A Biblical Creationist Answer to the 2400-Year-Old Question

The Euthyphro Dilemma has challenged folks for over 2,400 years. First posed by Aristotle (and recorded by Plato), it asks what seems to be a simple question that, nevertheless, creates a troubling choice for Christians: “Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s good?”

The ancient puzzle creates two problematic options:

• If something’s good only because God commands it, morality seems arbitrary. Could God have commanded murder to be good instead of evil? This makes goodness seem random rather than meaningful.
• If God commands something because it’s already good, it suggests moral standards exist independently of God. This implies God is subject to external rules, undermining His sovereignty.

Atheist philosophers often argue the dilemma proves the incoherence of Christian ethics. But does it really? A Biblical Creationist perspective offers a compelling third option that resolves the puzzle.

 

LOOKING BEYOND THE FALSE DICHOTOMY

The Euthyphro Dilemma presents a false choice. Scripture reveals a more profound truth: Goodness flows from God’s unchanging nature. Morality is neither arbitrary nor independent of God—it’s a reflection of who He is.

James 1:17 tells us God is the “Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” Malachi 3:6 declares, “For I the LORD do not change.” Hebrews 13:8 affirms that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

God’s commands don’t create goodness arbitrarily, nor does He discover goodness outside Himself. Rather, His commands reveal and express His eternal, unchanging character.

 

CREATION: THE FOUNDATION OF MORAL REALITY

Genesis provides our essential starting point. When God created the universe, He repeatedly declared His work “good” (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) and ultimately “very good” (Genesis 1:31). This wasn’t God conforming to some external standard of goodness—it was God’s own nature being expressed in His creation.

As Creator, God designed the universe with moral laws that reflect His character. These aren’t arbitrary rules but expressions of reality as He intended it to function. Just as God created physical laws such as gravity, He created moral laws that govern human relationships and reflect His nature of love, justice, and holiness.

The Fall didn’t change God’s moral nature—it damaged humanity’s ability to discern and follow it. Yet even after the Fall, Paul notes God’s law remains “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15), a testament to our created nature and God’s unchanging character.

 

GOD’S COMMANDS: EXPRESSIONS OF HIS NATURE

When God commands us not to murder, lie, or steal, He’s not inventing rules arbitrarily. He’s instructing us to live in alignment with the moral reality He created—which, in turn, reflects His loving and just nature.

Consider the Ten Commandments. They aren’t random rules but expressions of God’s character. Commands against idolatry reflect His unique position as Creator. Commands about human relationships reflect His love and justice.

This understanding refines Divine Command Theory. God’s commands aren’t good simply because He declares them so. They’re good because they express His fundamentally good nature. And His nature is good not by conforming to some external standard, but as the very definition and source of goodness itself.

 

ANSWERING COMMON OBJECTIONS

Critics often ask: “Could God command something terrible like torturing children, and would that make it good?” The Biblical answer is clear: God cannot command such things because they contradict His unchanging nature. As 2 Timothy 2:13 states, “He cannot deny himself.” Just as God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), He cannot command what contradicts His nature.

This isn’t a limitation on God’s power but an affirmation of His consistency and perfection. Omnipotence doesn’t mean God can do what’s logically impossible—like make a square circle or act contrary to His nature.

Critics sometimes say, “If God is good because of His nature, we’re just asking the same question about His nature instead of His commands.” In other words, they say we’re asking whether God’s nature is good because it just is (arbitrarily), or because it conforms to some independent standard of goodness that exists outside God. They believe we’ve merely shifted the dilemma from God’s commands to God’s nature without actually resolving the fundamental problem.

But this misses the point of what Scripture teaches. God doesn’t just “have” goodness like we might have a skill or trait—goodness is His very identity and has been forever. As the Creator who exists by Himself and created everything else, God’s character is the ultimate starting point. Just as we don’t ask “What caused the first cause?”, we don’t need to look for something beyond God to explain goodness. He is the original source from which all goodness flows.

 

LIVING IN GOD’S MORAL REALITY

This understanding transforms how we approach ethics. Moral living isn’t about following arbitrary divine rules. It’s about aligning ourselves with the moral reality God created, reflecting His character in our lives.

When we study Scripture, we’re not just learning commands but discovering God’s nature. The Bible reveals who God is, and therefore what goodness is. Jesus embodied this perfectly, showing us God’s character in human form.

