The mission originates in captivation: ἁλιεύω, πιάζω, σύρω, ἕλκω. (Jn 21:6-11) 107 that loving God and loving Jesus are quite different - in John they are not. Jesus effectuates God’s will and he does so after the Resurrection as before it. Because of Jesus’ special relationship with the Father (Jn 12:26, 14:10) those who comply with Dt 6:5, etc., cf. 30:6,16, will automatically love Jesus, and it follows that he can rely upon them, and upon their spoken word. Thus the question, “Dost thou love me?” is not much dif- ferent from “Dost thou love God?”. It has two resonances: (1) it brings to Peter’s mind the qualification for assuming the responsibility to be stated, and (2) it elicits from Peter what amounts to a promise which, by his failure to protest (cf. 13:8; cf. 37), he makes, assuming the obligation (heb. Diyyûv) with what amounts to an oath. Towards God Diyyûv can be created by parol as in heqdēš (consecration). Jesus and Peter put Dt 19:15 (cf. Jn 8:17; Mt 5:36-37) into practice, the solemn oath taking the place of a qinyan, which the nature of the obligation excludes71. It is universally conjectured72 that the threefold admission of ἀγάπη and φιλία corresponds to Peter’s threefold denial (Jn 13:38; 18:17, 25, 27). But these politic and rational denials are not shown by John as tragic73, and Peter does not forfeit anything by not giving his life for Jesus at his Trial74. A threefold assertion or denial (in Jewish and Arab practice) testifies to a fact, even if that fact be subjective (2 Cor 13; 1-2)75; but there are situations where truth is secondary, and the Trial was obviously one of them. Peter’s annoyance at Jesus’ asking him thrice, when a twofold as- severation would have been enough, is due to his suspicion that Jesus uses abundans cautela (as well he might). From John’s point of view Peter’s solemn obligation is to be confirmed however possible. The paradigm for Peter’s appointment, which is odd from a legal point of view (so above), is God’s appointment of Joshua, the lawgiver76, at the request and prompting of Moses77, so that Israel should not be B.J. Malina at J.J. Pilch and B.J. Malina, ed., Handbook of Social Values (Peabody, 70 MA, 1998), 122-130 at p. 128. Solemn oath in lieu of qinyan (which applied only to the fishing where transfer of 71 assets was under consideration): see Herzog (n. 45 above) 12-13,14, l7 and esp. 45. O. Cullmann, Peter. Disciple-Apostle-Martyr (EV; London, 1953), 60. 72 R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen, 171962), 551-552; in the EV 73 (Oxford, 1971), 711-713 at 712. So rightly Wuellner, Meaning, 227. 74 H. van Vliet, No Single Testimony (Utrecht, 1958). 75 Bab. Talm., B.B. 56a; B.Q. 80b-81b. Ginzberg, Legends III.391; IV.9, 15-16; VI. 169- 76 180. Num 27:16, 20-21. P.J. Budd, Numbers (Waco: Word Books, 1984), 304-308. Philo, 77 Virt. 66: God appoints Joshua. Josephus, Ant. 4. 165 (L.C.L. Josephus IV, 554): Moses had given Joshua a thorough education in law and theology, Ant. Bibl. XX.1-2 (God appoints him). Sifre Dt §3O5. Midr. R. Song 1.7, §2 (Soncino trans., 63): God appoints shepherds.