that it was in their power to forgive in order for God to forgive them and to empower them for their brother's sake. Certainly unbelieving Israel is a mountain to the Disciple's as they watch their Rabbi's anger toward it, and His desire to find fruit where He looked. In season and out. Just as Christ had cursed the fig tree for not bearing fruit, and God had cursed Israel for not bearing fruit, so could the Disciple's leave men within that curse or speak to them word's of forgiveness. And Christ was teaching that the Disciple's could forgive and bring forth the fruit of His kingdom through their forgiveness and healing words of faith. Truly they could have whatever they said in the restoration of people as they moved forward with the mission of God. And as it turns out, that is exactly what happened. The message of Christ was preached to Israel, starting in Jerusalem and moving outward to the whole of the world.

So after going to Jerusalem and displaying the displeasure of God toward apostate Israel and those who had changed the temple worship into a message about money. Christ taught:

And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. (Mark 11:21-26 KJV)

God has truly given the believer all things needed to preach His kingdom and forgiveness to those upon the earth.

Chad’s Response:

Our friend is just making hermeneutical assumptions in Mark 11 (as so many do).  Of course, we would all agree that it is critical to use a literal, historical, grammatical, and contextual approach to interpreting this passage.  With that said, I do agree with our friend to a point.  The fact that the fig tree excursion was contextually interrupted by the story of the money changers in the temple does lend some credence to the idea that the fig tree is an ENACTED PARABLE concerning Israel and their fruitlessness.  Gill comments: 

"This tree may not only be an emblem of the Jewish people, who made a great show of religion, and enjoyed a great many privileges; and from whom, speaking after the manner of men, the fruits of good works, righteousness, and holiness, might have been hoped and looked for; when instead thereof, there was nothing but talk about them, and an observance of some insignificant rites and traditions of the "elders";"
 

Nevertheless, our friend is missing the fact that there is a literal promise made simultaneous to the execution of the fig tree parable.  Jesus LITERALLY cursed a REAL fig tree (Mk 11:14), and then promised His disciples in the parallel context in Matthew 21, "you shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if you shall say to this mountain..."  It is hermeneutically dishonest to remove the literal promise made here.  The audience of Jesus was clearly promised that they could do the same exact thing Jesus literally (not symbolically) did -- "this which is done to the fig tree...."  This is similar to a LITERAL promise made in John:

Joh 14:12  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13  And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

John's promise includes no figurative elements (i.e. mountains), aned therefore there is no question as to its literal nature.  Jesus is telling us that believers will do the works He did (e.g. including cursing fig trees - Mk 11:14), as well as greater works (e.g. saying unto this mountain...).  Therefore, we can ask anything in His name and He will do it (akin to “whatsoever we ask” in Mk 11:24).  Jesus even rebuked physical ailments (Lk 4:39).  Didn't the apostles follow this LITERAL example in the book of Acts?

 
A vast number of commentators see the promise of believing prayer in Mark 11:22-24 as a literal promise.  JFB comments concerning Mk 11:23, "no obstacle should be able to stand before a confiding faith in God."  Robertson, commenting on Mk 11:24, speaks of the faith "that sees the fulfilment before it happens."  Our friend is the one in the minority here.  He is clearly throwing away the idea of literal interpretation and falling into the error of hypercontextualization.
 
He makes another grammatical error by assuming that the promise to speak to mountains is primarily tied to FORGIVENESS.  He is wrongfully going too far ahead into the context to find the next idea to tie back to Verse 23.  However, Mark already took out the guesswork by putting a "THEREFORE" in verse 24 (NOT in verse 25).  The promise of Verse 23 is directly equated to believing prayer in Verse 24.  Verse 25 is definitely related (as the conjunction "and" suggests, as well as the context of Luke 17:3ff – another similar but not identical account), but is in no way the main point being taught in the fig tree parable, especially in light of the fact that the parallel fig tree account in Matthew 21 doesn't even mention forgiveness.  The conjunctive tie "and" in Verse 25 suggests that forgiveness is more of a condition to mountain-moving, not that forgiveness is the entire object of the hyperbole.  Our mountain-moving may be hindered if we don't forgive. 

