The Euthyphro Dilemma is often treated as a decisive challenge to theistic ethics: either God commands what is good because it is independently good, or an action is good only because God commands it. This article argues that both horns rest on a false assumption that God and goodness are independent realities requiring external correlation. Drawing on the Divine Command Theory literature and its critics, together with Scripture, the article develops Divine Nature Theory: the position that moral goodness is grounded not in bare command nor in an external standard, but in God's own necessary and essentially good character, of which divine commands are a reliable but derivative expression. The argument moves through the structure of the Euthyphro Dilemma, the strengths and limits of Divine Command Theory, the case for Divine Nature Theory, the biblical account of human moral awareness, and a sustained engagement with Johannine theology, before summarizing the findings and their implications for Christian ethics.

References

 Adams, R. M. (1987). The virtue of faith and other essays in philosophical theology. Oxford University Press.

 Alston, W. P. (2001). Perceiving God: The epistemology of religious experience. Cornell University Press.

 Bauckham, R. (2008). Jesus and the God of Israel: God crucified and other studies on the New Testament's Christology of divine identity. Eerdmans.

 Bennema, C. (2022). A model of Johannine ethics. Studies in Christian Ethics, 35(3), 433–456.

 Brown, R. E. (1970). The Gospel according to John (XIII–XXI): Introduction, translation, and notes. Doubleday.

 Brown, R. E. (1982). The Epistles of John: A new translation with introduction and commentary. Doubleday.

 Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John. Eerdmans.

 Copan, P. (2011). Is God a moral monster? Making sense of the Old Testament God. Baker Books.

 Copan, P., & Flannagan, M. (2014). Did God really command genocide? Coming to terms with the justice of God. Baker Books.

 Dodd, C. H. (1953). The interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge University Press.  Evans, C. S. (2013). God and moral obligation. Oxford University Press.

 Keener, C. S. (2003). The Gospel of John: A commentary (Vols. 1–2). Hendrickson Publishers.

 Köstenberger, A. J. (2004). John. Baker Academic.  Kruse, C. G. (2020). The letters of John. Eerdmans.

 Middleton, J. R. (2005). The liberating image: The imago Dei in Genesis 1. Brazos Press.

 Moo, D. J. (2018). The Epistle to the Romans (2nd ed.). Eerdmans.

 Moreland, J. P., & Craig, W. L. (2003). Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview. InterVarsity Press.

 Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel according to John (Rev. ed.). Eerdmans.

 Plato. (1997). Complete works (J. M. Cooper, Ed.). Hackett Publishing Company.

 Quinn, P. L. (1978). Divine commands and moral requirements. Clarendon Press.

 Schreiner, T. R. (2018). Romans (2nd ed.). Baker Academic.

 Smalley, S. S. (1984). 1, 2, 3 John. Word Books.

 Thompson, M. M. (2015). John: A commentary. Westminster John Knox Press.

 Van der Watt, J. G. (2006). Ethics and ethos in the Gospel according to John. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 97(3–4), 147–176.

 Wierenga, E. (1983). A defensible divine command theory. Noûs, 17(3), 387–407.

 Wright, C. J. H. (2004). Old Testament ethics for the people of God. InterVarsity Press.

 Wright, N. T. (1996). Jesus and the victory of God. Fortress Press.

 Zagzebski, L. (2004). Divine motivation theory. Cambridge University Press.