Exegetical Thoughts on Romans 9:14-33

Romans 9:14-33, gets us into the meat of the tangent Paul is providing. Remember that in Romans 8, we saw Paul set forth the idea of God's unbreakable love.  In Romans 9:1-13, we saw Paul beginning to address the objection that God's love broke or failed as applied to the Israelites. Paul's response was to deny the objection and assert that instead God chose some of Israel rather than other.

This leads us to the objections that are always raised against God's sovereignty and unconditional election.  The first objection is that there is some kind of injustice with God.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 

Paul answers this objection by describing God's love as mercy, while denying that is based on human merit.  This is the very definition of unconditional election.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 

Notice that God takes all the credit and places all the determination of God's choice in God.  God does not simply say, "it is not by running, or by willing," God says is it is not of him who wills or him who runs.  Yes, in Greek "him" is not a separate word, but is conveyed by the verb conjugation.  Nevertheless, what is the bigger point is that it is not of that person, but of God who shows mercy.

Paul then presents the point negatively:

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thus, God takes credit for mercy and also for hardening.  This leads to one of the most common objections to so-called determinism:

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

If God shows mercy to some and hardens others, how is that fair?

Paul responds:

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Paul's analogy of choice is to compare us to pottery, with God as the potter.  If there is one thing that does not have "libertarian free will," it is a pot.  People sometimes mock the doctrines of grace by saying that turn humans into robots that cannot resist God's will, but simply follow their programming.  There weren't robots in Paul's day (that we know of), but pots are - if anything - a step below them.  Paul could have used a sheep analogy as is often used elsewhere in Scripture, but instead the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to compare us to pottery.

There was Scriptural precedent for this.  Isaiah 64:8, as part of a longer prayer, describes Israel as the clay and God as the potter.  Jeremiah 18 also use a pottery analogy. Psalm 2:9, Isaiah 30:14, and Jeremiah 19:11 compare people to pottery in the context of destruction. Lamentations 4:2  

But in fact, this is a quotation from Isaiah 29:16.

Isa 29:15-16

Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

We see the same point Paul is making in the intertestamental Jewish book of Wisdom (aka Wisdom of Solomon 15:7:

Wisdom of Solomon 15:7 For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.

Likewise, a similar point is made in another intertestamental Jewish book, Ecclesiasticus 33:13:

Ecclesiasticus 33:13 As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it at his pleasure: so man is in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best.

It seems apparent to me that the authors of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were drawing on the inspired analogy in Isaiah and elsewhere to affirm God's absolute sovereignty over humanity.

In any event, however, the point Paul is making is the same.  God decides what use each person is put to: whether they are put to the use of being vessels of mercy or whether they are put to the purpose of being vessels of destruction, it is all up to God.  It's not as though one lump of clay is more suited to one than the other, or as though God forsees what he will make of the lump and makes it that way because he forsaw what He would do (what an absurdity that would be!).

Paul confirms that God is indeed exercising his sovereignty, that God prophesied he would do this, and that this extends both to the salvation of the Gentile and the falling away of the Jews:

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. 27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: 28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

Notice that God's love is back in the picture "beloved, which was not beloved."

Notice that God is taking credit for the change: "he will finish the work" "a short work will the Lord make upon the earth" and "the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed".  This also fits well with the unconditional election mentioned again regarding the remnant in Romans 11.

Paul then begins to introduce salvation by faith, as distinct from works of the law.  Paul introduces the questions 

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

In Romans 10, Paul will go on to explain the principle of salvation by faith as distinct from obedience to the law.  Then Paul will encounter the objection that everyone hears the gospel, but not everyone has faith.  He will end up, in Romans 11, giving God the credit for this as well.

It's important to recognize this overall trajectory.  Salvation is by grace, through faith. At the same time, God is still taking credit.  God laid a stumblingstone, not a stairway or a ladder.

Some of the next discussion about faith may seem to place things back on man.

