Here is where Pate goes off the rails and it is completely understandable as to why. In Pate's theology, God doesn't predestine in any meaningful way, therefore Pate must somehow sneak the notion that God's choice of Jacob is someway attributable to something meritorious in Jacob rather than God's sovereign choice. Thus Pate talks about how Jacob loved God, loved the spiritual things of God, etc...
But that's not what the text says at all.
Pate's commentary on the verse is actually contradicted by the verse itself!
And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-- in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Romans 9:10-16 ESV)
Pate comments and implies that God chose Jacob because Jacob loved the spiritual things of God. The text completely precludes this taking great pains to point out that God chose before either were born or had done anything good or bad.
Pate, can you please explain to us why you skipped over this important detail in order to provide commentary that is actually, directly contradicted by the text you are attempting to comment upon?