Question 1

What change in voice or stance happens in Psalm 120:3 compared with Psalm 120:2?

Accepted Answer

In verse 2 the speaker addresses God with a request for rescue from “lying lips” and a “deceitful tongue.” In verse 3 the speaker pivots from petition to confrontation. Instead of asking to be delivered, the speaker turns toward the source of harm and speaks directly to it: “You deceitful tongue.” That shift makes the conflict feel more immediate and personal. It also moves the psalm toward the topic of consequence: the questions in verse 3 prepare the reader for an answer about repayment in the next verse.

Question 2

What does the direct address “You deceitful tongue” suggest about how the speaker views the problem?

Accepted Answer

By addressing the “tongue” directly, the speaker treats speech as an active weapon rather than a minor flaw. The tongue stands in for whoever is speaking deceitfully, but it also highlights the tool being used to harm: words. This way of speaking compresses the issue into a single target and intensifies the moral confrontation. It suggests the speaker believes deception is intentional and dangerous—something that can be called out and held accountable, not brushed off as misunderstanding.

Question 3

How do the two questions (“What will be given…?” and “what will be done more…?”) work together?

Accepted Answer

The questions function as a pair that escalates. The first asks what the deceitful tongue will “receive,” implying that deceit draws a response like repayment. The second question pushes further: what additional measure could be added beyond the first. In other words, the verse is not only asking whether consequence will come, but pressing for a full and fitting consequence. The parallel lines create momentum toward an answer, which the following verse provides through vivid images of repayment.

Question 4

Does Psalm 120:3 state who will give or do the action? What are the main possibilities?

Accepted Answer

Verse 3 does not explicitly name the actor behind “will be given” or “will be done.” That openness is part of the poem’s force. Readers generally infer one of two main possibilities: (1) God is the implied one who repays deceit, consistent with the psalm’s earlier cry to the Lord for rescue (v.1–2). Or (2) the verse speaks more generally about consequences that come upon deceivers through ordinary social and communal processes, without specifying the mechanism. The text itself emphasizes certainty of consequence more than the agent.

Question 5

What does the wording imply about the moral status of deceptive speech in this psalm?

Accepted Answer

The verse assumes deceptive speech deserves a response; it is not treated as a harmless tactic. The questions “what will be given… what will be done more” carry the idea of deserved return—like payment or recompense. Even before verse 4 describes the kind of repayment, verse 3 frames deceit as an offense serious enough to warrant measured consequences. That moral framing fits the larger setting where lies threaten safety, reputation, and community trust, making speech a significant matter, not a side issue.

Question 6

Is the speaker uncertain about what will happen, or confident that something will happen? What in the verse supports your answer?

Accepted Answer

The verse is framed as questions, which could sound uncertain if read in isolation. But the structure and escalation suggest the questions are rhetorical—pressing the case that a response is due and that it can be intensified (“what more”). The direct address “You deceitful tongue” also sounds like indictment rather than curiosity. In the psalm’s flow, verse 3 functions as a setup; verse 4 provides the answer, which makes it likely that verse 3 is meant to heighten expectation rather than express confusion about whether consequences exist.

Question 7

How might the “tongue” function as a symbol here without losing the concrete meaning of speech?

Accepted Answer

The “tongue” can be read both concretely and symbolically. Concretely, it refers to actual deceitful words—slander, false accusation, or manipulation—that harm the speaker. Symbolically, it can stand for the person or group behind those words, focusing attention on the method of harm rather than naming opponents. This symbolic use does not make it abstract; it sharpens the concrete issue by showing how speech itself can be an instrument of hostility that calls for accountability.

Psalms 120:3

Scripture