Rom 10:13

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται

Literally, for all those calling upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Paul makes it sound so easy that the question about Israel comes back:

Rom 10:18

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Then Paul increases the temperature of the discussion:

Rom 10:19-21

But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

This leads to Paul reiterating the point raised earlier in the beginning of Romans 9 and Romans 10 at the start of Romans 11:

Rom 11:1-6 

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Notice that contrary to what we may hear from those who object to the doctrines of grace, they were not the remnant because they didn't bow the knee, they didn't bow the knee because they were remnant - a remnant according to God's choice by grace, not works.   

This leads to Paul concluding Romans 11 in these words:

Rom 11:25-36

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.¶

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

The last portion is especially reminiscent of Isaiah:

 Isa 40:13-17

Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.

Exegetical Thoughts on Romans 9:6-13

Romans 9:6-13

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Now Paul answers the objection that God's word failed or was ineffectual.  His solution is simple: he distinguishes between physical Israel and spiritual Israel.  Physical Israel would be his brethren according to the flesh.  Spiritual Israel, however, are the "children of the promise." 

The promise is a theme that Paul developed back in Romans 4:13-22:

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

The children of the promise, therefore, is a reference to the children promised to Abraham. Moreover, keep in mind the point that what God promises, God performs.  Abraham may have brought Ishmael, but God brought Isaac.  Thus, the children of promise have a specific connection to God's work, as distinct from human work.

Paul proves that the promised children are not simply the children according to the flesh in two ways:

• Isaac, not Ishmael, was the child of promise
• Jacob, not Esau, was the child of promise

Ishmael was the child that Abraham conceived with Hagar.  Isaac, however, was promised by God to Sarah.  It is not exactly the same promise of being "heir of the world," but it was a part of that.  

Likewise, even while they were in the womb, God made a promise to Rebecca that Esau (the elder) would serve the younger (Jacob).

Moreover, this distinction between Esau and Jacob was based on God's love, returning to the theme we were given in Romans 8.  Paul quotes a couplet from Malachi 1.  The point Paul is making is clear, namely that God loved one brother rather than the other brother from before their birth and not based on what they were going to do.

Some have suggested that the portion of Malachi 1 quoted by Paul relates to the nations of Israel and Edom, as those nations are addressed in the the context there.  

Malachi 1:1-5

1 The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.

In this passage God is speaking directly to Israel.  Israel complains that God doesn't love them, and God contradicts that.  God uses Edom as a counter-illustration.  God says that although Edom is optimistic about their future, God will make a negative example of them. In the process, God points back to the original brothers: Jacob and Esau.  God says he loved Jacob and hated Esau.  

Paul quotes the same words as are found in the Septuagint, but the Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew text have the same meaning here. The Hebrew verb for hated has a perfect aspect, while the verb for loved apparently has an imperfect aspect, while the Greek uses the aorist in both cases.  Our English translation of Romans 9 uses perfect for both and our English translation of Malachi 1 uses past for both of them.  The main takeaway here is that the precise form of the verb is not the key.

Instead, the key is - of course - Paul's usage of God's own statement in Malachi.  Paul is connecting God's love to God's choice about who will serve whom.  Furthermore, Paul is disconnecting that love and choice from the personal history of the brothers. One might argue that Edom got its desolation through its malfeasance.  On the other hand, Paul specifically says "the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil." The point of raising this is not to illustrate God's prescience.

We know that it is not about prescience, because Paul explains: "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." 

The critical distinction here between "works" and "him who calls" introduces election into the chain that we already say established and specifically prohibits the interpretation that it is about the one who responds.  

You may recall the golden chain:

(Preamble) And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 

(1) For whom he did foreknow, (ὅτι οὓς προέγνω )

(2) he also did predestinate (καὶ προώρισεν)

(3a) to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·)

(2) Moreover whom he did predestinate, (οὓς δὲ προώρισεν)

(3b) them he also called: and whom he called, (τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν· καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν)

(4) them he also justified: and whom he justified, (τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν· οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν)

(5) them he also glorified. (τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν)

You will notice that God's election, as such, as is not mentioned explicitly in the golden chain.

Now, however, we see the purpose of God mentioned again.  Before, it was explained that the calling was according to God's purpose.  Now, God's purpose is described as being "according to election."

The election in mind here is the selection of one or the other brother as the child of promise.  The children according to the promise are ultimately the children promised to Abraham, namely the children who are to be heirs of the world.  

