Psalms 106:14

My Notes

What Does Psalms 106:14 Mean?

The psalmist diagnoses Israel's wilderness failure: "But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert." The lusting (avah — to desire, to crave, to long for with physical intensity) wasn't moderate. It was "exceedingly" (ta'avah — with craving, with lust, with passionate appetite). The desire exceeded every boundary. The wanting consumed the people.

The tempting of God (nasah — to test, to challenge, to demand proof) in the desert is the spiritual expression of the physical craving: the lust for meat (Numbers 11:4-6) became a test of God's provision. Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? (Psalm 78:19). The craving produced the challenge. The desire that God's provision didn't satisfy became the test of whether God could satisfy at all.

The wilderness location (midbar — desert, uninhabited land) and the desert (yeshimon — wasteland, desolation) amplify the absurdity: they lusted in the place of provision and tested in the place of dependence. The wilderness — where God fed them daily with manna — was the setting for their complaint that God couldn't feed them adequately.

Reflection Questions

• 1.Where has excessive craving (lusting exceedingly) blinded you to the provision already present?
• 2.How does desire-driven testing ('can God provide what I want?') differ from genuine need?
• 3.What does the wilderness setting (surrounded by evidence of provision) teach about the absurdity of testing God?
• 4.What appetite is masquerading as unmet need in your life right now?

Devotional

They lusted exceedingly. In the wilderness. Where God was already feeding them. The craving and the provision existed in the same landscape — and the craving won. The manna wasn't enough. The water wasn't enough. The daily, miraculous, faithfully-provided sustenance wasn't enough. They wanted more. And the wanting became a test of God.

The 'exceedingly' is the diagnostic: the desire wasn't normal hunger. It was craving — the kind of appetite that's more about the wanting than the thing wanted. They didn't just need food. They lusted for it. The physical desire overwhelmed the spiritual satisfaction. The manna was nutritionally sufficient. The lust wasn't about nutrition. It was about appetite.

The testing follows the lusting as naturally as demand follows desire: you want what God isn't providing, so you challenge God's ability to provide at all. The craving for meat that manna couldn't satisfy becomes the accusation that God can't satisfy. The logic is the logic of every dissatisfied consumer: if what you're offering doesn't match what I want, then what you're offering is inadequate.

The wilderness setting makes the testing absurd: they're surrounded by evidence of God's provision (manna every morning, water from rock, clothes that don't wear out) and they're testing whether God can provide. The evidence is on the ground at their feet. The test ignores the evidence. The craving has overwhelmed the capacity to see what's already been given.

The modern application is immediate: how much of your dissatisfaction with God is actually unsatisfied appetite masquerading as unmet need? The manna is there. The provision is real. But the craving for what wasn't offered has convinced you that what was offered isn't enough.

What are you craving that's blinding you to what's already been provided?

Commentary

Trusted original commentary from respected historical Bible scholars and theologians.

Cross References

Related passages throughout Scripture