When Ministry Serves Itself
A shepherd is entrusted with people whom God loves. When those people become a means of satisfying the shepherd’s appetite, that trust has been betrayed.
Ezekiel 34 confronts Israel’s leaders with a searching accusation: they enjoyed the benefits of leadership while neglecting the people in their care. The weak remained unsupported, the injured unattended, and the scattered unsought. Their authority had become harsh, and the flock suffered beneath it (Ezekiel 34:1–6).
The passage first addresses Israel’s shepherds in its own historical setting. Its warning also searches Christian leadership, because the New Testament explicitly requires elders to shepherd God’s flock willingly, without greed or domination (1 Peter 5:1–4). Spiritual responsibility never grants permission to exploit those entrusted to us.
In this second article, we examine self-serving ministry through the house of Eli. The contrast with the faithfulness of Zadok’s descendants provides a biblical illustration for examining our hearts. It does not establish two formal classes of Christian ministers or give anyone a superior spiritual rank. Every Christian leader remains accountable to Jesus Christ.
One distinction must be clear from the beginning: receiving support from a congregation is biblical. Paul defends the right of those who preach the gospel to receive their livelihood through that work (1 Corinthians 9:7–14). The title Fed by the Flock therefore confronts the abuse of that support. The sin is greed, coercion, and neglect of the people.
The people entrusted to a ministry must never become the price of the minister’s comfort.
Appetite Before Obedience
The corruption at Shiloh becomes unmistakable when the priest’s demand takes precedence over God’s command.
First Samuel 2:12 introduces Eli’s sons as men who did not know the Lord. Their sacred office concealed a profound spiritual failure. Verses 13–14 describe a practice in which a servant took meat from the boiling pot with a three-pronged fork. This description of priestly custom should not be confused with the portions prescribed in the law.
For the peace or fellowship offerings, Leviticus assigns the breast and right thigh to the priests, while the sacrificial fat is burned on the altar (Leviticus 7:30–34). God had made provision for His servants. Their offence cannot be explained as the necessary struggle of men whom God had left without support.
The clearest abuse appears in 1 Samuel 2:15–16. The servant demanded raw meat before the fat had been burned. When the worshipper insisted that the fat should first be offered, the response was a threat to take the meat by force. The worshipper’s desire to honour God was treated as an obstacle to the priest’s demand.
Here is the pattern we must recognise: sacred authority being used to override obedience. A position intended for service became an instrument of pressure. The narrative condemns their treatment of the Lord’s offering as contemptuous (1 Samuel 2:17).
This account establishes the demand, its timing, and the threat. It does not require us to invent scenes of what happened to every piece of fat afterward. The recorded conduct is already grievous. Men serving at the sanctuary were willing to intimidate worshippers to satisfy themselves.
When a leader pressures people to violate conscience in order to satisfy his demands, spiritual authority has been abused.
Eli’s Responsibility
Eli’s failure shows that knowing about wrongdoing and speaking against it do not necessarily amount to restraining it.
Eli did rebuke his sons. First Samuel 2:22–25 records his protest against the evil reports he heard. It would be inaccurate to say he never spoke. Yet God’s later judgment exposes the inadequacy of his response: he knew of his sons’ wickedness and failed to restrain them (1 Samuel 3:13).
The man of God also charged Eli with honouring his sons above the Lord, while the household benefited from the choicest offerings of Israel (1 Samuel 2:29). Eli was implicated in the very corruption he was responsible to confront. Scripture gives us that indictment without describing a meal-by-meal account of his table or identifying fear of losing food as his motive.
The application is searching. A leader may condemn misconduct publicly while allowing it to continue within his own circle. Family loyalty, friendship, reputation, or financial advantage can compromise judgment. These are dangers for us to examine, rather than motives we should automatically assign to Eli or to every leader who fails.
Faithful oversight requires a response proportionate to the wrongdoing. Serious misconduct must be examined honestly, those harmed must be heard, and those responsible must face appropriate discipline. A warning that leaves people exposed to continuing abuse is insufficient.
Paul instructs Timothy to handle accusations against elders with evidential care, while also requiring correction of sin without partiality (1 Timothy 5:19–21). Accountability must therefore be both fair and real. Neither rumour nor favouritism should govern the church.
A rebuke becomes hollow when the authority to restrain wrongdoing remains unused.
Recognising Exploitation Today
The question is whether the ministry’s use of money and authority serves its entrusted purpose or exploits the people who sustain it.
