Are these the same name for the devil

Heard that beelzebub, satan and lucifer were all the same fallen angel, the devil. However apparently they are different according to theologians I think? Is this true, I thought they were the same.

Satan is a Hebrew word meaning “adversary.” In the OT, the word appears as the name of the devil almost exclusively in the book of Job. In the few other books where it occasionally appears, it is usually found applying to an adversary or enemy in battle. For example, in 1 Sam 29:4, the Philistine kings, fighting a battle against the Israelites, describe David as their “adversary” or enemy. In the original Hebrew, he is their “satan.” But in Job, Satan is the adversary of God.

Beelzebub means, literally, “Lord Fly.” Beel is the same as Baal, meaning “lord,” and zebub is the Hebrew word for a fly. When the name is translated into English, it is usually seen as “Lord of the Flies.”

Finally, “Lucifer” is a Latin word meaning “Light-bearer.” When any of these three terms is used to designate the devil, it’s the same devil in every case.




I believe Abaddon and Apollyon are also names for the devil.

1 Like

I believe the old saying goes: “I go by many names…”

I believe there is a point in some Holy Week Latin liturgy where the word “Lucifer” is used to refer to Christ. Gives people a shock if they don’t understand what the word means.

1 Like

Yes, the name Lucifer, Latin which translates as Light Bearer or Morning Star, refers to Jesus. That’s in the Exsultet, which is the Easter Proclamation sung at the Easter Vigil Mass.

Unrelated to that, the name Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 refers to both the King of Babylon and the Morning Star (the planet Venus when it is seen in the pre-dawn sky). It’s a great metaphor for a king, as Venus, when it first enters the morning sky, shines brightly and rises quickly for several weeks, and then dims and slowly sets over the next several months.

I don’t buy the whole Lucifer as the devil business. That’s a medieval interpretation due to a misreading of Isaiah 14:12. The word “lucifer” (daystar, morning star, light-bringer) appears in the Vulgate and is a common noun, not a proper name that refers to the King of Babylon during the latter years of the Kingdom of Judah.

When first used as a personal name, it was a Christian name, in honour of Jesus himself, as he is referred to as lucifer (common noun) in the Exsultet of the Easter Vigil. A notable example is Saint Lucifer of Cagliari, venerated in Sardinia. He was a staunch orthodox bishop who was associated with an unfortunate schism due to his strict position against reinstating reconciled Arian clergy, having suffered much himself at the hands of the heretics.

I roll my eyes every time I hear popular catechesis say, “the devil was once an angel named Lucifer”. What a groaner.


Just a reminder that devil always mocks God, so name Lucifer is very on point here, you can roll your eyes as much as you want. It’s as: “Lightbearer” but he’s not truly bringing the light, he is rather a bringer of sin and darkness, but as always presents himself as a good guy. This name is also used supposedly because of his past — namely when he was the greatest angel that stood by God.

Funnily enough, in my country (Poland), this name belongs to Our Lady. We call to her “Gwiazdo Zaranna”, which literally means “Morning Star”. So basically: title occupied, soo sorry it belongs to Our Queen :wink:

1 Like

“Morning Star” is a title of Our Lady in other countries too. It’s from the Litany of Loreto :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

I mean not really.

It’s also because he’s deceptive and appears as an Angel of light, it’s also because he was once the highest Angel of all of them, having the highest place in heaven until he fell.

1 Like

Also, this is what St. Augustine said about it. Hardly some “medieval misreading”

For example, what is said in Isaiah, “How he is fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning!” and the other statements in that context that speak of the king of Babylon are of course to be understood of the devil. However, the statement that is made in the same place, “He that sent orders to all nations is crushed on the earth,” does not altogether fitly apply to the head himself. - “Christian Instruction 3.37”

1 Like

Yes, I am aware of the Augustinian quote, and it does not change anything I said. Augustine’s interpretation is an expanded application of the spiritual sense, not of the literal. As such, Augustine, who wrote also in Latin, did not use the word “lucifer” as a proper noun, but a common one as it is in the Vulgate. It therefore is not proof that the devil was at one time named Lucifer because the word is not a name. It is not “O Lucifer”, but “O lucifer”.

As for the “highest angel of them all”, yes we also keep hearing this along with the “he was once named Lucifer” claim, which no support from Scripture or Magisterium. The most we can tell was that he was an angel who rebelled and fell: of that we have support from the New Testament. For all we know, he was always Satan, the accuser of man, and it could have been an office he held even when he was still in God’s service. All we know is that he is the ancient serpent, a deceiver and accuser. Revelation connects him to the serpent in Genesis which is why as Christians we can apply the serpent as a representation of the devil, and 2 Peter refers to fallen angels, from which we could draw the conclusion that the devil is of that number.

Augustine’s interpretation, as an application of the spiritual sense is of course valid, but since it goes beyond the literal sense, it does not serve as a proof text.

I’m going to go with the Church’s interpretation which has always been that Lucifer was the highest Angel prior to the fall, and that Isiah does in fact reference him. St. Augustine is not the only saint to have made the reference, nor is he the only Doctor to have done so. Thank you.

And that’s my counter. I don’t believe this is the Church’s interpretation. If it were, I would not be making this argument, but I don’t believe this has ever been the Church’s position, but the result of popular catechesis. Saints’ writings are good and valuable, but they do not Magisterium make.

Do you have any sources to back it isn’t? Anything from Tradition and not something new?

And some of them actually do form part of the magisterium, especially those accepted by the Church, like his.

It’s actually pretty thoughtful symbol:

Just like the morning star that precedes the dawn, Our Lady precedes the Coming of Christ. Her light is beautiful, but the following brightness of the Day (Jesus) surpasses everything.

Of course, one could also add it is right to show her as Venus, since she is the true and eternal peak of womanhood (“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”).

But there’s more: we also call her by the titles Stella Maris, Our Lady Star of the Sea , or Mary, Star of the Sea in which seafarers (and our Apostleship of the Sea too) recognise her as guide.

And if we’ll look at the Church from the perspective of comparison to the Barque of St. Peter, calling her Stella Maris — a guiding star — acquires a next level of meaning.

We also know from Diary of St. Faustina that souls in Purgatory are calling Our Lady “Star of the Sea” too.


I love “Star of the Sea”. I grew up near a big lake, and my dad was in the Navy.

I wish it would be added to the Litany of Loreto. I usually just go ahead and add it myself.

I’m rather baffled as to why it’s not in there because we do have churches and missions, usually in port towns, that are called “Stella Maris” or “Our Lady Star of the Sea”.


He wasn’t an Archangel, he was a seraphim.

Rumor has it Beelzebub once took the form of a pig’s head and talked to a boy on an island.


1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit