So when you say: ” Was God doing injustice via this choice? Paul says no. But once again, the theme is the service and use in history, not of personal salvation.”

I think this is to go too far. Paul says it is “Not of him who will or him who runs but God who shows mercy” That is one example of a focus on individuals. The proceeding verses also seem to indicate that it is individualse who are in the scope of this election.

“But who are you, O man [singular], to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

And I would also contend that Pharaoh, Esau, and Jacob were all individuals in real time and space who experienced the doctrine of election or reprobation.
That said I think individuals are certainly in the scope of paul’s writing here. I mean he goes on to express his hearts sorrow of the lostness of Israel I don’t think this was sorrow out of patriotism but sorrow for individuals he loved who were Israelites and rejected the Messiah.

Again, this assumes that Paul has the same scope as Malachi did when he penned the words Paul quotes. It doesn’t necessarily follow that just because that was Malachi’s scope when he wrote those words that it is Paul’s when he cites them in Roman’s 9. You will notice that the apostle’s often cite texts and give them New Covenant meaning when they meant something different in their original context. So I think it is hasty to say “X is what Malachi meant so that is what Paul meant too.”

1.) Your interpretation, or that of Dr. Reese, fails to take into account Romans 9:1-5. It is here that I find the issue of salvation for here Paul speaks of wishing to be “accursed and cut off from Christ” (v.3). Considering Romans 8:37-39 says that no one can be cut off from God’s saving love and considering Paul’s use of “accursed” in the only two other places in his writings (Galatians 1:8-9), how does this interpretation fit in with this?

2.) In Romans 1:16-8:39, Paul is speaking about salvation. In Romans 9:30-11:33, Paul is speaking about salvation again. It seems that the interpretation offered breaks the flow of thought in the sub-unit of Romans 9-11, the larger unit of Romans 1-11, and the overall flow of the epistle itself. How does this interpretation fit into the flow of Paul’s thought in Romans?

3.) All of the lexical work I’ve seen on the Hebrew term sane’ and the Greek term miseo takes the term to mean hate or hatred, not loved less. Similarly, all of the lexical work I’ve seen on the Hebrew term ahab and the Greek term agapao takes the terms to mean love, not love more. On what basis does Dr. Reese make the distinction of “loved more” and “loved less” vs. “loved” and “hated?”

4.) It is true that we do not see the text say “and God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” until after Pharaoh hardened his heart first. But nearly every time Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, whether he did it himself or God did or it was just hardened, we see something like “as the LORD had said.” In Exodus 4:21, God told Moses to do all of the miracles that God had put into his power. But God was going to harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he won’t listen to Moses and the miracle he performs. This statement was made in the cave with the burning bush before Moses left Midian to go to Egypt on his mission to free the Hebrew slaves. How does this interpretation you have presented incorporate Exodus 4:21 and still maintain that God hardened after Pharaoh did? If every hardening was as the LORD had said, and God said he was going to harden Pharaoh, then it is very difficult for me to ascribe to this interpretation.