I Samuel 21:1-6

Christ's reasoned that, if it was all right for David to allay his hunger under an unusual circumstance by eating bread that had been consecrated for holy use... This was the bread that was put into the tabernacle on the table, and it sat there during the entire week. Then, every Sabbath it was exchanged for new bread. So what is He saying? He is saying that the Sabbath is a day of mercy. And IF one can rightly, lawfully, use "holy bread" to do something that—according to the letter of the law was illegal—it was unlawful; THEN it was also legitimate for the disciples to provide for their needs also in an usual circumstance.

The emphasis here is on the word unusual. How frequently was David fleeing for his life and finding himself hungry? It did happen, at least this one time; but it was not happening every Sabbath. And maybe in David's lifetime something like this occurred just a very few times. So, even for a man of war like David, it just did not happen all that frequently.

But the overall lesson is that it is NOT the intention of God's law to deprive anybody of good things. That is not the intent of God's law. The intent of God's law is to ensure life. And, if the need arises, then one should not feel conscience-stricken to use the Sabbath in a way that would not "normally" be lawful. Christ admitted that what David did was not "normally" lawful. Neither was what the disciples were doing "normally lawful," except for the circumstance.

In this case then, they were blameless because a larger obligation overruled the letter of the law. The larger obligation was to be merciful. The letter of the law was that they could not have that bread. The larger obligation said that it was more important to eat than it was to fast (to sacrifice eating). Holy bread, or holy time (the Sabbath), can be used exceptionally in order to sustain life.