Title: Sticking Out Like Sore Thumbs
Date: November 1, 2026
Text: 1 Peter 2:1-10
Preacher: Pastor Deepak Babu
“Suffer me, my brethren; hinder me not from living, do not wish me to die. Do not give to the world one who desires to belong to God, nor deceive him with material things. Suffer me to receive the pure light; when I shall have arrived there, I shall become a human being.” These are the evocative, profound, and paradoxical words of St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the church in Rome in the early second century. While interpreting what St. Ignatius might have meant, it is essential to observe that he wrote these words on his way to Rome to be executed. We will return to St. Ignatius’ words and interpret them later.
Before that let us turn our attention to the words of Peter that we have just heard. As usual, we need to look at what came before in order to understand the passage we are dealing with. At the end of chapter 1, Peter compares the mortality of humans to the enduring nature of the gospel. The gospel, which is the message proclaimed to the recipients, brought them to life through the remarkable rebirth that we have experienced. And since the message endures, its effects endure as well. This is the foundational truth upon which Peter bases his words in chapter 2.
He tells the recipients, “Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander.” Malice, guile, insincerity, envy, and slander can never endure but are always myopic solutions used by those who have a myopic outlook on life. If I expect that my relationships with each of you are going to endure not just for a few decades here but into the never-ending new creation, then malice, guile, insincerity, envy, and slander can never be ways I adopt to relate to you. Can you imagine interacting with another person with guile without end? I mean, how long can a person engage with another through subterfuge?
And can a person who relates to another insincerely ever claim to be free? In order to undermine your hopes, I would need to constantly be aware of how your outlook on life is changing. And I would need to adjust how to negatively affect you in order to have the greatest impact. Now, that is not freedom. I would then be entrapped by the person. The only way we can have a relationship that endures is if you can be who you are and I can be who I am while both of us celebrate the uniqueness each of us brings to the table.
Hence, Peter continues, “Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation—if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.” He contrasts all the negative traits with the image of a newborn who longs for her mother’s milk. The word translated as ‘pure’ is adolos, which is better translated as ‘unadulterated’ in this context. You see, milk is not a substance for which the adjective ‘pure’ carries any meaning. And the people of the first century also knew that. After all, when you churned butter and separated the butter from the buttermilk, you knew that this was not a simple, pure substance.
However, adulteration of milk was a known process from the time we have records of humans using milk. Moreover, ancient humans knew that the composition of milk changes as the infant grows. The newborn infant receives colostrum from its mother, a thick milk high in protein, white blood cells, and antibodies to protect the newborn. While the ancients would not have been able to articulate it in this way, they knew the difference between the milk the newborn received and the milk an infant received after a few weeks. And many of them knew that the milk of the first week somehow protected the child.
Ancient Indian literature, for example, from the 5th century BC, noted the benefits of colostrum. Similarly, ancient Jewish texts called colostrum chalab and viewed it as vital and life-sustaining. The same can be found in ancient China. Ironically, it was in Western Europe that colostrum was considered toxic, with people often giving newborn infants the actually toxic honey instead - and even wine! Considering how Nestlé promoted their formula as a replacement for breastmilk, it would seem that the Western distrust of natural processes is still quite strong.
Peter finishes this sentence with the words, “if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.” The Greek word ei, is a conditional particle that is used when the condition is expected to be assumed. In other words, it would be better to translate that sentence as, “Like newborn infants, long for the unadulterated, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation—since you have tasted that the Lord is good.” Peter is saying that, because the recipients have experienced that God is good, they should long for the unadulterated spiritual milk.
It is crucial that we note that this milk that Peter writes about is not the gospel. The gospel was the message that brought the recipients to new birth. And now that they are newly born, Peter asks them to have what newborns have - the unadulterated, spiritual milk. And we have already noted that the milk a newborn receives not only provides them with essential nutrients, like lactose and proteins, but also antibodies to boost their immune system. In other words, newborn infants receive as their natural diet what protects them from harm. Of course, Peter is using metaphorical language. The recipients were neither literally newborn infants nor consuming colostrum. So what could he have meant?
Thankfully, he writes, “Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and like living stones let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
Recall that Peter had issued a warning against malice, guile, insincerity, envy, and slander. This must mean that accepting his invitation to come to Jesus is what will provide the recipients with the necessary spiritual antibodies against the diseases of malice, guile, insincerity, envy, and slander. But how does this happen? Note that Peter calls Jesus ‘a living stone’. Then he tells the recipients, “Like living stones let yourselves be built into a spiritual house.”
Last Sunday, we looked at Jesus’ words about taking his yoke upon us. And we saw that what he meant was that we should willingly become his apprentices as he bears the yoke that was placed upon him. I had emphasized the importance of imitation in all of this.
It is clear that Peter has the same idea in mind. We are to come to Jesus - a living stone - so that we can become like living stones who are built into a spiritual house. However, Peter also tells the recipients that this is not going to be smooth sailing. After all, after calling Jesus ‘a living stone’, he writes, “though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight.” Peter wants the recipients to remember that Jesus was rejected. Then comes a flurry of quotes from the Old Testament that shed light on what Peter was getting at.
He first quotes from Isaiah 28, “See, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” Now, the Hebrew phrase and the Greek word could mean either cornerstone or keystone. If you want to know the difference, there are two pictures in your bulletin. The one on the right shows a cornerstone, while the one on the left is a keystone. Both are structurally significant. Both are different from the other stones used in the building. However, if the cornerstone is damaged, the building will still stand. To the contrary, if a keystone of a doorway is damaged, it compromises the structural integrity of the doorway, leading to collapse. Hence, even though the ancient Hebrews did not use keystones, the prevalence of keystones in Roman architecture when Peter was writing, leads me to believe that Peter was thinking of a keystone rather than a cornerstone. He was not saying that Jesus was merely significant but that, without Jesus, the whole edifice of the Christian faith will come crumbling down.
Anyway, Isaiah’s words were spoken in the context of a judgment against the leaders of Israel. Specifically, the judgment against them was that they taught people to rely on the letter of the law rather than on the spirit of the law. It is an indictment of Christian leaders today, who emphasize rule following rather than the spirit of compassion. With the contrast he draws, Isaiah was saying that the stone that is mentioned will be a person who relies on the spirit of the law rather than on the letter and who, therefore, will be rejected by those who have positions of authority. Peter’s reference to Isaiah 28 shows that he viewed Jesus’ ministry as one that focused on the spirit of the law, which resulted in his being rejected by the Jewish leaders of his day.
Peter next quotes from Psalm 118, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.” There is a rabbinic commentary explaining Psalm 118 and the stone. Now, we should take this commentary with a pinch of salt since it has many anachronisms. However, it gives us key insights into Jewish thought near the time Peter was writing.
The commentary explains that, when the temple was being built, it was forbidden to carve the stones in the vicinity of the temple because this would have been a disturbance. Hence, the site for carving the stones into shape was kept a few miles away. Once a stone was carved to the right shape and size, it was then hauled over to the construction site.
According to the commentary the first stone that reached the site was one that just did not seem right. And so the builders put it aside. A few years later, when the temple was almost complete, the builders asked the quarry to send them the final stone. The quarry personnel replied that they had already sent it years ago. And sure enough, when they looked for the stone they had discarded at the start, it was the one needed to complete the construction. This commentary indicates that what was in mind in the Psalm was not a cornerstone, which is needed at the start, but a stone that is needed at the end, namely the keystone.
We should, however, note that the commentary viewed the people of Israel rather than a messianic figure as the keystone. It explained why the Jewish people were ostracized by the Gentiles. What the commentary also indicates is that the keystone was initially discarded precisely because it was oddly shaped. It stuck out like a sore thumb among all the other stones that had been hewn into nearly identical blocks.
And so also with Jesus. He was rejected because he did not fit the expectations of the Jews of his day. Unfortunately, I think he disappoints many Christians even today.
Peter continues with his use of scripture by quoting from Isaiah 8, saying that the stone that was rejected and that became the keystone had also become, “A stone that makes them stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” The word translated as ‘makes them fall’ is skandalon, a critical word we encountered last week. It is a rock of entrapment. God’s agent, described as a stone in Isaiah and the psalms, would be so different from what God’s people expected that God’s people themselves will be entrapped by the desire to refute him and their inability to do so.
Like the bump in the road I mentioned last Sunday, God’s people would neither be able to dismiss this rock of entrapment nor avoid him. They would not be able to make him align with their view of God and the world nor altogether ignore him.
And so Peter tells the recipients, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.” Recall that Peter had first told the recipients that they are living stones similar to the iconic living stone, namely Jesus. Then he described Jesus as the keystone, who was rejected because he stuck out like a sore thumb.
Now he tells them that they are “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.” These four descriptors are evidently how the people of the Messiah are expected to indicate their difference. They are different from those who do not follow the Messiah. But in what way are they different? How can we understand this distinctiveness? Let’s take these four traits in reverse order.