The key aspect to notice is that the election is not of works, but of him who called.  It is also not "of him who responded to the call."  The point is that the election was conditional on God and God's love, not on the person being elected.

This will lead us to the objection that we are going to discuss next, about whether there is unrighteousness/injustice with God.  It is literally the most common objection to the idea of unconditional election, that it makes God unjust or unrighteous, since it is not conditioned on the person but instead on God.

As we mentioned when discussing Romans 9:1-5, the objection being framed here is ultimately also answered in Romans 11.  There Paul returns to the discussion of God's election.  In Romans 11:5, Paul calls it "the election of grace," meaning that the election is not based on human merit.  Likewise, in Romans 11:7, Paul demonstrates that the election is only about God, by contrasting, "Israel has not obtained ..." with "the election has obtained it" and further with "the rest were blinded."

In Romans 11:8 Paul gives God full credit for those who do not obtain it not obtaining it. 

While Paul then does discuss faith and unbelief, and provides proximate credit to their unbelief, in Romans 11:32, Paul makes it clear that God is behind it all: "God has concluded them all in unbelief...." It leads to Paul's glorious conclusion in Romans 11:36: "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

These are the same "all things" that work together for good to the called, which we can now also describe as the election, those who were predestined, those who were loved beforehand by God, not because of something in them, and not because of foreseen good deeds, but because of something in God.

Here we must reiterate that in the phrase, "the election has obtained it," the "election" is reference to people.  People obtain something.  The "election," therefore, is not simply the plan of salvation Sola Fide, though God certainly did choose that.  The election are the people God chose.

We saw a first reference to them back in Romans 8:33: "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?"  Thus, in the context of Romans 9, we see election of people (not plans) in mind.

As we discussed in the context of Romans 8, when addressing the issue of foreknowledge in the plan of salvation, foreknowledge is the basis of election. 1 Peter 1:2 says, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father ..." as we discussed before.

The harmonization of these various strands is unconditional election.  God, out of love of us before our creation - and without consideration of our individual merit - chose some people to be the children of promise, and others he "hated."  Election of people leads to their active, powerful calling, which leads to their justification, and ultimately their glorification.

Some may say that calling is never irresistable.  I cannot agree with this claim.  Recall what is written in the Prophet:

Isa 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

This discussion is part of Isaiah's announcement of Cyrus as well as one of the central claims of God's divinity.  Indeed, only a few verses later we find part of the inspiration for Paul's use of the potter analogy:

Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

For the purposes of the passage we are considering now, however, the point is that calling is not necessarily at all about the response.  Calling someone a name is what God does or our parents do.  We can call ourselves a name (I'm an example of that), but God's calling is not something I have any control over.  Calling myself "TurretinFan" doesn't change the name my parents gave me, nor does it change the name God gives me - the surname of the family of God.

This is not a stretch, because we see it in the direct context:

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Notice that the calling here has nothing to do with Isaac's response.  It's all about God and God's claim.  

Later in the chapter, we will see the same thing:

Rom 9:24-25

Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

We need to discard the inserted idea that the "calling" mentioned is simply the gospel call. To "call them my people," is not simply to preach the gospel.  To call Isaac (as distinct form his half-brothers) the child of promise is more than just inviting him to take some further action.

No, God's calling in this context is a calling of power.  It is God taking what God wants.  It is God saying, "these are mine."

 

Exegetical Thoughts on the Golden Chain in Romans 8

Our text for consideration today is Romans 8. The passage is a marvelously Trinitarian passage, with the activities of the Father, Son, and Spirit shown to be in harmony throughout.  The passage is part of a larger passage designed to comfort the Romans reading this letter, because the Trinity is on their side.

Romans 8:28-30
8:28  οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν 29 ὅτι οὓς προέγνω καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς· 30  οὓς δὲ προώρισεν τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν· καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν· οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν 

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The point of this text is that God works all things together for the good of the elect.  Not simply that they work together on their own, or in the abstract, but that they work together harmoniously because God is behind it.  From beginning to end, it is all God.

