Shared ground

Psalm 120:3 turns from describing the harm of lies (v.2) to confronting the source: “you deceitful tongue.” The verse is made of two sharp questions about what will be “given” to the liar and what more will be “done.” Taken on its own terms, the wording assumes deceitful speech is not morally neutral; it deserves a response.

The “tongue” is treated as the active instrument of harm. That can point to a specific speaker, a group of opponents, or the broader reality of manipulative speech, but in every case the target is the same: dishonest words used against others.

Where interpretation differs (only where needed)

A main question is who stands behind the verbs “will be given” and “will be done.” Some read an implied actor like God (or God’s justice) who will repay deceit. Others hear the psalmist speaking in general terms about the consequences that come back on a liar, whether through social fallout, legal outcomes, or divine action working through ordinary means.

Another difference is tone. The questions may be heard as a genuine “what could possibly be enough?” or as a sarcastic challenge that expects a severe answer (which v.4 supplies with images of repayment).

Why the disagreement exists Hebrew poetry often leaves the subject unstated when it can be inferred. In English, readers tend to supply a subject (“God will…,” “people will…,” “it will…”) even when the verse itself stays indirect. Also, rhetorical questions can express uncertainty, lament, or confident expectation; the verse signals intensity, but not a single emotional shade.

What this passage clearly contributes Explicitly, the verse (1) addresses deceitful speech as culpable, (2) frames a demand for fitting repayment in two escalating questions, and (3) sets up the next verse’s answer. Theologically by inference, it supports the idea that words have real moral weight and that truth and justice matter in community life before God (Psalm 120:2–120:4).