Intro to Ethics Question Debunked

In intro to philosophy classes, we always end up talking about how to choose a right action in a situation brings about an evil consequence. For instance, assume you are in Germany at the time of the Holocaust (for some reason, everyone can relate to the extreme situation of Nazis killing Jews, so this example usually takes this form.). Some Jews come to you and ask to hide at your house. You believe it is a right action to hide them, so you agree and let them hide in your attic. Later, some Nazis come to your door and say, "Are there any Jews here? If so, we will kill them. If not, we will move on." What do you do?

A. Tell them the Jews are there, since you believe it is bad to lie. The Nazis come in and kill the Jews. You did a right action by telling the truth, but it brought about an evil result (but hey, you didn't kill the Jews. the Nazis did).
B. Tell them the Jews are not there, since you don't want to take away the implied promise of protection for the Jews. The Nazis leave and the Jews survive (for now). You did what you considered to be a bad action, but you kept your implied promise to protect the Jews.
C. You say nothing, that way you haven't "done" a bad action.
D. Something else?

This leads most first-time philosophy students to Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the most people. The professor then tries to debunk Utilitarianism in the next class, and the cycle begins until the student decides that she can weather the storms of some position.

Now, let me throw everything for a loop. Joshua 2:1-7 (NIV) reads:

"1 Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. 'Go, look over the land,' he said, 'especially Jericho.' So they went and entered the house of a prostitute named Rahab and stayed there.

 2 The king of Jericho was told, 'Look! Some of the Israelites have come here tonight to spy out the land.' 3 So the king of Jericho sent this message to Rahab: 'Bring out the men who came to you and entered your house, because they have come to spy out the whole land.'

 4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. She said, 'Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from. 5 At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate, the men left. I don't know which way they went. Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them.' 6 (But she had taken them up to the roof and hidden them under the stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof.) 7 So the men set out in pursuit of the spies on the road that leads to the fords of the Jordan, and as soon as the pursuers had gone out, the gate was shut."

So here is at least a similar situation recorded in the Bible. Because we know where this story ended up, we like the consequences of the story. But now the question is begged - was Rahab's action righteous? She lied by saying that they had left when they had not. This, however, saved their lives, and hers as well. We make reference to her part in the genealogy of Jesus. We say she acted in "faith" by hiding the spies in Hebrews 11. But James in his epistles to the Messianic Jews, implies that Rahab's actions of hiding and misdirecting the pursuers were righteous (James 2:25):

"In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?"

Sure, it is a rhetorical question, so James doesn't say straight-forwardly that Rahab was righteous for lying to the pursuers, but the implied "yes" of the rhetorical question shows that James believed so.

Is this a biblical example of "sometimes it is okay to lie?"