ellauri153.html on line 816: David had four wives whose names we know—Ahinoam, Abigail (2 Samuel 2:2), Eglah (2 Samuel 3:5), and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:27)—and possibly others such as Absalom’s mother Maakah. This doesn’t count the concubines he had (2 Samuel 5:13). The natural question is, with plenty of female intimates to keep David warm, why did his attendants seek out a beautiful virgin stranger for the job? The following are several issues regarding Abishag’s “job description”:
ellauri153.html on line 822:

Why not a concubine? Though concubines had a lesser status than wives, they, too, possessed a certain rank and dignity. Abishai fortunately had neither. Absalom demonstrated this fact when, as part of his attempted coup, he slept with his father’s concubines (2 Samuel 16:21–22). Moreover, the personal dynamics within harems were infamous for the jealousy and infighting they engendered. To select one wife or concubine over another would be a mark of favoritism that would likely incite resentment and squabbling in the household. Don't even try this at home!
ellauri153.html on line 826: Nowhere does the Bible approve of David’s state of affairs—just the opposite! God had warned Israel through Moses that any future king “must not take many wives” (Deuteronomy 17:17). Scripture does not say that Abishag’s presence in David’s bed was a good thing, nor does it present David as a good father. His many children by multiple mothers were a cause of great trouble for him and the whole kingdom (2 Samuel 13; 2 Samuel 15; 1 Kings 12:23–25). His own son and successor, Solomon, ignoring God’s clear warning, took his father’s excesses to a shocking extreme with 700 wives and 300 concubines who led him astray and turned his heart after other gods (1 Kings 11:2–4). The kingdom itself was divided and lost by Solomon’s son shortly after his coronation, barely one generation after the glory of King David (1 Kings 12).
ellauri156.html on line 524: For some time afterward the war was carried on, the advantage being invariably on the side of David. At length, Ish-bosheth lost the main prop of his tottering cause by accusing Abner of sleeping with Rizpah, one of Saul's concubines, an alliance which, according to contemporary notions, would imply pretensions to the throne. Starhill stablessa oli muuten issikkatamma nimeltä Rispa. Kukahan senkin kanssa nukkui öisin tallissa?
ellauri156.html on line 738: I fear some of us tend to miss the point here. We read Nathan's story and we hear Nathan's rebuke as though David's sin is all about sex. David does commit a sexual sin when he takes Bathsheba and sleeps with her, knowing she is a married woman. But this sexual sin is symptomatic, according to Nathan, and thus according to God. God is not just saying, “Shame on you, David. Look at all the wives and concubines you had to sleep with. And if none of these women pleased you, I could have given you another woman, just one that was not already married.” Wow, this is the same 'gotcha' as with Adam earlier: I give you about anything as long as you keep your fingers off my property.
ellauri156.html on line 768: The consequences are not only appropriate, but intensified. David took one man's wife; another will take several (I bet four) of his wives. This happens when Absalom rebels against his father's rule and temporarily takes over the throne. Following the advice of Ahithophel, Absolom pitches a tent on the roof of David's palace (the place from which David first looked upon Bathsheba) and there, in the sight of all Israel, sleeps with David's concubines as a declaration that he has taken over his father's throne and all that goes with it (2 Samuel 16:20-22). While David seeks to commit his sins in private, God sees to it that the consequences are very public. Aijaa. Kai tää Absalom-tarinakin täytyy vielä lehteillä.
xxx/ellauri193.html on line 217: In traditional societies, women could not complain about mistresses, concubines, and in many cultures even other wives (such as polygyny); whereas male sexual jealousy was recognized as the highest emotion that could justify even murder. The recognized license of the Ancient Greek husband may be seen in the following passage of the pseudo-Demosthenic Oration Against Neaera: "We keep mistresses for our pleasures, concubines for constant attendance, and wives to bear us legitimate children and to be our faithful housekeepers. Yet, because of the wrong done to the husband only, the Athenian lawgiver Solon allowed any man to kill an adulterer whom he had taken in the act.''
7