1. Why won’t God heal amputees?

Why won’t he make apples taste like oranges? Why won’t he make the sky turn yellow on leap years? Why won’t he turn crabgrass into chili? The question itself is flawed. How could anyone possibly know why a being, who is completely other and transcendent, does anything he does? I don’t mean to say that we shouldn’t seek out answers to our questions (as I will try to do below), but they should at least be legitimate questions. I also am not arguing that God wouldn’t or couldn’t heal an amputee, but rather it is his prerogative whether he does so or not. He does not answer to us and we are not in a position to accuse him of failure given our own inadequacies. As Paul says, “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” (Rom 9.20). Does not the potter have the right to do what he pleases to the pot he creates? And if the ideal of God is infinitely good and just and wise, is it absurd for us to trust in his wisdom, justice, and goodness? This ideal of God (who I would argue to be the God of the Bible) is greater than any of our questions. God, through the prophet Isaiah, puts it very well,

“‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’”

What this means is that we are not nearly as important or as smart as we think we are. We are small and to say that we are not is ignorant and foolish. Just look up on a clear night and try to count the stars. If you can’t do that, try to imagine how big and distant those stars and galaxies are. The Bible says that he determines the number of stars and calls them each by name (Ps 147.4). And we have the audacity to say that we don’t approve of the job he is doing; and we post tiny little videos on YouTube and build websites saying that God should be healing certain people in certain ways because we think that it is a good idea.

Nevertheless, the question has been asked and I will attempt to give it some sort of answer if I can:

The first step is to define the nature and function of God’s miraculous interventions. Primarily, since the question has to do with physical healings, that will be the focal point of biblical examples. However, these principles can be applied to other miraculous occurrences like turning water into wine at a wedding (John 2.1-11) or feeding five thousand people with five loaves of barley bread and two sardine like fish (Matt 14.13-21). This should also give insight into the answers given in questions 4 and 7 which also concern miracles.

Miracles, or signs as they are sometimes called, function as a tool bringing about the revelation of larger truths concerning God. A miracle is an act of “special revelation” (revelation to specific people at specific times). A genuine miracle is an unusual event, accomplishing some useful work, and revealing the purpose and power of God in humanity’s redemption. This is both spiritual and physical redemption since The Fall in Genesis 3 affected humanity both spiritually and physically. Miracles are not a freak exhibition of power, nor are they a magic act meant to dazzle or impress. Particularly, as Jesus performed miracles, they were accompanied many times by a sermon or parable that gave insight into the significance of the miraculous act. Thus, within the context of the teachings we can understand the purposes of the divine healings and vise versa.

In relation to nature, miracles are of two kinds: (1) those in which the natural laws are intensified or augmented, and (2) those in which the natural order is reordered. The former is the type of miracle demonstrated by such things as a man living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and the latter is the type of miracle displayed in events like divine healings. This is based upon the idea that things in this world have different natures which includes their causal dispositions to affect other things in certain ways. This is called the causal disposition theory of natural law. What this means is that things tend to interact with other things in certain ways unless prevented from doing so by some other thing. Natural laws are necessary truths about what causal dispositions are possessed by various natural kinds of things. On this theory, an event that is naturally necessary must and does actually occur, since the natural propensity will automatically issue forth in the event if it is not impeded. By the same token, a naturally impossible even cannot actually occur. Thus it would be wrong to define a miracle as a naturally impossible event. Rather, a miracle is an event that results from causal interface with a stronger (or supernatural) propensity that reorders the typical disposition. This however is an arguable point that does not prove the occurrence of miracles, but gives a rational for the belief in their possibility. Given a God who created the universe, who conserves the world in being, and is capable of acting freely, the idea of the miraculous is plausible. Additionally, even if it is only epistemically plausible that such a transcendent, personal God exists, then it is equally plausible that he has acted miraculously in the universe. For if a transcendent, personal God exists, he could cause events in the universe that could not be produced by causes within the universe. And if this God is a loving and gracious God, then it is likely that he has indeed done so.

So, now we understand that miracles are not a contradiction to natural law, but a reordering of it; and now we know that miracles, by nature are used by God to reveal his presence, power and purpose for humanity in redemption. Then why won’t God heal amputees? It would be useful and merciful for God to initiate cell and tissue growth in an appendage that does not typically have a disposition to regenerate into another arm or leg. He gave that ability to alligators and lizards. So why does he not do so for us as human beings? Of course we don’t need an arm or a leg to survive, think critically, or function as a productive member of society. But lacking one, two, three, or even four limbs doesn’t help matters either. Yet we also know that genuine healings are not random acts of benevolence either. The miracles recorded in the Bible give us insight into God’s plan of redemption. They show us the significance of the cross and the impact of salvation by showing us metaphorically our sinful state (i.e. blind, deaf, & dead), and the work of Jesus to restore us as God’s new creation (2 Cor 5.17). A great biblical example of this is John 9.

In John 9 we learn of a beggar who was born blind and Jesus restores his sight. As he is questioned by the religious professionals, his insight as to who Jesus is grows, and the understanding of the educated, moral, religious people becomes more clouded and skewed. The whole episode shows the reader how God’s wisdom and glory function as he performs miracles (Jn 9.3). There must have been countless cases of people born blind. Even today, this is not uncommon. And yet, as the man says, “Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind” (9.32), at least not until then. Similarly, no amputees, to my knowledge, have ever been healed either. At least up until this point. Why? What if God, in his wisdom, has chosen not to heal any amputees because there has not been a case (in all the millions of cases) where he feels it necessary to reveal himself and his redemptive purpose in that context? What made the account in John’s gospel so unique was that, like all genuine miracles, it was a specific occurrence, for a specific person, at a specific time to reveal a specific message and insight. Maybe God does not want to reveal these things to us yet. He is God and what he wants to demonstrate and reveal to us, is his prerogative. That is why we pray for healings and do not demand them of God.