Summary

This article examines the use of prophetic remnant language within the Tomlinson stream of Church of God history, with special attention to the “third part” interpretation drawn from Zechariah 13:8–9. Rather than using this language to attack any group or individual, the article approaches the subject historically and theologically. It considers how certain Church of God bodies interpreted division, reorganization, and continuity through the language of apostasy, remnant faithfulness, covenant, restoration, and divine preservation. The goal is not to mock or dismiss these movements, but to understand how their claims developed and how such interpretations shaped their understanding of the visible church.

Introduction: Division, Memory, and the Question of Continuity

One of the most important themes in the Tomlinson stream of Church of God history is the question of continuity. After a major division, which body continues the true church? Which group preserves the original vision? Which people remain faithful to the covenant, government, doctrine, and identity that earlier generations believed had been restored?

These questions were not merely administrative. They were deeply theological. In the Tomlinson tradition, the church was often understood not simply as an invisible fellowship of all believers, nor merely as one denomination among many, but as a visible, covenanted, divinely ordered body in history. Because of that conviction, division created a serious theological problem. If the Church of God had been restored as a visible body, then what did it mean when that visible body divided?

Different groups answered that question in different ways. Yet a recurring pattern appears across several Tomlinson-related bodies. Division was often interpreted not only as conflict, but as testing. Separation was sometimes understood not only as institutional rupture, but as purification. A smaller body could present itself not as new, defeated, or merely separated, but as the faithful remnant through whom the original vision continued.

Among the biblical texts used in this way, Zechariah 13:8–9 became especially important. The passage speaks of two parts being cut off and a third part being brought through the fire, refined as silver and tried as gold. In some Tomlinson-related interpretations, this text became a way to explain modern church divisions. The “third part” became more than a biblical image. It became a theological framework for understanding church identity, separation, and continuity.

This article examines that framework carefully. It does not assume that every use of remnant language is wrong. The Bible itself contains a rich theology of remnant, judgment, purification, and restoration. At the same time, when biblical remnant language is applied directly to modern church divisions, it must be handled with caution. The question is not only whether a group believed itself to be faithful. The question is how that belief was used to define other Christians, interpret history, and claim continuity with the Church of God.

Homer A. Tomlinson and the “Third Part” Interpretation

The clearest early statement of the “third part” interpretation appears in Diary of A. J. Tomlinson, Volume Two, edited by Homer A. Tomlinson. In that account, Homer presents A. J. Tomlinson as having reflected on Zechariah 13:8–9 in relation to the 1923 division. According to Homer’s record, A. J. Tomlinson understood the 1923 departure of the “Elders church” as one part being cut off. He then anticipated that another part would later be cut off and that the “third part” would come forth, which he identified as “the real Church of God.”(1)

This passage is historically important because it shows how division could be interpreted within a prophetic framework. The 1923 division was not treated merely as a painful institutional break. It was placed inside a larger biblical pattern of cutting off, testing, and preservation. In Homer’s presentation, division did not destroy the claim of continuity. Instead, division became the means by which the true continuation of the church would be revealed.

That does not mean readers today must accept Homer’s interpretation. It does mean that historians must take it seriously as a window into how some within the Tomlinson tradition understood church history. Homer was not simply describing an event. He was interpreting the event theologically. In his view, the church’s identity was not lost through division, but clarified through it.

Immediately after presenting this “third part” interpretation, Homer connected it to the later 1943 separation. He interpreted that moment as part of God’s providential work and described his own role as one of preserving “The Church of God in all her glorious vision.”(2) This language shows how closely the “third part” idea was tied to questions of church identity, leadership, and continuity.

A careful reader should notice both the power and the danger of this kind of interpretation. On one hand, it gave meaning to suffering, loss, and separation. It helped a community understand itself as preserved by God in the middle of conflict. On the other hand, such interpretations can also become very exclusive. If one group is identified as the refined remnant, then other groups may be viewed not merely as different, but as cut off, fallen, or outside the true continuation of the church.

That is why the subject must be handled carefully. Homer’s use of Zechariah 13:8–9 should be studied historically, not mocked. But it should also be evaluated theologically. The fact that a biblical text is used to interpret church history does not automatically prove that the interpretation is correct. Scripture must be handled with humility, especially when it is used to explain modern divisions among Christians.

The Logic of Remnant Interpretation

The “third part” interpretation worked because it addressed a deep problem within restorationist church identity. If a movement believes that God has restored the New Testament church in visible form, then division creates a major question. How can the restored church divide and still remain the restored church?

The remnant framework answered that question by saying that division did not necessarily disprove restoration. Instead, division could be interpreted as refinement. The larger body might be seen as having compromised, while the smaller body could be seen as preserving the original vision. In this way, separation became a sign of faithfulness rather than failure.

This logic was powerful because it drew from real biblical themes. Scripture does speak about remnants. It speaks about judgment, purification, covenant renewal, and God preserving a faithful people. The danger comes when those biblical themes are applied too directly to one modern organization in a way that leaves little room for the broader body of Christ.

A more careful historical approach can acknowledge the sincerity of those who used this language while also asking important questions. Did remnant language help preserve holiness and conviction? In some cases, perhaps it did. Did it also encourage narrowness, suspicion, and exclusive claims? In some cases, that also appears to be true.

This is the tension at the heart of the subject. Remnant theology can call a people to faithfulness, but it can also become a way of claiming that one’s own group alone carries divine legitimacy. When that happens, the language of faithfulness can easily become the language of exclusion.

Grady R. Kent and Prophetic-Symbolic Church Identity

Grady R. Kent also belongs in this discussion because his ministry stood within a highly prophetic and symbolic understanding of the church. Kent’s work was connected to the Church of Prophecy Marker Association, Fields of the Wood, sacred geography, prophetic interpretation, and the visible expression of Church of God identity through signs and monuments.(3)

Public historical materials from the Jerusalem Acres and Ephesus stream connect Kent’s 1957 separation to Zechariah’s “third part” language. These materials state that Kent understood the earlier divisions through Zechariah 13:8–9 and interpreted his own separation as part of that larger prophetic pattern.(4)

These sources must be used carefully. They are internal histories, written from within the stream that honors Kent’s role. That does not make them useless, but it does mean they should not be treated as neutral academic accounts. Their value is that they show how Kent’s own lineage understood his separation and mission.

In that sense, Kent’s stream reflects a broader pattern already visible in Homer’s interpretation. Division was not merely viewed as a disagreement over leadership or administration. It was placed within a sacred story. A parent body was understood to have departed from divine order. A remnant was understood to have remained faithful. A new or reorganized body was then presented as the continuation of the true church.

Again, the goal here is not to ridicule that claim. The goal is to understand it. Kent’s followers did not see themselves as creating something new. They saw themselves as preserving something ancient and divinely ordered. That is the heart of remnant ecclesiology in this tradition.

The 1993 Reorganization and the Return of the “Third Part”

The “third part” interpretation became especially explicit again in connection with the 1993 reorganization of The Church of God under Robert J. Pruitt. In materials associated with that body, the 1993 reorganization was not described merely as a practical response to disagreement within the Church of God of Prophecy. It was described as the recovery and continuation of the true Church of God after a period of departure from older principles.

In A Book of Remembrance, Walter G. Lofton presents the 1993 reorganization in strongly providential terms. The book describes the Church as an “unique organization” and states that, by its nature, it is “exclusive to all others.” It also interprets the conflict leading to the reorganization as a struggle involving the loss of divine principles, the rejection of older teachings, and the preservation of a remnant.(5)

The same source explicitly connects the events of 1923 and 1993 to Zechariah 13:8–9. It states that the two parts cut off were the results of the disruptions of 1923 and 1993, and then declares, “We are the third part which is going through the fire.”(6) This is one of the clearest examples of the “third part” interpretation being applied to a later Church of God division.

