16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray.
Taxcontrol...tis obvious that much greater allowance on the number of horses is there...notice "great numbers of horses..." ...Deut 17:17 doesn't say "great numbers of wives," now does it?
And notice the REASON..."or his heart will be led astray." (Which is EXACTLY how 1 Kings 11:3 describes Solomon's polygamy)
Your conversion of not allowing GREAT NUMBERS of horses into "single-horse" status is reductionism.
Yes, I know...not having "Many wives" can still be interpreted into a two-wife man...but that would be implied...not overtly sanctioned...by God.
Deut 17: 15-18
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
So reducing verse 16 to “one” is reductionism but reducing verse 17 to “one” is not??? I don’t understand how it applies differently.