It is a fair question since those verses are proof text out of context, it is mind boggling you think that is how we read a text let alone scripture... quite ironic you think that is "adult converstation" to cherry pick verses.
Here is the answer.
Romans 9 is wrongly explained if one understands it to refer to individual election to salvation.
Instead, the historical destiny of different nations (especially Israel) is being narrated.
To think that individual election to salvation is in view in the reference to Esau and Jacob in Romans is not using context to understand Paul's line of reasoning.
There is no doubt that the OT contexts refer to the temporal and historical destiny of peoples rather than to individual election to salvation.
The focus of Romans 9:10-13 is not the salvation of Jacob and Esau. It is God’s sovereign selection of the covenant line through which the promised Seed would come (Galatians 3:16).
Yes there is a difference, not about individual unconditional election to salvation.
So you believe me to be cherry picking verses and having the wrong understanding. If true then many others don't know what they are talking about. Men that have been used by God to do far more than I will ever accomplish.
JOHN GILL - 1697-1771 AD
Romans 9:11:
For the children being not yet born, So says (h) the Chaldee paraphrast,
"the prophet said unto them, was it not said of Jacob, עד דלא אתיליד, "when he was not yet born", that he should be greater than his brother?'' the Syriac version supplies, "his children", that is, Isaac's; and the Arabic version, "his two children". This shows, that the apostle designs not the posterity, but the very persons of Jacob and Esau; since as he speaks of their conception in the verse preceding, so of their birth in this: and though in the words of God to Rebecca, and which are urged in favour of the other sense, it is said, "two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels, and the one people shall be stronger than the other people", Gen_25:23;
yet this primarily respects the persons of Jacob and Esau, as the roots of their respective offspring; and only secondarily their posterity, as branches that should sprout from them;
it properly regards their persons, and only in an improper, figurative, and metonymical sense, their seed; for in no other sense could two nations, or two manner of people be in Rebecca's womb, than as there were two persons there, who would be the authors of two nations and people; and whatever may be said for their respective posterity, taking their rise from one common father Isaac, or for their being chosen or rejected as nations, before they were in being as such, yet it cannot be said with any propriety, that "Rebecca conceived" their several offspring "by one, even by our father Isaac",
Rom_9:10, which sense well agrees with the scope of the apostle, which is to prove, that all were not Israel which were of Israel, and that all Abraham's natural seed were not the children of God; which he could not better exemplify, than in the persons of Jacob and Esau; for to have instanced in the posterity of Esau, would have been foreign to his purpose, and not accord with the continuation of his discourse in the following verses, which entirely proceeds upon the subject of personal election and rejection, and with the scriptural account of the personal characters of Jacob and Esau; and from hence, as from many other passages, it may be concluded, that predestination, whether to life or death, is a personal thing, concerns particular persons, and not nations, or collective bodies of men:
neither having done any good or evil; Jacob and Esau were under all considerations upon an equal foot, were just in the same situation and condition, when the one was loved and the other hated; or in other words, when the one was chosen, and the other rejected; they were neither of them as yet born, and had they been born, their birth and parentage could have been no reason why one was chose and the other not, because in both the same; nor had the one performed a good action, or the other an evil one; so that Jacob was not loved for his good works, nor Esau hated for his evil ones; which confirms the truth of this doctrine, that the objects of predestination, whether to life or death, are alike, are in the same situation and condition: whether they are considered in the corrupt mass, or as fallen, they are all equally such, so that there could not be any reason in them, why some should be chosen and others left; or whether in the pure mass, antecedent to the fall, and without any consideration of it, which is clearly signified in this passage, there could be nothing in the one, which was not in the other, that could be the cause of such a difference made: so that it follows, that works neither good nor evil are the causes moving God to predestinate, whether to life or death; good works are not the cause of election to eternal life, for not only, this act of distinguishing grace, passed before any were done, but also these are fruits, effects, and consequence of it, and so cannot be the causes thereof; God does not proceed in order branches of salvation, as in calling, justification, &c. according to them, and therefore it cannot be thought he should proceed upon this foot in the first step to it; and which is ascribed to his free grace, in opposition to works. Evil works are not the cause of the decree of rejection, for this also being as early as the decree of election, as it must unavoidably be, was before any evil works were done; sin is not the cause of God's decree, but of the thing decreed, eternal death; otherwise all the individuals in the world being equally in sin, must have been rejected: it remains then, that not any works of men, good or bad, are the cause of predestination in either of its branches, but the sovereign will and secret counsel of God: that
the purpose of God according to election might stand:
the decree of God, which is entirely free, and depends upon his own will and choice, stands firm and immutable, and is not to be disannulled by earth or hell, for it stands not on the precarious foot of works:
not of works: did it, it would not stand sure, for nothing is more variable and uncertain, than the actions of men:
but of him that calleth: who is the unchangeable Jehovah; it stands upon his invariable will and immutable grace, whose "gifts and calling are without repentance", Rom_11:29.
Albert Barnes - 1798-1870 AD
For the children being not yet born -
It was not, therefore, by any works of theirs. It was not because they had formed a character and manifested qualities which made this distinction proper. It was laid back of any such character, and
therefore had its foundation in the purpose or plan of God.
Neither having done any good or evil - That is, when the declaration Rom_9:12 was made to Rebecca. This is a very important passage in regard to the question about the purposes of God.
(1) They had done nothing good or bad; and when that is the case, there can be, properly speaking, no moral character, for “a character is not formed when the person has not acquired stable and distinctive qualities.”
(2)
The purpose of God is antecedent to the formation of character, or the performance of any actions, good or bad.
(3)
It is not a purpose formed because he sees anything in the individuals as a ground for his choice, but for some reason which he has not explained, and which in the Scripture is simply called purpose and good pleasure; Eph_1:5.
(4) If it existed in this case, it does in others. If it was right then, it is now. And if God then dispensed his favors on this principle, he will now.
The purpose of God According to election - To dispense his favors according to his sovereign will and pleasure. Those favors were not conferred in consequence of the merits of the individuals; but according to a wise plan “lying back” of the formation of their characters, and before they had done good or evil.
The favors were thus conferred according to his choice, or election.
Might stand - Might be confirmed; or might be proved to be true. The case shows that God dispenses his favors as a sovereign. The purpose of God was thus proved to have been formed without respect to the merits of either.
Not of works -
Not by anything which they had done either to merit his favor or to forfeit it. It was formed on other principles than a reference to their works. So it is in relation to all who shall be saved. God has good reasons for saving those who shall be saved. What the reasons are for choosing some to life, he has not revealed; but he has revealed to us that it is not on account of their works, either performed or foreseen.
But of him that calleth - According to the will and purpose of him that chooses to dispense those favors in this manner. It is not by the merit of man, but it is by a purpose having its origin with God, and formed and executed according to his good pleasure. It is also implied here that it is formed in such a way as to secure his glory as the primary consideration.
Here are just two but there are many more if you would like to read them, I will post them.
”
