Hades simply means realm of the spirits. Since the NT was translated into Greek, Hades was the word that best described Sheol from the OT. The idea of Hades comes from Sheol in the OT, not Greek mythology. In short, OT Sheol is translated Hades in the NT.
I've always said that Satan loves to put false icing on a true cake. We have the tendency to throw the whole thing away, or to use another metaphor, to throw the baby out with the bath water. I think that Purgatory, or the bad icing, had that purpose in mind, steering people away from a the Biblical truth of Sheol/Hades. Added to that the KJV erroneously translated that same word as 'hell' in many places. This was one of the errors that the NKJV fixed.
Here's a link that everyone should have in their library that touched on this and more. I found this about twenty years ago and it was saying many of the things that I was discovering at the same time.
From this link below i took a quick, brief description to save time...
www.opc.org
"In the Apostles' Creed (called thus, not because it was written by the apostles, but because it sets forth in summary fashion the teaching of the apostles), there is the phrase, "Was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into Hell [Hades] ...."
In the materials supplied by the Westminster Assembly (1643-1648), the version of the Apostles' Creed printed there contains a footnote to the words "descended into hell" which reads as follows: "i.e. Continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day." Similarly, the Westminster Larger Catechism Question 50 reads as follows: "Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?" Answer: "Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell." In other words, as understood by the Westminster Divines, "descended into hell" teaches that Jesus continued to be in the grave until the third day.
Incidentally, John Calvin took the phrase differently; he took it to mean in a metaphorical way that Christ endured the pains of hell on the cross. He argued that otherwise, this pithy Apostles' Creed said the same thing twice, which Calvin considered unlikely. He was probably right about one thing - that such a repetition was not part of the original Creed. In fact, the phrase, "descended into hell" was not original to the Creed. When it first appeared it was inserted as a substitute explanation for the phrase "buried". Only later did both terms appear together."
--------------------------
I know one thing, If Sheol/Hades is correct, as I understand it, then the traditional reformed view has big problems.
So, is this just a case of Biblical truth being buried by centuries of red tape, politics, or the "church"?
How did reformed theology, in my opinion, miss this doctrine? Is it just as easy as saying it's death, the grave, and clap our theological hands together, thus clapping the dust from our hands of all the theological complications that would arise otherwise?
What say you?
I've always said that Satan loves to put false icing on a true cake. We have the tendency to throw the whole thing away, or to use another metaphor, to throw the baby out with the bath water. I think that Purgatory, or the bad icing, had that purpose in mind, steering people away from a the Biblical truth of Sheol/Hades. Added to that the KJV erroneously translated that same word as 'hell' in many places. This was one of the errors that the NKJV fixed.
Here's a link that everyone should have in their library that touched on this and more. I found this about twenty years ago and it was saying many of the things that I was discovering at the same time.
From this link below i took a quick, brief description to save time...
Question & Answer: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church
We're the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Our purpose is simple: to bring glory to God through our churches and individual lives to make known to the world the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ
"In the Apostles' Creed (called thus, not because it was written by the apostles, but because it sets forth in summary fashion the teaching of the apostles), there is the phrase, "Was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into Hell [Hades] ...."
In the materials supplied by the Westminster Assembly (1643-1648), the version of the Apostles' Creed printed there contains a footnote to the words "descended into hell" which reads as follows: "i.e. Continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day." Similarly, the Westminster Larger Catechism Question 50 reads as follows: "Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?" Answer: "Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which has been otherwise expressed in these words, he descended into hell." In other words, as understood by the Westminster Divines, "descended into hell" teaches that Jesus continued to be in the grave until the third day.
Incidentally, John Calvin took the phrase differently; he took it to mean in a metaphorical way that Christ endured the pains of hell on the cross. He argued that otherwise, this pithy Apostles' Creed said the same thing twice, which Calvin considered unlikely. He was probably right about one thing - that such a repetition was not part of the original Creed. In fact, the phrase, "descended into hell" was not original to the Creed. When it first appeared it was inserted as a substitute explanation for the phrase "buried". Only later did both terms appear together."
--------------------------
I know one thing, If Sheol/Hades is correct, as I understand it, then the traditional reformed view has big problems.
So, is this just a case of Biblical truth being buried by centuries of red tape, politics, or the "church"?
How did reformed theology, in my opinion, miss this doctrine? Is it just as easy as saying it's death, the grave, and clap our theological hands together, thus clapping the dust from our hands of all the theological complications that would arise otherwise?
What say you?