Different Blog by a WoF Opponent (in Black):

................WoF theology holds that if you have now doubt and believe fully that ANYTHING you demand of God will be given to you. Then why haven't you healed the missing finger? Could it be your faith is lacking or you have doubts? You confirm my assessment of your purely subjective and arbitrary way you interpret Scripture and how you put forth this prooftexted passage yet when called upon it you make excuses in a blatant double-standard when your attempts at healing fail.

In Mark 11:23,24 Jesus used a common Jewish hyperbole to teach his Disciples to believe in the power of God. WoF evangelists have distorted the Greek text and the meaning of this passage to build an entire false religion revolving around faith & words as a ways and means to obtain health and wealth at their command. The WoF theology falsely places God at man's command by distorting the meaning of this passage. Who are we to command God? But that's EXACTLY what WoF theology teaches and distorts passages like Mark 11:23,24 to do so. A clearer and proper understanding of Mark 11:23 in context and in harmony with the WHOLE of Scripture may be read here. I suggest you read it.

Yes, it is likely that Jesus used a hyperbole.  The mountain could likely refer to any obstacles to the progress of the Kingdom.  As JFB comments, “No obstacle should be able to stand before a confiding faith in God.”  Beukeboom fails to qualify what he means when he says “to believe in the power of God.”  Scripture makes it clear that to trust God includes a trust in His faithfulness to perform that which He has promised (e.g. Rom 4:20-21).  Hebrews makes it clear that faith is not just a general trust in a person, but rather “of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,” (Heb 11:1, YLT).  For example, if I go on a date with my wife, I need to find a babysitter I can trust.  I have a good friend that I can trust.  Trust with what?  Well, I can trust that they will be faithful to watch my children and prevent them from being harmed in any way.  The idea of trust always contains an object (babysitter) and a context (faithfulness to promise).  Mk 11:22 shows the object of our faith (“have faith in God”).  Verse 24 then shows the context of faith.  “Therefore I say to you, All things, whatever you ask, praying, believe that you will receive, and it will be to you.” (Green’s Literal).    So we are to have faith in God as our object, and believe that we receive “whatever we ask”.  Of course John teaches us that the “whatever we ask” must be in line with God’s revealed will (1 Jn 5:14), and He tells us that “whatever we ask” is in line with God’s will if we are abiding in faith, love, and the Word (1 Jn 3:22-24, cf. Jn 15:7, 10, 12).   Nevertheless, to remove the context of faith (i.e. believing we receive WHAT WE ASK without DOUBT) is to destroy literal understanding of verse 24 and its conjunctive tie to verse 23 (“therefore”).

Nowhere do we place God at man’s command.  Instead we believe that we receive God’s provision.  He’s already prepared a table for us in the presence of our enemies.  When we command a circumstance to change, a demon to flee, or a fever to subside, we are not commanding God, but rather commanding the proverbial “mountain” to be removed.

I notice that just about every time a WoF proponent brings up the 11th chapter of Mark, they leave out the preceding and following passages around v. 23.

Mark 11:22-25

22 "Have faith in God," Jesus answered. 23 "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." [NIV]

Note the context. Verse 23 is bookended by clear and concise statements teaching to depend on God and His will, NOT on our believing. For example, look at verse 22 which reads "Have faith in God". This shows that faith in God is the focus of the verse NOT faith that something will happen when we demand it.

Again, there is an object of faith (God, v22) and a context of faith (v23-24).  We believe God to remove our mountains in prayer for “whatever we ask”.  Otherwise the word belief is merely abstract.  Surely it doesn’t just mean to “believe in” God’s existence. Nor does it encapsulate our love for Him.  For “love” is a separate action, and one can believe in someone or something without loving that object.  So faith is neither knowledge of, nor love of someone.  Faith is a TRUST IN someone FOR something.  The “something” is a promise that the “someone” is faithful to perform.  Otherwise we couldn’t be commanded to believe we receive it. 

Though Beukeboom so vehemently claims that WoF teachers don’t include the whole context (which is a farce), he himself fails to consider the whole context, and its relation to the command in Mk 11:22-24. He leaves out the preceding context where Jesus literally verbally cursed the fig tree (v14), as well as the parallel context in Matthew 21 where Jesus states, "you shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if you shall say to this mountain..."  Unless the entire cursing of the fig tree did not literally occur, then the audience of Jesus was promised that they could do the same exact thing He did.  There is no immediate reason to believe this is not literal, especially in light of a similar promise recorded in John:

Joh 14:12  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13  And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

John includes no figurative elements (i.e. mountains), and thus there is no question as to its literal nature.  Jesus is telling us that believers will do the works He did (e.g. cursing fig trees - Mk 11:14), as well as greater works (e.g. saying unto this mountain).  Therefore, we can ask anything in His name and He will do it (akin to “whatsoever we ask” in Mk 11:24).  This is how we do the works He did, including rebuking physical ailments (Lk 4:39).  John, however adds an additional element – “in my name”.  I will address this later.

And the verse following (v. 24) states "whatever you ask in prayer, believe....". This is teaching that we should ask God humbly knowing that He may accept, decline or modify what we've asked is the key to this not just a "positive confession" (e.g. -- demand) that something will happen. The Greek word for "ask" in this passage is the same word for "ask" that we use today and is used the same ways we use the English word. This WoF false theology attempts to shift the focus from faith in God to faith in IT (e.g. -- whatever you demand from God). This false theology is shifting the focus from whom we are to believe in (God) to how much we believe in something.

A word must be defined by its context.  For example, the English word match can mean a boxing match, or a match that starts a fire.  We must know the range of meanings and then interpret based on context.  Aiteo can mean to ask or command (Lk 23:23). The fact that Mk 11:23 speaks of commanding a mountain in v23, and is then immediately followed by “therefore” in v24, I am inclined to interpret aiteo in v24 as perhaps referring to commanding the mountain.  Yet I am not dogmatic to assume all prayer consists of commanding things to be removed, especially in light of the adage, “when ye pray”.  Of course there is humble supplication as well.  The best way to differentiate is to see how the early church operated.  They prayed humbly and generally for God’s power, miracles, and boldness (Acts 4:24-31).  Yet when faced with specific circumstances, they often commanded things in Jesus’ name (Acts 3:6, 9:34, 13:11, 16:18).  Sometimes a supplication was offered just before the commanding or laying on of hands (Acts 9:40, 28:8).  So we must understand that there is commanding (i.e speaking to mountains) as well as supplication.  Both are important. Even Jesus operated in both.  He prayed to God concerning Lazarus (Lk 11:41-42). He then commanded Lazarus to arise (Lk 11:43).  So I am convinced that Mark 11:22-24 contains both elements.  I’m also convinced this is the “prayer of faith” promised to heal the sick according to James 5:14-16.  James regards such a faith as not “wavering” (Jas 1:6-7).  Waver is the same Greek word as doubt in Mark 11:23, and the same as stagger in Romans 4:20-21.  Therefore, the matter is not about a quantity of belief, but a simple rest in knowing God is faithful to perform.  For to doubt the performance is to doubt His faithfulness.  Such a person can’t expect to receive anything from God.  Such unbelief was the very downfall of Israel in the wilderness (Ps 78:22); For it provoked and limited the Holy One of Israel (Ps 78:40-41).

Now let me give you a Biblical example that goes against the false WoF theology. It concerning the story of a man who brought his son to Jesus' disciples to be healed of a demon (Mark 9:14-29; also Matthew 17:14-20). The disciples were unable to help, so when Jesus arrived the father of the demon-possessed son said, "if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us" (Mark 9:22)

Jesus immediately replied, "'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes." (v. 23)

How does the demon-possessed boy's father react?

Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24)

Now read that again slowly and carefully with specific attention to the latter part of his reaction: "help me overcome my unbelief"

The father clearly admitted that he had as much unbelief as belief. Now in WoF theology, the father just made a "negative confession" and also according to WoF theology Jesus should have corrected his negative confession and instructed the boy's father to overcome his unbelief with belief in order for his son to be healed.

But Jesus did no such thing.

Instead, Jesus healed the boy.

Did you get that?

JESUS HEALED THE BOY!

First of all, I think it’s somewhat ironic that Beukeboom just breezes over the fact that the disciples “were unable to help”.  Why were they unable to help? See the parallel in Mt 17:20 – because of “unbelief”.  They must have doubted God in this area. Were they still disciples? Yes.  Did they still believe in Jesus?  Yes.  Were they lacking faith in this situation?  Yes. 

Even though the boy's father was unbelieving to a great degree, Jesus healed that boy.

Beukeboom is making a false association between today’s church and this boy’s father. 

Our models in this story are the disciples and Christ, NOT THE BOY’S FATHER.  The boy’s father was not a CHRISTIAN.  He was a seeker (non-Christians) who had a felt need and a hunch that this new order (i.e. Christ’s kingdom) could help him.  He approached the disciples (i.e. Christians), who could not help him due to lacking faith, but he finally received help from Christ Himself.

Here are some ontological differences between Christians of today and the boy’s father:

·         There were very few Christians being ministered to during Christ’s ministry. Most were seekers (as was this boy’s father).  And no one had the indwelling Spirit, Which was yet to come – not even the disciples of Jesus.  They were on borrowed power and authority.

·         Since Jesus’ resurrection (and especially Pentecost), all Christians have been promised to do the works of Christ (Mark 16:17a, John 14:12) in order to continue Christ’s ministry on Earth by the power of the Spirit (Acts 1:1-8).  Jesus was willing to heal anyone who came to Him.  Since He is our Example and Captain, we should act as He did.  Jesus operated under the anointing of the Spirit to heal all who were oppressed of the devil (Acts 10:38, Lk 4:18).  Every Christian is anointed by the Spirit of God to do the same. 

·         Since Jesus’ resurrection (and especially Pentecost), every Christian is authorized to use the “name of Jesus” (as promised in John 14:12-14) in order to expand the kingdom of God on Earth.  No non-Christian had authority to use the name of Jesus (Acts 19:13ff).  The disciples, as well as the seventy, had been granted temporary authority to represent Christ in dealing with evil forces (Lk 9:1, 10:1-22).  This authority is now available to the whole church.  The book of Acts shows us how the church triumphant used the “Name of Jesus”:

   o   “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk” (Ac 3:6)

   o   “I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” (Ac 16:18)

·         Christians now have a more sure word of prophecy than any seeker or non-Christian that approached Jesus for a felt need.  The boy’s father didn’t know the kingdom message as the disciples did, and especially not as we do today (with the completion of the Pauline message).  Christ had shear mercy on Him in his ignorance.  Christ was willing to show miracles to and meet needs of any seekers who showed any faith.  Why?  To convert them into His followers (i.e. Christians)!  But the disciples who were already Christians were expected to act in accordance with the revelation they had. To whom much is given much is required.

Beukeboom’s failure to acknowledge a difference in dispensation and role is obvious. 

So this refutes the WoF false teaching of positive confession and shows that one may have conflicting points of belief and unbelief as well as conflictions in regards to doubt but God's grace is so great that He heals even when our faith is as small as a mustard seed and doesn't wait until we develop our faith/belief up to whatever unstated and unquantified (at least by WoF standards) levels to be healed.

If this last statement is true, then Jesus should have never rebuked Peter for a lack of faith which caused him to cease walking on water (Mt 14:31).  Nor should his disciples have been unable to cast out the demon in the aforementioned narrative (Mt 17:20).  Even the commendable Thessalonians (Read  1 Thess 1) were told that they were lacking in faith (1 Thess 3:10).  So to claim that people cannot lack faith in certain areas of their walk is a farce.  And to claim that a lack in faith cannot adversely impact our prayers is Biblically unfounded, especially in light of the warnings concerning doubt (Jas 1:6-7, Mk 11:23, etc). I'm not advocating that everyone needs the same level of faith.  God has expectations for each individual based on the level of their walk with Him.