This does not mean that the 1993 body was identical to Homer Tomlinson’s movement. It was not. The historical settings, personalities, and organizational claims were different. Yet the interpretive pattern was similar. Division was interpreted as purification. The smaller body was identified as the remnant. The continuation of the Church of God was located in the reorganized body.

This is historically significant. It shows that the “third part” idea did not remain only with Homer. It reappeared as a usable theological framework within later Tomlinson-related history. The same biblical text could be applied to a new crisis and used to explain why a reorganized body saw itself as the faithful continuation of the original vision.

A non-offensive reading should state the matter carefully. The 1993 body believed it was preserving the true Church of God. Its leaders and members understood their actions as obedience to God, not simply as rebellion against an organization. At the same time, the language of exclusive continuity raises important theological questions. When one group claims to be the refined remnant, how does it speak about other believers? How does it understand the wider body of Christ? How does it avoid turning faithfulness into isolation?

These are not hostile questions. They are necessary historical and theological questions.

Zion Assembly Church of God and Remnant-Restoration Language

Zion Assembly Church of God should also be considered, though with an important distinction. In the sources considered here, Zion Assembly does not appear to identify itself explicitly as “the third part.” That matters. We should not attribute a phrase to a body if the evidence does not show that the body uses it.

However, Zion Assembly does use language that belongs to the broader world of restorationist remnant ecclesiology. Its Abstract of Faith describes Zion Assembly as a Spirit-filled body of believers who have covenanted themselves together with God to accept and obey the teachings of Christ and His apostles. It also speaks of the present time as a time of apostasy, when many are “falling away” and “departing from the faith.”(7)

This language is not exactly the same as the “third part” formula. Still, it reflects a similar concern for visible covenant, doctrinal faithfulness, apostolic teaching, and the unity of believers under the Word of God. Zion Assembly’s own materials emphasize covenant, holiness, unity, obedience, and the visible life of the church. These themes place it within the same larger restorationist world, even if its rhetoric is different.

The difference is important. Homer A. Tomlinson and the 1993 reorganization used Zechariah’s “third part” language more explicitly. Zion Assembly, at least in the sources considered here, does not appear to make that exact claim. Therefore, it is more accurate to say that Zion Assembly reflects a wider remnant-restoration structure rather than the precise “third part” interpretation.

It would be too strong to say that every Tomlinson-related body teaches the same doctrine in the same way. They do not. But it is historically reasonable to observe that several bodies in the tradition have used similar patterns of thought: a former body is described as having departed, a faithful people are described as remaining, and reorganization is presented as a return to biblical order.

In Zion Assembly’s case, this language often appears in more careful and ecclesiological terms. It emphasizes covenant, apostolic teaching, holiness, the unity of the faith, and the visible church. Yet the larger structure still raises the same question: how does a church speak about restoration and visible identity without narrowing the grace of God only to its own fellowship?

Historical and Theological Assessment

When these materials are placed together, a recurring pattern becomes visible. The Tomlinson tradition repeatedly wrestled with the question of how the Church of God could maintain continuity after division. Because the church was often understood as visible, covenanted, and divinely ordered, division was not merely a practical problem. It was a theological crisis.

The “third part” interpretation offered one answer to that crisis. It allowed division to be interpreted as purification rather than collapse. It allowed a smaller body to see itself as refined rather than diminished. It allowed a reorganized church to claim continuity not despite separation, but through separation.

This pattern should be taken seriously, because it reveals the deep spiritual concerns of these movements. Many of these believers were not trying to invent something new. They believed they were preserving what had been revealed, taught, and entrusted to them. Their language of remnant, covenant, and restoration came from a desire to be faithful.

At the same time, the pattern must also be evaluated carefully. Remnant language can be spiritually powerful, but it can also become dangerous when it leaves no room for Christian humility. When a group interprets itself as the one faithful remnant and others as cut off or fallen, the language can move from conviction to exclusion. It can make it difficult to recognize sincere believers outside one’s own fellowship. It can also make internal disagreement feel like rebellion against God rather than a normal part of Christian discernment.

