What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.
Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,
Think of it this way. If a father dies and leaves great wealth for his young children, those children are not much better off than slaves until they grow up, even though they actually own everything their father had.
Let me show you the implications of this. As long as the heir is a minor, he has no advantage over the slave. Though legally he owns the entire inheritance,
But I say that as long as the son is a child, he is in no way different from a servant, though he is lord of all;
My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property;
Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all,
|NET © [draft] ITL|
|NET © Notes||
1 tn Grk “a small child.” The Greek term νήπιος (nhpios) refers to a young child, no longer a helpless infant but probably not more than three or four years old (L&N 9.43). The point in context, though, is that this child is too young to take any responsibility for the management of his assets.
2 tn Grk “master” or “lord” (κύριος, kurios).