The Healing Of Amputees

Critics of the supernatural often ask why God doesn't heal amputees. Different people may ask the question for different reasons. One common line of reasoning seems to be that other alleged miracles are too easy to fake or misjudge. Therefore, the healing of amputees would avoid some problems involved in other miracles. Or somebody might notice a lack of reports of healed amputees and raise an objection as a result of noticing that lack. If there were a lack of something else instead, they'd shift their objection to that something else. Whatever the motives for raising the objection about healed amputees, it's an objection that's brought up frequently. Chris Hallquist raised it in his review of Craig Keener's book, Miracles (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011), earlier this year. See Chris' posts here and here.

Steve Hays has already discussed some of the problems with Chris' arguments, here and here. I'll be adding some points to Steve's, but much of what he's said won't be repeated here. Those who haven't read Steve's posts should read them if they want more of a response to what Chris has said.

Whether there's any healing of amputees in the Bible depends on how the concept is defined and how some passages are interpreted. For example, see the healing of a man whose ear was cut off in Luke 22:50-51. And why think that healing amputees would be more significant than every other type of miracle, like raising the dead? If the concern with raising the dead is that somebody might not actually have been dead, but instead might have been mistaken for dead, then what about cases in which such a mistake is highly unlikely (e.g., the individuals in Matthew 27:52-53, Lazarus in John 11)? Even when it's not so unlikely that the person wasn't dead, critics will need to explain why a lower probability of death supposedly isn't enough.

What about extra-Biblical accounts? Chris repeatedly objects that Keener cited an account of the healing of an amputee in a book by Pat Robertson. In his two posts linked above, Chris objects to the citation of Robertson three times. He first refers to "televangelist Pat Robertson". The fact that Robertson has been a televangelist doesn't have much relevance. But mentioning it does make Robertson look worse, which in turn is supposed to reflect poorly on Keener. Chris goes on to write, in his first post linked above:

"So the fact that there is a story of a regrowing limb in a book by Pat Robertson doesn’t prove anything."

And Chris had said that he was addressing "what Keener says about regrown limbs". The implication seems to be that Keener's argument consists merely of citing "a story of a regrowing limb in a book by Pat Robertson". In his second post, Chris again refers to "the story from Pat Robertson’s book". If your only source on this subject were Chris, you'd get the impression that Keener doesn’t mention anything else. He just cites Pat Robertson. But is that the case?

Here's the footnote in question in Keener's book:

"Robertson, Miracles, 176-77, providing further details from T.L. Osborn about a man in one of his meetings in Ghana. (He does not specify details such as whether the entire restoration occurred immediately, but it appears to have at least begun immediately and visibly.) Such reports are not common today and do not appear in the Gospels or Acts. Clark, Impartation, 166, speaks of other 'missing parts' being restored." (n. 198 on 747)

 Keener is citing an account Robertson got from Osborn. In the edition of Robertson's book that I've consulted, he refers to what Osborn reported about an incident that occurred at an event he (Osborn) presided over. Osborn was at least in a good position to get reliable information on the incident, and he may have even been an eyewitness. It doesn't follow that the alleged healing did occur, but the point I'm making here is that Robertson isn't just presenting "a story". He's citing a source who was in a good position to judge the matter.

And Keener goes on to cite another source, Randy Clark. In the edition of Clark's book that I've seen, he's quoting Leif Hetland, who claims to have seen missing body parts restored. Chris Hallquist doesn't mention Clark or Hetland.

I don't have much familiarity with any of these sources, other than Robertson. There are some problems with Robertson's credibility. And neither of the two books Keener mentions seems to present evidence beyond citing what Osborn and Hetland reported. In other words, Keener isn't giving us much to go by. But he is providing more than Chris suggests.

What's worse, though, is that Chris doesn't mention other material about the healing of amputees in Keener's book. On a March 17, 2012 radio program (see the archives here), Keener notes that he found more than 25 cases with "something like [healed amputees]" (see the forty-fourth minute of the program). The atheist who was on the program with Keener acknowledged that Keener cites multiple such cases in his book (see the forty-sixth minute of the program). Keener doesn't just cite "a story from Pat Robertson".

Cases involving the healing of amputees and miracles of a similar nature are discussed by Keener in some passages not mentioned by Chris Hallquist. For example, Keener refers to cases involving "creation of something like a new uterus" (n. 156 on 334); "rapid generation of bone" (n. 31 on 433); the restoration of an eye blinded by "lacerations from barbed wire" (519); "a woman who had had her fingers partly amputated on one hand was healed of cancer. The fingers grew back after prayer, and 'finger-nails are also forming.'" (705); "a Jansenist who lacked legs, as attested by two surgeons, yet grew them miraculously" (n. 357 on 705); "the gradual re-formation of an adult's bones and leg after amputation beneath the knee" (n. 358 on 705); "half-inch fingers all grow out to three inches over the course of an hour and a half of prayer" (706); "a partially severed thumb grew out instantly" (706); "a misshapen skull was visibly healed" (706). There are more examples Keener discusses. I'm just citing some of them.

As Keener notes during the radio program cited above, these accounts range across a spectrum of credibility. But even with cases for which we don't have much evidence that the miracle occurred, it doesn't follow that the account is false. And Keener isn't just citing a story by Pat Robertson. He's citing a wide range of sources reporting incidents under a wide range of circumstances.

Update On 7/9/15: For more about the objection that God doesn't heal amputees, see here.