The most important issue is theological. The New Testament calls believers to holiness, truth, and faithfulness. It also calls them to humility, charity, and recognition of the body of Christ beyond their own immediate circle. A church can value its history without claiming that God’s work is limited to its own organization. It can honor covenant without using covenant as a weapon. It can believe in restoration without turning every division into proof of divine election.

Conclusion: Learning from the “Third Part” Pattern

The “third part” interpretation is one of the most revealing themes in the Tomlinson tradition. Homer A. Tomlinson used it to interpret the 1923 and 1943 divisions. Later materials connected to the 1993 reorganization of The Church of God used the same passage to identify that body as the “third part” after the disruptions of 1923 and 1993. Public histories connected to Grady R. Kent’s stream also placed his separation within a similar prophetic framework. Zion Assembly Church of God does not appear in the sources considered here to use the exact “third part” formula, but it does reflect the broader language of covenant, apostasy, restoration, and visible church identity.

The historical significance of this pattern is clear. It shows how several Tomlinson-related bodies explained division without surrendering their claim to continuity. It also shows how biblical remnant language could be used to give theological meaning to painful institutional separations.

The theological lesson is equally important. Remnant language must be handled with humility. The Bible does speak of a faithful remnant, but Christians should be careful before applying that language exclusively to their own organization. History shows that such claims can preserve conviction, but they can also deepen separation and create narrow boundaries around the work of God.

A careful study of the “third part” pattern does not require contempt for the people who believed it. Many were sincere, prayerful, and deeply committed to what they understood as truth. But sincerity does not remove the need for theological examination. The church must always ask whether its claims lead people toward Christ, humility, holiness, and love, or whether they make the organization greater than the gospel it proclaims.

In the end, the most faithful way to study this history is neither to attack it nor to romanticize it. It is to tell the truth with care. The Tomlinson tradition gave serious attention to the visible church, covenant, holiness, and restoration. Those concerns deserve historical respect. But the history of repeated division also reminds us that no church body should confuse its own institutional survival with the fullness of the kingdom of God. The church belongs to Christ, and every claim of restoration must remain accountable to His lordship, His Word, and His body.

Endnotes

1. Homer A. Tomlinson, ed., Diary of A. J. Tomlinson, vol. 2 (Queens Village, NY: The Church of God, 1953), 99–100.
2. Tomlinson, Diary of A. J. Tomlinson, vol. 2, 99–100.
3. Minutes of the Church of God of Prophecy, 1936–1945 (Cleveland, TN: White Wing Publishing House); Minutes of the Church of God of Prophecy, 1946–1955 (Cleveland, TN: White Wing Publishing House).
4. “Our History,” The Ephesus Church of God, accessed April 24, 2026; The Ephesus Church of God, I. History, accessed April 24, 2026.
5. Walter G. Lofton, A Book of Remembrance (Charleston, TN: The Church of God), introduction.
6. Lofton, A Book of Remembrance, section discussing Zechariah 13:8–9 and the disruptions of 1923 and 1993.
7. Zion Assembly Church of God, Abstract of Faith (Cleveland, TN: Zion Assembly Church of God, 2022), introduction.

Bibliography

Abstract of Faith. Cleveland, TN: Zion Assembly Church of God, 2022.

Diary of A. J. Tomlinson. Vol. 2. Edited by Homer A. Tomlinson. Queens Village, NY: The Church of God, 1953.

Lofton, Walter G. A Book of Remembrance. Charleston, TN: The Church of God.

Minutes of the Church of God of Prophecy, 1936–1945. Cleveland, TN: White Wing Publishing House.

Minutes of the Church of God of Prophecy, 1946–1955. Cleveland, TN: White Wing Publishing House.

“The Ephesus Church of God.” I. History. Accessed April 24, 2026.

“The Ephesus Church of God.” “Our History.” Accessed April 24, 2026.