Rev Gav

What does the symbolism and spiciness mean in John’s gospel?

John 12.1–8

This Insight is based on a reflection by Simon Cross.
(John 12:1-8 John’s ‘spicy’ rewrite of the anointing at Bethany, Simon Cross, 2025)

John’s gospel is full of symbolism. Every word has been carefully placed and every phrase has some kind of double meaning. There are no accidental drops in John’s gospel and the reader needs to pay attention to every detail in the text.

This story, about Jesus being anointed by a woman, is a version of the same story found in the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, and as John’s gospel is considered to be written at a later date than Mark, scholars assume that it is based on the Markan story. Now, Mark, Matthew, and Luke have specific emphases – Mark and Matthew on the symbolism of burial, and Luke on the forgiveness of sins, but what about this version of the story found in John? What is John trying to communicate?

John, in his gospel, paints a picture of a subversive Jesus — a Jesus who defies societal norms and conventions and turns them on their head. As I mentioned, John’s writing is full of symbolism, and he loves ‘spicing up’ his gospel, emphasising contrasts between good and bad, light and darkness, water and wine, norms and deviations, male and female, and so on. This story of the Anointing in Bethany is no different.

John places this story at the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. Each of these characters has a different role. Lazarus (one who was raised from the dead — hugely symbolic in its own right) is reclining with Jesus, Martha is serving, and Mary is (presumably) kneeling at the feet of Jesus. It might be worth remembering that Bethany itself means ‘House of the Poor’ and certainly, with Martha serving in the home and Mary attending the feet of Jesus, this is not a wealthy home with servants to undertake these household tasks.

It is safe to assume that rabbis, being a different social class, would not typically eat with a poor household. It would be much more acceptable for Jesus to eat with Pharisees or those on the same social level, but here he is mixing social classes and turning social norms on their head. Perhaps this is the first clue about the subversive emphasis John is placing in his account?

There is no suggestion in this gospel that Jesus hadn’t washed his feet, but then we encounter the second subversive thing to happen. Typically, one anointed the head and not the feet of a Lord or king. What did it mean that Mary was anointing the feet of Jesus and not his head? I’m afraid it get’s a little spicier. Are you ready?

Firstly, let’s turn to the first chapter of Song of Songs — where we read about the actions of the young woman towards her lover:

“While the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance.” (Song of Songs 1.12)

It is hard to believe that it is a coincidence that in our story, we have Jesus, the king, reclining on a couch, and a woman using nard to release a fragrance.

Secondly, feet are sometimes used in the Bible for euphemisms for consummating marriage. For example, in the story of Ruth, Ruth’s actions of “uncovering Boaz’s feet” and lying down at his feet was a symbolic act of a marriage proposal, signifying her submission and request for him to act as her kinsman-redeemer and provider.

Thirdly, Mary unbound her hair — not something a respectable woman would do! Even today, and apologies if this sounds in any way sexist, if a woman has her hair up, then unties it and shakes her long hair down, I can tell you (as a red-blooded male) that it’s a very sensuous thing to do! And then, instead of using a towel or cloak sleeve to dry the feet of Jesus, she used her hair.

So, what does all this add up to — the symbolism and the spiciness?

This act is followed by the account of Judas, complaining that the expensive perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor, and here we have the contrast between two disciples. There is the male Judas, worrying about conserving money, and the female Mary acting with wanton fiscal abandonment.

Jesus said, “Leave her alone. It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

You see, there is more going on here than Mary simply acknowledging the Messiahship or kingship of Jesus, albeit in a subversive way, you see, unbinding hair was a symbolic act of respect and grief at a burial but there is no physical burial taking place. Mary, drawing on the theme from Song of Songs, is symbolically marrying and consummating her marriage with Jesus. Through her actions she is demonstrating her spiritual ‘oneness’ with Jesus, and through this oneness she is literally living and dying with Christ. And all this takes place in the context of the ‘House of the Poor’ and a poor household.

I feel, sometimes, as if this intimate story is not something we can analytically and mindfully unpick, but like a piece of dramatic artwork, this humble, radical, and extravagant act by Mary speaks to us and moves us at a deeper emotional level.

If nothing else, it paints the picture of a Jesus who defies social norms, and rewrites everything we think and know about God.