Is the concept of choosing the “lesser of two evils” biblical?
The phrase “lesser of two evils” refers to the idea that when faced with selecting between two undesirable options, the morally correct choice is to select the option that minimizes harm. This concept arises in many practical situations – for example, voting for a political candidate that one dislikes but finds less objectionable than the alternative. But does the Bible support or reject the notion of choosing the “lesser evil”? Let’s explore what Scripture says.
Old Testament Examples
Several stories in the Old Testament illustrate situations where a person was forced to choose between two bad options. In some cases, these choices involved overt sin, while in others it was merely choosing between two unpleasant alternatives.
One example is the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19. Wicked men in the city wanted to abuse the Levite sexually, so he shoved his concubine outside to them instead, where she was raped and killed. The Levite chose to sacrifice his concubine rather than himself be abused. This seems a clear case of someone choosing the “lesser evil” for their own benefit. However, the story portrays the Levite’s choice in a very negative light.
Another example is when the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah lied to Pharaoh about why they did not kill newborn Hebrew boys (Exodus 1:15-21). One could argue they chose the lesser evil by lying rather than allowing the babies to be killed. But the text gives no indication they were punished or considered guilty for this.
So in a sense, these women chose a lesser sin (lying) over a greater one (murder). Yet Scripture never praises them for selecting the “lesser evil.” At most, it presents this as the best choice in a lamentable situation.
The book of Samuel includes a few instances where people choose apparent lesser evils. Saul’s unlawful sacrifice (1 Samuel 13) was wrong, yet he rationalized it was the lesser evil compared to his army scattering. Samuel condemns Saul’s choice, which had stemmed from failing to wait patiently for the prophet.
Later, David lied to the priest Ahimelech to get food when fleeing Saul (1 Samuel 21). This also seems a lesser evil over starvation, yet it cost Ahimelech his life when Saul ordered Doeg to kill him for aiding David. The narrative portrays the difficult situation without explicitly judging the morality of David’s lie.
Finally, note the interaction between Jeremiah and King Zedekiah in Jeremiah 38. Zedekiah permitted Jeremiah to be lowered into a cistern and sunk in the mud rather than handed over to his officials seeking the prophet’s death. Though this avoided Jeremiah’s death, the cruel treatment was still condemned.
In none of these Old Testament accounts do Biblical authors indicate that choosing the lesser of two sins was morally permissible or the right course of action. At best, the text presents it as the inevitable result in corrupted circumstances. If anything, these stories warn how compromises or rationalizations to avoid consequences can lead to incrementally greater sins.
Christ and New Testament Principles
Moving to the New Testament, the teachings and model of Jesus Christ himself give the clearest perspective on what choosing “lesser evils” means from a Christian viewpoint. And Christ’s approach was radical compared to thecalculating religious leaders of His day.
Consider this incident:
The Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. And they senttheir disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes toCaesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away. (Matthew 22:15-22)
The Pharisees thought they had trapped Jesus into choosing between offense against God or Rome. Yet Christ’s wise response transcended this seeming lesser of two evils dilemma altogether.
Jesus took His stand on principle first and trusted God with consequences second. He articulated transcendent values that pointed to a higher standard beyond the offered choices. Throughout His ministry, Christ consistently avoided pragmatic compromises on moral questions. He often exposed faulty premises and assumptions rather than debating relative merits of options presented.
For example, note how Jesus’ response to the challenge of healing on the Sabbath adhered to principle:
One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-28)
Rather than arguing relative merits, Jesus pointed to God’s design for the Sabbath. This upheld the real meaning behind the Sabbath commandment.
Christ also displayed this principle versus pragmatism approach when challenged over paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22). He avoided the false dilemma by transcending it with God’s values. Jesus did not have to choose the lesser of two bad options because those were not the only choices.
This was central to Christ’s teaching that believers should be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). Jesus was wise enough to avoid entanglement in no-win situations. But he uncompromisingly upheld what was right. He went as a lamb to the slaughter rather than compromise truth.
Christ’s followers displayed similar conviction through the early Church. Peter and John chose obeying God over man when commanded to stop preaching Christ (Acts 4-5). Stephen did not tone down his message to avoid stoning (Acts 7). Paul insisted on truth when speaking to the Roman governor Felix, even though it made the ruler uncomfortable (Acts 24:24-25).
So in summary, Jesus taught that believers should avoid sin entirely, without rationalizing lesser evil choices. The true disciple upholds God’s standards regardless of earthly consequences.
Biblical Admonitions Against Rationalizing Sin
Beyond Christ’s example, Scripture contains clear commands against any form of moral compromise or rationalized sin. For example:
Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. (Romans 12:9)
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. (Ephesians 5:11)
“Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” (Mark 7:15)
I have nothing to do with sinful things done in secret. I stay away from every kind of evil. (1 Corinthians 10:20-22)
The Bible urges integrity, avoiding even a “hint” of evil or compromised morality:
I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man. (Acts 24:16)
Clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh. (Romans 13:14)
For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man. (2 Corinthians 8:21)
Followers of Christ are held to an even higher standard:
As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do. (1 Peter 1:14-15)
God’s people must reject mindsets of moral relativism or “necessary” evils:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter. (Isaiah 5:20)
It is better to heed this exhortation:
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:21)
Lessons for Believers Today
What principles can modern believers take from all this about lesser evil dilemmas? Here are several key lessons:
1. Never commit overt sin or moral compromise. Scripture outright condemns such choices. Followers of Christ should resist any temptation to do evil, regardless of perceived outcomes.
2. Be wise to avoid no-win situations or false dilemmas. As Jesus exemplified, apply wisdom and discernment to transcend artificial “lesser evil” boxes. Abide in God’s principles rather than compromising among choices imposed by others.
3. When facing gray area decisions, prayerfully evaluate options against Scriptural teachings to make the choice that most honors Christ. Obtain godly counsel if necessary to gain moral clarity.
4. Focus on controlling personal conduct. We are rarely responsible for big picture outcomes. Joseph avoided adultery with Potiphar’s wife despite the situation. Daniel maintained his integrity as a captive in pagan society.
5. Trust God with results. The Bible assures believers that obedience leads to blessing and rightdoing exalts a nation (Proverbs 14:34). Do right and trust God over human reasoning.
6. Influence culture through gospel transformation rather than political power. The early Christians changed society by focusing on individual conversion over worldly methods. Their example offers guidance for believers uncertain how to live in a corrupt culture today.
7. Seek opportunity in the midst of opposition. Biblical heroes achieved great things against impossible odds. Rather than seeing no good choice, prayerfully seek chances to further righteousness even in difficulty.
8. Wait patiently on God. Scripture cautions against taking impetuous actions out of distrust that God will intervene. Believers must wait for God’s timing. He remains in control, no matter how bleak circumstances may seem in a fallen world.
As the Bible reminds God’s people:
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:21)
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)
Conclusion
In summary, the Bible commands followers of Christ to uphold righteousness and abhor evil, regardless of external circumstances. Scripture presents no instance of overt sin or compromise being considered the morally right choice, even if it may lead to a good short-term outcome. At most, the Bible shows God’s grace through fallen people’s poor decisions within corrupt situations under sin and the curse.
Rather than rationalizing the “lesser evil,” believers are called to overcome evil with good, through faith in God’s purpose and reliance on the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Christians have a higher standard and power to stand uncompromised against external pressure or consequences. Though standing for truth often brings hardship, God promises He will work all things for good for those who follow Him.