On a previous thread I posted the gross distortion of Professor Frank Gorman regarding pouring out of blood. (They have not heard the last of that one.) That outrageous act illustrates the problems the Society gets into when it starts with a conclusion and then looks for quotations or Scriptural examples to make its point--rather than look at the facts dispassionately and THEN come to a conclusion. I've posted about the late Sir Fred Hoyle, who was similarly misquoted for decades, and on and on.
You are correct, Seeker. Because of the aging GB and their obvious inability to care for the growing work load, it was obvious that non-anointed men be used in some recognized fashion. That CONCEPT of necessity is moving full steam ahead, as evidenced by corporate changes last year and more to come. How best to present that notion to the brethren, since they were so used to direction only by the remnant of the anointed?
Where they got into trouble was trotting out the Nethinim gambit to explain things. Anyone who carefully works through the scriptures involved is left with the clear impression this was a terribly strained concept, at best, a horrible misapplication in reality. One would today be called a Jonadab more quickly than Nethinim class at Bethel. It just flopped, and the term has met a bland and quiet fate, I believe winding up in a Proclaimers footnote.
Ah, but there were three terms: Nethinim, "chieftains" and "glorious ones."
You know which two are used frequently today. (Isn't there a scripture about lording it over the brothers ... ?) It's about as acceptable as believing that Isaiah prophesied about Naval ships off the coast of wherever. Most senior men I know snigger in their sleeve at such unpalatable food, but continue to smile and play the organization game.
The failure of Armageddon to come when convenient has posed serious consequences that are going to continue to plague the organization.