The chain begins with "foreknow." This verb (προέγνω, a form of the verb proginosko) is used five times in the New Testament, in four different forms.  The next use in Romans will come in chapter 11, when Paul wraps up his objection that he will first raise in Romans 9. 

Rom 11:2-8 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

Romans 11 is, of course, a few pages later in the letter.  That said, it's in the New Testament, in a book by the same human author, in the very same book as the text under discussion, and connecting to the discussion of Romans 9:1-6, which comes only a few verses after the "Golden Chain."  So, the usage in Romans 11 is more relevant than the usage in other books of the NT, books by other humans authors, and certainly then usage in books by uninspired writers.

In Romans 8 and in Romans 11, the object of foreknowledge is people.  The object is not deeds.  The object is not works.  The object is not faith.  In Romans 8, one might think that the issue is ambiguous.  After all, much of Romans is about the difference between obtaining salvation by faith as distinct from works.

Romans 11 puts that interpretation of Romans 8 to rest, because it explains that the election obtained and the rest were blinded, quoting from Isaiah 29:10, which states: "For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered."  We also see Paul's reliance on Isaiah 29 in Romans 9, where Paul borrows an analogy from Isaiah 29:16.

Now, the idea that the elect were foreknown because they were not blinded nor given the spirit of deep sleep is absurd.  God cast away people, yes, Paul admits, but God did not cast away those he foreknew, whom Paul equates with the elect.

The next New Testament usage, which is far less significant, is Luke's report of Paul's words in Acts 26, there, Luke records Paul as saying:

Act 26:4-5
My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

This is plainly a very different usage of the word.  Paul is speaking about human knowledge, not divine knowledge.  On the other hand, one important grammatical point remains constant.  The object of the foreknowledge was Paul, the man.  In this case, it also rolls over into his deeds.  The point, however, is to call these people as character witnesses: people who had an intimate knowledge of him and were his close associates and friends from his youth.  They previously knew him, though now they are not acquainted with him.  

The next two usages of the verb foreknow are found in Peter's letters, one in each.  Peter writes:

1 Peter 1:19-20
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Some translations will translate the verb as "foreknown" here instead of "foreordained," but the consistent point is that it was Christ himself, the person, who was foreknown.

Finally, in his second epistle, Peter writes:

2 Peter 3:17
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Here we finally have an example of knowing things, rather than people.  It's certainly a different usage, but it shows that the object of foreknowledge can be things, rather than people, even though it is always people in Paul's usage.

These are, of course, the five uses of proginosko (Strong's number 4267) as distinct from prognosis (4268).

Prognosis (4268) is used twice, both times by Peter, once as reported by Luke in Acts: 

Act 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

In this instance, Christ is said to have been delivered by God's counsel and foreknowledge.  The object of the foreknowledge is not explicit in this verse. Nevertheless, it is grammatically parallel with God's counsel.  Thus, it logically precedes the events to which it relates, rather than logically following them.

And prognosis is used once in Peter's first epistle:

1 Peter 1:1-2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

This incredibly Trinitarian passage, provides a triple action of God: election according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ.

Once again, in this passage, foreknowledge cannot refer to foreknowledge of the actions of the people, because the foreknowledge leads to the election, which leads to the other things, including obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ.

Returning to the golden chain passage, we see this progression:

(1) For whom he did foreknow, (ὅτι οὓς προέγνω )
(2) he also did predestinate (καὶ προώρισεν)
(3a) to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·)
(2) Moreover whom he did predestinate, (οὓς δὲ προώρισεν)
(3b) them he also called: and whom he called, (τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν· καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν)
(4) them he also justified: and whom he justified, (τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν· οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν)
(5) them he also glorified. (τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν)

The discussion hinges largely on the question of foreknowledge.  In this text itself, it seems clear that the object of foreknowledge is people.  After all, it is not foreseen actions that are glorified, nor foreseen actions that are justified, nor foreseen actions that are called.  It is not foreseen actions that are predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son.  Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that foreknowledge is a knowledge of the person in advance, not a vision of their future action.

After all, vision of their future actions runs into immediate conflict with link (3a) of the chain.  Their actions are predestinated.  In particular, they are predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son.

