>*The context here has to do with David's lust for more women.*

**Not quite.** The context has to do with [sending someone to their death](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uriah_the_Hittite), so that one could then proceed to [marry their widowed wife](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathsheba).

Just as anything ranging from simple theft to aggravated robbery is forbidden by the **Mosaic Law**, but the pursuit of wealth is not (provided that the poor, the widows, and the orphans are not forgotten, which constitutes a major theme in the prophetic books), so also adultery (in all its violent and non-violent forms) is prohibited as well, but the pursuit of (preferably virgin) wives (and concubines) is not. Of course, **Christ** does indeed **explicitly** and **repeatedly** condemn the acquiring of wealth in the Gospels, but He lived one and a half millennia after Moses.

>*I'm struggling with a verse that seemingly supports God's approval of concubinage and taking of many wives. [...] This makes me feel **uneasy** leaving this lingering in my mind.*

Does God's tacit or **implicit** tolerance of polygamy make you feel **uneasier** than Him **explicitly** commanding that various types of (sinful) people be put to death by stoning, or that entire cities, including their (male) children, be blotted out of existence ? If you accept the latter as biblical fact, why not the former as well ?

Or perhaps you are simply bothered by the fact that the Gospels contain no polygamy-related equivalent of John's [Pericope Adulterae](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery), **explicitly** condemning the practice ?

>***Is to be interpreted as approval of polygamy** or is the main focus something else ?*

As already mentioned above, the Mosaic Covenant does not forbid polygamy; were that not the case, then there would have been no logical reason for the Prophet Nathan not to **explicitly** mention this to David as well, just as he **explicitly** mentioned his (indirect) murder of Uriah (in a manner not **explicitly** forbidden by Mosaic Law; after all, it's hardly a sin for a king to send his most trusted and valiant fighter into battle) so as to legally take his widowed wife as his own, since adultery, unlike David's conniving plot, was **explicitly** forbidden by the Law.

- As the **Pharisees** after him, **David kept the letter of the Law**, while breaking its **spirit**, by infringing upon its intended purpose and meaning.

- As **Christ** in New Covenant times, **Nathan** the Prophet is tasked by God to remind him of that.

>*Is to be interpreted as approval of polygamy **or is the main focus something else** ?*

The main focus is (obviously) **obedience** to God's **law**, and **trust** in His divine **providence**.

Did he desire (yet) a(nother) wife ? If so, then why not acquire one by then-legal means, having faith that the same God that delivered all other blessings into his hands will not fail him this time either ?