Would Jesus have approved of the Holocaust?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Considering it was designed to eradicate Gods 'chosen people' (Sorry Pat Robertson, that it ain't you) along with the disabled, the Romany, homosexuals and a few political dissidents along the way then it's safe to say I don't think he would have approved.

I know jmfcst is going to flame me for this, but since I've learned to ignore dispensationalist ramblings by now, I'll say it anyway. The Jews aren't God's chosen people anymore. The new covenant voided the old one. God's chosen people now are Christians worldwide, the members of the invisible church.

just a note to say that you are misrepresenting my views by oversimplifying the standing of the Jews:

First, it MUST be understood that God called Israel...AND that a "calling" can not be REcalled..."God's gifts and his call are irrevocable (Rom 11:29)"

Second, the New Covenant, which you correctly stated voided the old covenant, was made with none other than ISRAEL: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (Jer 31:31)"...so your pointing to the New Covenant in an attempt to justify your opinion that the Jews aren't God's chosen people is as pointless as it is contradictory.

Third, the Jews will change from their current state of rejection of Christ: "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.  And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: 'The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.' (Rom 11:25-26)"
 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Given that the Old Testament is filled with story after story of the elder brother(s) incurring JHVH's wrath in some fashion and being dispossesed in favor of the younger, the idea of JHVH abandoning the Jews in favor of somebody else isn't all that far fetched.  The very last thing you want to be in an Old Testament tale is the first born.

Not saying it is far-fetched, simply saying it is wrong....

Rom 11:1 " Did God reject his people? By no means!..."

Rom 11:2 "...God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew."

Rom 11:11 "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!"

Rom 11:23 "And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

Rom 11:25 "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.  And so all Israel will be saved."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The very last thing you want to be in an Old Testament tale is the first born.

But weren't Enoch (taken directly into heaven without experiencing death), Noah (the only righteous man found on earth), Abraham (the father of the faithful and the recipient of God's inheritance), and Jesus (Son of God) all the first born?

I believe you're taking a handful of cases (e.g. Ishmael/Isaac, Esau/Jacob) where the firstborn was not the child of promise and making too broad of a conclusion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But weren't Enoch (taken directly into heaven without experiencing death), Noah (the only righteous man found on earth), Abraham (the father of the faithful and the recipient of God's inheritance), and Jesus (Son of God) all the first born?

Didn't Jesus have four older brothers and an undefined number of sisters?

Actually, I was referring to Jesus being the firstborn of the family of believers.  I should have simply left Jesus out of my list and went only with Enoch, Noah, and Abraham.

But, I couldn't really have left Jesus out because my point is that being the firstborn was a blessing in the Old Testament, for the firstborn was the heir...but it didn't always work out that way in the Old Testament because the firstborn was not always the child of promise.

The reason it didn't always work out in the Old Testament is because the characters in the Old Testament were NOT the focus of the lesson of being the firstborn or child of promise.  Rather, JESUS IS THE FOCUS - the old testament prophesies about being the firstborn and child of promise ARE FULFILLED IN JESUS, who was BOTH the firstborn and the child of promise.

The ENTIRE bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, is all about Jesus.  And all the promises of scripture reach their fulfillment in Jesus.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But weren't Enoch, Noah, and Abraham all the first born?

Well first off, note that none of those did anything to displease JHVH...

To the contrary, I am sure they did indeed sin and displease God, for they were NOT sinless.

More importantly, I totally disagree with your assertion that God's choices are based on merit, for it makes a mockery out of God's grace.  For even in the case of Esau (firstborn and rejected) and Jacob (2nd born and accepted), their standing with God was NOT based on merit, for God chose between the two BEFORE either had done anything good or bad:

Rom 9:10-13 Rebekah's children [Esau and Jacob] had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' 13Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'