As image-bearers created to reflect God’s nature, we fulfil our purpose when we embody His goodness in our thoughts and actions. This gives Christian ethics a coherence and depth that transcends both moral relativism and rigid legalism.

 

CONCLUSION: THE CREATOR’S CHARACTER IS THE ANSWER

The Euthyphro Dilemma presents a false choice because it fails to account for God as Creator. Morality isn’t arbitrary divine commands, nor is it independent of God. Rather, it’s grounded in God’s unchanging nature as expressed through creation.

The Biblical Creationist answer is this: God neither invented nor discovered morality. Goodness is an expression of who God eternally is—the necessary foundation of all value and meaning. As Creator, He designed the universe to reflect His character, establishing a moral reality that we’re called to recognize and embrace.

This answer doesn’t just resolve an ancient philosophical puzzle. It invites us into a life-changing truth: when we pursue goodness, we’re drawing near to the very heart of God Himself.

 

THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA: RELATED FAQs

Where does the Euthyphro Dilemma get its name? The dilemma is named after Plato’s dialogue “Euthyphro,” in which Socrates asks whether something is pious because the gods love it, or if the gods love it because it is pious. This ancient conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro took place around 399 BC, as Socrates was on his way to his trial for impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens. While the original dialogue focused on “piety” rather than “goodness,” the fundamental question about the relationship between divine approval and moral qualities remains the same.

How does the Euthyphro Dilemma relate to the problem of evil? The problem of evil asks how a good God could allow suffering, while the Euthyphro Dilemma questions the nature of goodness itself in relation to God. From a Biblical Creationist perspective, understanding that God’s goodness is His essential nature helps us approach the problem of evil differently. Rather than seeing God as either powerless against evil or defining evil as good, we recognise God’s unchanging good nature works within a fallen world, using even suffering to accomplish His purposes without ever contradicting His character.

Couldn’t God’s nature itself be arbitrary rather than necessary? God’s nature isn’t arbitrary but necessary—it couldn’t be otherwise because He’s the self-existent foundation of all reality. Scripture reveals God as “I AM” (Exodus 3:14), indicating His essential, non-contingent existence. To suggest God’s nature could have been different misunderstands His position as the uncreated Creator whose attributes aren’t chosen or developed but eternally essential to His being.

How does Jesus’ incarnation relate to the Euthyphro Dilemma? The incarnation of Christ provides the ultimate demonstration that God’s goodness isn’t abstract but personal and demonstrated in human history. When Jesus said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), He was revealing God’s moral nature is knowable and expressed perfectly in Christ’s own character and actions. The incarnation bridges the gap between divine morality and human understanding, showing us not just commands to follow but a person to emulate.

How does a Biblical Creationist view of the Euthyphro Dilemma differ from other Christian theological traditions? While many Christian traditions respond to the Euthyphro Dilemma by grounding morality in God’s nature, the Biblical Creationist perspective particularly emphasises God’s role as Creator in establishing the moral framework of reality. Rather than viewing morality primarily through philosophical abstractions, we see it as part of the created order—God designed the universe with moral laws reflecting His character, just as He established physical laws. This creation-based approach provides a more concrete, historically-grounded understanding than purely philosophical responses.

How does this view affect our understanding of moral disagreements between cultures? Moral differences between cultures don’t indicate morality is merely cultural but rather reflect varying degrees of alignment with or deviation from God’s created moral order. The Biblical Creationist view acknowledges that the Fall affects human moral perception, explaining why cultures differ in their moral codes while maintaining that an objective moral reality exists. This view respects cultural diversity while avoiding relativism, recognising all human moral codes are imperfect attempts to grasp the moral reality God created.

If morality reflects God’s nature, why do we need the Bible to tell us what’s right and wrong? While God’s moral law is written on human hearts (Romans 2:14-15), sin distorts our moral perception, making divine revelation necessary. Scripture doesn’t create new moral realities but clarifies and corrects our understanding of the moral order God established at creation. The Bible serves as corrective lenses for our sin-clouded moral vision, revealing both God’s character and how His created moral order applies to specific situations.

 

THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA: OUR RELATED POSTS

• Who Says God is Hidden or Distant? He is Just a Prayer Away
• Pain and Suffering: Christian Perspectives
• Called Home Early: Reformed Perspectives on Infant Death
• Can God Be Truly Sovereign and Man Be Free? The Biblical Perspective