A salary, a home, a vehicle, or necessary rest does not by itself establish greed. Faithful ministers have ordinary needs, and congregations should not confuse deprivation with holiness. Paul’s defence of material support for gospel workers must remain part of our teaching (1 Corinthians 9:11–14).
Exploitation becomes evident through conduct: money obtained through deception; gifts diverted from their stated purpose; spiritual threats used to compel giving; or leaders shielding their personal benefit from legitimate examination. These practices deserve direct scrutiny because religious language cannot make dishonesty holy.
Second Peter 2:1–3 describes false teachers whose greed leads them to exploit people with deceptive words. The immediate subject is false teaching, but the connection between greed and deception remains a serious warning. When a spiritual claim is used to extract money, the claim and the conduct must both be tested.
A demand that someone give a particular sum to secure healing, divine favour, or protection from a threatened curse should never be accepted simply because a minister speaks it confidently. God’s grace is not merchandise. Peter’s rejection of Simon’s attempt to purchase spiritual authority exposes the error of treating God’s gift as something obtainable with money (Acts 8:18–23).
Christian giving should be willing and considered, without compulsion (2 Corinthians 9:7). Teaching generosity does not authorise manipulation. Nor does a person’s inability to give a requested amount prove unbelief, rebellion, or resistance to God.
There is also a quieter failure: a ministry may maintain respectable finances while neglecting its people. Sound teaching, prayer, patient care, and attention to the vulnerable belong to shepherding. A well-funded organisation can still be spiritually negligent.
No appeal to faith gives a minister permission to manipulate a giver.
The Flock Belongs to God
God’s people are never the personal possession of the person who leads them.
Ezekiel’s rebuke moves beyond financial excess to the condition of those who had been neglected. God announces His opposition to the shepherds and promises to rescue His sheep from their mouths (Ezekiel 34:7–10). The image is devastating: those appointed to care for the flock had become a threat to it.
The chapter also reveals God’s concern for those who have suffered. He will seek, gather, feed, and care for His scattered sheep (Ezekiel 34:11–16). A warning against corrupt ministry should therefore make room for the wounded, not merely expose the offender. People harmed by spiritual authority need truth, protection, and patient care.
Peter directs elders to tend the flock of God and lead by example rather than domination (1 Peter 5:2–3). Their responsibility is stewardship. They are not entitled to unquestioning allegiance, control over every personal decision, or immunity from correction.
Jesus gives the decisive picture of shepherding: the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11). His self-giving love exposes leadership that treats people as expendable. The Lord who purchased His church with His own blood also commands its overseers to care for it (Acts 20:28).
This does not mean that every struggling congregation proves its pastor unfaithful. Leaders cannot compel repentance, prevent every hardship, or control every person’s choices. They are accountable for their own faithfulness: what they teach, how they lead, whether they tell the truth, and how they treat the people in their care.
A shepherd’s authority is a responsibility to care, never a licence to consume.
The Call to Faithful Shepherding
The proper response to this warning begins with honest examination and must lead to obedient action.
Those who lead should ask difficult questions. Have I made personal comfort more important than the people’s care? Do I welcome questions about money and conduct? Have I protected someone because correcting them would cost me? Do my private dealings honour the truth I preach?
Repentance requires more than a moving confession. Where funds have been misused, the truth must be established and appropriate restitution pursued. Where people have been pressured or harmed, the conduct must stop and those affected must receive care. Where leadership has failed, accountable oversight and appropriate restrictions may be necessary. Forgiveness must never become a shortcut around responsibility.
The church also has a duty to examine evidence carefully and refuse gossip. Confronting greed does not justify suspicion toward every minister. Faithful workers deserve support, encouragement, and fair treatment. Biblical discernment protects people from both exploitation and false accusation.
Ezekiel 44:15 commends the descendants of Zadok for keeping charge of God’s sanctuary when Israel went astray. Their faithfulness offers an example of remaining true to God amid widespread compromise. Applied to Christian ministry, that example calls us to obedience; it does not create an elite title that places leaders beyond examination.
Our final standard is Christ, whom Peter identifies as the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4). Every lesser shepherd serves under His authority. A ministry’s name, influence, income, or spiritual reputation cannot replace submission to Him.
Feed the people with the truth. Care for those who are weak. Refuse dishonest gain. Receive correction. Honour God above family loyalty, personal advantage, and public image. Let the resources entrusted to the ministry serve the work for which they were given.
The warning over Eli’s house remains searching: religious office does not shield disobedience from God’s judgment. The call before us is equally clear. Turn from selfish ambition, accept accountability, and tend faithfully to the people Christ loves.
The flock belongs to Christ. Let every shepherd serve as one who will answer to Him.