Andrew

If I understand you correctly you are saying that part of what Christ accomplished through his death was the fall of the Roman Empire in the West in around 470 and in the East a thousand years later.

I have two problems with that.

One is that it suggests that God is doing what he had always done, intervene in earthly affairs. Before he had done it by hardening the heart of Pharaoh, manipulating the Persians and the Assyrians, magnifying the military prowess of the Jews etc The means he chooses on this occasion are very different (the suffering of Christ) but it serves the same purpose. This is radically at odds with my understanding of the gospel as revealing a God who refuses to, and perhaps cannot, exercise political power.

Secondly, there seems to be absolutely no connection between the suffering of Christ and the dissolution of the Roman Empire. Compare this with the demise of the Raj which can be directly attributed (at least in part) to the non violent resistance of Ghandi.

Paul