Though put to Alan (#13), I think the random/speciicality issue probably involved a mix of factors. Almost without exception faith in him as a thaumaturge was present. When he healed many (not all) we do not know whether 1) he simply tied and needed rest, 2) some lacked faith in him, or 3# whether the day’s preach had been done. Theologically 2) & 3) would be similar, prophetic of the fact that redemptively not all would be redeemed – redemption is one meaning of the word translated ‘heal’. That in turn is linked to individual faith.
I hold that to signify his messiahship, as well as to highlight his deeper level service of redemption, Jesus came with significant yet limited physical healing – hence John’s use of sēmeion. Likewise the earliest apostles had this supporting feature. Occasionally Jesus selected an individual to heal (eg Jhn.9), even as he had selected a few to be indepth disciples. Likewise John & Peter (Ac.3:6).
When it’s taught that miraculous physical healing happens, faith levels rise enabling a greater uptake. In some countries this combines with a ‘time of visitation’, miracles supporting the greater miracle of redemption (Jhn.14:12). Missionaries, whether apostolic or not, sometimes exercise more faith in W3 countries commensurate with the community belief there.
One issue with #21 is that the ear was not created de nova, but was simply picked up and miraculously sewn on – perhaps restoration rather than regrowth. Thus it does not exemplify #1’s line about “regrowing lost body parts”, a line I have taken to quality the Q. Personally I do not have a problem with extra-ordinary miracles in this life including regrowth of limbs, eyes, etc. It is more a case of being in God’s will for the given individual. The resurrection will involve redeemed spirits summoning back atoms for at least the basic human frame, though I suspect that even functions like taste buds will be included – eating for pleasure, not sustenance. To some extent regrowth in this life hints at the greater miracle to come.
