102 J. Duncan M. Derrett loaf and fish, though the possibility is not to be excluded a priori43. There has been debate whether this meal alludes to the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Jn 6:1-13, noting ὀψάρια at v. 9) or the Eucharist, the latter denied vigorously by Klein (p. 31). In fact neither precedent is of use, since true points of contact are missing. However, the act of transfer of foodstuffs is not without meaning, as we shall see. Meanwhile we know that their breakfast is also their viaticum on the model of Elijah’s angelic meal44. While it partakes of the satisfaction of a liability arising from an employment that has just finished, it is at the same time a symbol of engagement or hiring. As one task ends, a self-imposed one, another, initiated by Jesus, begins. The transfer of some food here, even if it were simply symbolic, will serve to confirm a contract (delivery of an asset being essential to com- plete most Jewish contracts involving property)45- hence the otherwise unnecessary observation that they did not ask who he was - information which would be needed before they consumed his food46 -, for they were aware that it was Jesus. Which contract? That they will conduct a mission as his agents. This was the “third”, in effect the final47, appearance of Jesus, irrespective of other instances of his appearance. The meal, there- fore, had three roles: (1) satisfying hunger, comforting and approving; (2) recognizing that they had a right to eat fish after fishing; (3) implying a contract of hire for a forthcoming mission. The word ἐνέγκατε (plur.) at 21:10 makes it clear that they fish for Jesus (cf. Jn 12:32), not excluding their rights as harvesters. We remind ourselves that the breakfast did not include the fish just beached, and that Jesus himself did not eat with them (common errors): Τὸν ἄρτον…καὶ τὸ ὀψάριον(v. 13). Instances of a singular with or without the de- 43 finite article used distributively: Mk 8:17; Mt 17:6; Lk 1:66; Jn 10:39; Acts 2:23, 21:24; 1 Cor 3:16, 6:19; Eph 6:14; Jas 2:6, 5:6; Rev 6:11. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, Grammnar, §140; classical examples at G.B. Winer - W.F. Moulton, Grammar, pt.3, sect. 27, §1. 1 Kgs 19:8. J.D.M. Derrett, “Ἄρτος and the comma (Jn 21:9)”, FN 10 (1997), 117- 44 128. So Lk 10:35. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (London, 1970), 218. I. Herzog, Main 45 Institutions of Jewish Law (London & New York, 1967), ii, 8-11. Qinyan is defined by J.J. Rabinowitz. trans., Code of Maimonides, Book Thirteen. Book of Civil Laws (New Haven, 1949),p. 332: “A formality simulating an exchange ( of valuables) whereby the party to whom a transfer of property is made, or towards whom an obligation is assumed . . . delivers to the party making the transfer, or assuming the obligation, some object…to make the transaction binding...” (my emphasis). Ritually impure food (Acts 10:14) and the food of sinners (PS 141:4; Prov 23:6), or 46 (still more abhorrent) that of demons. Jn 20:19,26. The third example normally raises a presumption of future continuance. 47 See n. 75 below.