Notice as well that even in this passage designed to comfort the Romans, Paul points to the adoption of sons (something he had mentioned earlier in the passage) as having the objection of providing many brethren for Jesus.  The purpose is not to reward those who are foreseen as being more deserving (or less deserving) or to reward good and punish evil (though God certainly does do such things).  Instead, the purpose is God-centered, like everything else in salvation for Paul.

Returning to the point about foreknowledge, notice a point that is often overlooked in these discussions.  The same group that is mentioned in link (5) has to be the same group in link (4) and so on.  That extends all the way back to link (1).  God foreknows certain people, and not others.  This is one defeater for the argument that foreknowledge is foresight of faith, works, or anything else.  After all, those who God foreknows, he predestinates, but we do not claim God predestinates all. Universalism is wrong.

Moreover, this interpretation of the golden chain is confirmed by the verses that immediately follow:

Rom 8:31-39

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The point of the golden chain is the love of God.  Moreover, the use of the term "know" to mean "love" or the like is well within the semantic range of the word.  Paul's own usage in Acts 26, in a completely different context, confirms this kind of usage as reasonable for foreknow.  It's not controversial that Paul is talking about people who were close to him in that passage.  Likewise, it should not be controversial to accept that Paul is talking about God having an intimate love and connection with people that extends back.  

If Romans 8:31-39 is an explanation of the passage that precedes it, then the most logical understanding of foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 is of God loving certain particular people.  After all, if we were merely speaking of God's prescience, surely God's prescience extends to all creation, not just some people.  Furthermore, while much of Romans is about faith, Paul's point in this passage is not about the triumph of faith over works, but rather about the triumph of the love of God against everything.

Look back over Romans 8:1-27.  The theme there is one of comfort.  There is no condemnation (vs. 1), the Spirit makes free from sin and death (vs. 2), God condemned sin (vs. 3) and we should walk in righteousness (vss. 3-6).  The flesh can do nothing (vss. 7-8) but if you have the Spirit and Christ you have life (vss. 9-11), we are debtors to the Spirit not the flesh and are sons of God (vss. 12-16), as children we will get all the benefits children get including glory after the present sufferings which we endure in hope (vss. 17-25), the Spirit helps us and intercedes to the Father for us (vss. 26-27).

Notice that within these words of comfort we have another important point, the contrast between what God accomplishes and what we would be apart from God.  That point is brought forth in vss. 4-10:

Romans 8:4-10 

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh,
-- but after the Spirit.
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;
-- but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death;
-- but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
-- But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
-- And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The startling contrast in this text demonstrates the important difference between the "foreknown" group that Paul is about to discuss and the others.  The difference is the Spirit and Christ.  After all, those who do not have the Spirit have just the flesh, they are carnally minded, and most critically are not just not subject to the law of God, but they cannot be.  They cannot please God.

By contrast, the elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son.  The elect are debtors to live in righteousness, not in order to obtain a reward from God, but because they have been blessed beyond their ability to repay.

Thus, once again, it would be impossible for those who are "foreknown" logically prior to predestination to be "foreknown" as anything other than displeasing to God.  Without the Spirit, they are in the flesh, carnally minded, and so forth.

On the other hand, if God foreknows us, we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son.  We will be called, justified, and glorified.

Because of the linking among the links of the chain, the justification that the called receive will inevitably follow.  After all, if Christ died for us, God will give us all things.  It would make no sense for God to sacrifice Christ for us and then give us a calling, but not justification, or justification but not glorification.  Yet again, all things work together for good to those who are the called according to the purpose of God.  

The called are the same group that are ultimately glorified.  That's why we sometimes refer to this as effectual calling. We could call it other names instead, but the point is that the call leads inevitably to justification and ultimately glorification.  It's part of God's predestination.  Moreover, God's predestination is founded on God's foreknowledge of particular people.  More could be said on this point, but the main thing to be said is that this is, in context, love for those people, not foresight of their deeds. 

The Real Francis Turretin on: God's Knowledge of the Future

Glenn H. at Pot and Torch has an interesting post on the topic of Unconditional Election. (link) I especially enjoyed the introductory quotations he provided from Ames and Turretin, two of the great systematic theologians.

-TurretinFan