By saying that the recipients were God’s own people, Peter rejects the idea that there can be an individual Christian. While each of us is called to be faithful to Jesus, there is no faithfulness to him apart from the community he has formed. This is why he commanded us to observe communion. While we get baptized as individuals, we can only partake in communion with others. Hence, we are called out of darkness into God’s marvelous light as a community - God’s own people.
Of course, any community needs organizational structures as we have seen in earlier sermons. But since God has called us into his kingdom, this community into which we are called is a political body, a different sort of nation - hence, a holy nation. This is a nation in which those with greater authority are those who are responsible for greater service as we have seen earlier. Rather than reject the idea of a nation because it has been abused, Peter reappropriates the idea so that it is defined in terms of the people whom God has called.
More than this, each person in God’s people is expected to function as a priest. However, a priest is someone who ministers for another person. I cannot be a priest for myself. And neither can you. But if everyone in God’s people is a priest, who are the people they minister to as priests?
This brings us to the idea of being a chosen people. Lost in most Christian discussions of election or chosenness is the simple question, “If I am chosen, what am I chosen for?” Too often this is answered in terms of where we will go when we die, thereby rendering our current lives meaningless.
However, if we are all priests, then the only people God’s people can serve are those who are not yet a part of the community. Hence, we are chosen precisely so that we can minister to those who do not yet belong to the community of Jesus followers. The community formed around Jesus is the only one whose one main purpose is to serve those who do not belong to the community. And this is how we are to stick out like sore thumbs.
Of course, this is still quite vague. You may wonder what kind of service we can undertake. Our church has many ministries to which people can contribute. Sunday School and Children’s Church happen on Sunday and we always need volunteers there. We can certainly do with more people singing with Judy and the team. The Blessing Pantry is always in need of more supplies. There are parts of the church premises which need maintenance and upkeep. United Methodist churches are lay-led churches and we have many leadership positions in which you can serve. We also need to upgrade our sound equipment and purchase equipment for video recording and streaming. While many of these opportunities require your time and/or talents, others of these need financial contributions from you.
Now, you may ask me, “How is this sticking out like sore thumbs? Don’t people from other groups also do the same?” And you are absolutely right. What distinguishes us is the reason for which and attitude with which we engage in these activities. Service is neither an obligation for us nor even a response.
Rather, recall from two Sundays back that Jesus said that service was a part of our identity as his disciples. More than that, since we have tasted that the Lord is good, we are people who are convinced about his generosity. We believe not in a balancing of rights and wrongs, but in the overwhelming provision of God for us. It is because of all this that we dare to be generous, our generosity being only a reflection of the God who did not hold back even his Son.
In his second letter, Peter writes, “His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and excellence. Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust and may become participants of the divine nature.” The hope we have, according to Peter, is not that we will go to heaven when we die, but that we would become participants of the divine nature. Think about that.
And if God’s very nature is generosity then our nature too, when we participate in God’s nature, is to be generous. Most faith systems have a place for generosity. However, to my knowledge, these are all based either on the predicament of our fellow humans or on a command issued by the deity or a representative of the deity. It is only in the Christian faith that our generosity is based on the hope of becoming like God.
As he was traveling to Rome, Ignatius knew that he was going there in order to die. The Christians in Rome had heard of this and had written to him assuring him that they would do their best to get Emperor Trajan to reverse his sentence. It is in this context that he wrote the words with which I opened. “Suffer me, my brethren; hinder me not from living, do not wish me to die. Do not give to the world one who desires to belong to God, nor deceive him with material things. Suffer me to receive the pure light; when I shall have arrived there, I shall become a human being.”
According to Ignatius, his death would be life bringing to him, whereas begging Caesar to commute the sentence would be a death sentence. According to Ignatius, we are not yet humans because we do not fully imitate the true human - Jesus. It is only when we physically die and our theosis or divinization is complete, when we fully participate in the divine nature that we truly become human. Therefore, this life is one in which we are training to become truly human, which is to become a person who perfectly embodies the character of God.
Hence, in his second letter Peter continues, “For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with excellence, and excellence with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love.” As we saw five weeks back, love is the ethos of God’s kingdom. But love is not easy. Love requires us to do what is difficult - defending the weak, providing for the needy, taking care of the sick, comforting those who mourn, providing hope to those who despair.
Vincent van Gogh once said, “Normality is a paved road: It’s comfortable to walk but no flowers grow on it.” So let us commit to walking on the path with flowers, the difficult path, the path that puts others ahead of us. Let us commit to our vocation of sticking out like sore thumbs.