Also please note that Jesus didn't criticize or condemn the father or the child for their unbelieving (like WoF evangelists and proponents do) but He did censure His disciples when they asked why they couldn't cast out the demon. Jesus told them. He told them they could not cast out the demon because of their little faith (Matthew 17:20)

Again, this is a false association.  The disciples (Christians) and Christ Himself should be our parallel, not the non-Christians (i.e. seekers) receiving the ministry from the disciples.  Those receiving ministry in the aforementioned story were akin to seekers and non-Christians of today, not BELIEVERS.  As mentioned in the preceding comment, Jesus did gently rebuke the disciples for a lack of faith on several occasions.  According to Mark 16:17a and John 14:12, All believers have the authority (i.e. name of Jesus), and power (i.e. Holy Spirit) to work the same works as the twelve, and the seventy sent ones (Lk 10:1).  Thus all believers are responsible for being stewards of their faith, as it applies to them or prayer for others.  If they can’t heal someone because their own faith in God for that healing is lacking (Such as in Mt 17:20), God will deal with their unbelief.  However, if they can’t heal an unbeliever because of the unbeliever’s failure to be receptive to the things of God, it is not their fault at all.  Even Jesus couldn’t heal in such cases (Mk 6:5-6, Mt 13:58).

In similar fashion, WoF evangelists and WoF proponents should be vehemently criticizing themselves when they cannot minister healing to people and they should NOT censure and blame the sick who come to God and his ministers looking for help even if their faith is as small as a mustard seed and they have doubt. The people who came to Jesus for healing showed faith by that act alone as do the people who come to all those so-called "healing services" WoF evangelists so often hold. But hardly anyone receives healing at those services. And whose fault is that? After reading the story of the demon possessed boy and his father, the answer is clear. The fault lies squarely on the WoF evangelist who cannot heal because THEY like the disciples have so little faith. And the same can be said of the WoF proponents who have been making excuses for not healing the fingers and eyes and toes and whatever else that has been brought to their attention. It is as Jesus said...it is because the WoF proponent has so little faith that the healing doesn't occur.

And this has been my point all along.

Regarding “healing services”, my church has had countless testimonies of cancers dissolving, spina bifida disappearing, shingles disappearing, broken bones refusing between two x-rays, and other amazing miracles.  Many such things are not proven until a follow up medical exam.  See the book Real Miracles: Indisputable Medical Evidence That God Heals (Kathryn Kuhlman Classic).  The bottom line is this: The church is comprised of believers.  God wants believers to walk away believing – by faith, not by sight.  That’s the difference between our church services and Christ’s gatherings.  Our church services are not evangelistic outreaches.  They aren’t geared to the unbeliever (unless we are seeker sensitive).   Most healings for Christians have a waiting period, where we are required to exercise our trust in God’s provision.  God’s treats persecution the same way.  The deliverance comes after standing on God’s promise (1 Pet 5:10).  To whom much is given, much is required.  We’ve been given so much in Christ, and we are required to stand in faith no matter how long a manifestation takes.  The length of time is not reciprocally commensurate with the faith level, either.  What goes on in the Spirit realm which impacts duration is not necessarily our business (Dan 10:12-13).  We are just called to believe we receive!  Though the faith of those who are more mature (i.e. elders) can compensate for the weaker brethren (Jas 5:14-16), the faith of the elders cannot entirely overrule the free will of an individual.  There must be agreement.  Even Christ could not heal in His home town due to the failure of the people to believe (Mk 6:5-6, Mt 13:58).  Should He have criticized Himself?

Immediate manifestations of miracles are designed for evangelistic outreach.  They are signs which confirm the Gospel (Mark 16:17-20). We hear more of this in areas that are newly receptive to the Gospel – I recommend the book “A Mighty Rushing Wind”, by Mel Tari.  Even after non-Christians received immediate miracles from Christ (as a confirmation of His message), Jesus would often exhort them continue in obedience in order to minimize their chances of another affliction or demonic possession (e.g. Jn 5:14, c.f. Lk 11:24-26).  This is because they had become believers.  To whom much is given much is required.  Believers are required to take up their own armor and enforce the obliteration of Satan’s authority.

So, I think it is unfair to treat a healing service made up of believers in an already-evangelized nation as parallel to the confirmation ministry of Christ. God seems to treat these as distinct circumstances. Healing comes in both, but the latter tends to be more immediate and miraculous.