Pauline Speech Ethics in Nigeria’s Digital Public Sphere: An Exegetical Reading of Ephesians 4 on Hate Speech and Trolling
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15575/kt.v7i3.54334Keywords:
Digital Ethics, Ephesians 4, Hate Speech, Nigeria, Pauline Ethics, TrollingAbstract
Purpose: This study examines how the ethical instructions of Ephesians 4:3, 26, 29, and 32 can inform Christian responses to hate speech and trolling in Nigerian social media. It addresses the limited engagement between New Testament ethics and scholarship on digital communication in Nigeria by interpreting Pauline teachings on peace, anger, speech, and reconciliation within a contemporary digital context. Methodology: The study employs a qualitative library research design using historical-critical exegesis. The primary textual data consist of Ephesians 4:3, 26, 29, and 32 in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed.). The analysis integrates textual, grammatical, lexical, literary, and socio-historical examination of the selected passages, supported by major exegetical commentaries, Greek lexicons, and peer-reviewed scholarship on hate speech, trolling, and digital communication in Nigeria. The exegetical findings are subsequently related to contemporary digital speech through principled normative application. Findings: The analysis identifies four interrelated Pauline principles. Ephesians 4:3 frames peacemaking as an intentional and sustained communal responsibility; Ephesians 4:26 acknowledges anger while imposing ethical limits on its escalation and duration; Ephesians 4:29 rejects logos sapros (“corrupt” or “harmful speech”) and replaces it with speech oriented toward oikodomē (“edification”); and Ephesians 4:32 presents kindness, compassion, and gracious forgiveness as practices of reconciliation. Together, these principles offer a coherent ethical framework for evaluating forms of online communication characterised by hostility, provocation, degradation, and prolonged conflict. Implications: The findings suggest that Pauline speech ethics can provide a theological resource for Christian digital literacy, pastoral formation, and constructive online engagement in Nigeria. The framework complements socio-legal and computational approaches by foregrounding moral responsibility, relational repair, and the effects of speech on communities. As a normative exegetical study, however, it does not establish the actual behavioural effects of these principles on social media users. Originality: This study contributes to New Testament ethics and digital religion scholarship by systematically relating Ephesians 4 to contemporary hate speech and trolling in the Nigerian digital public sphere. It extends Pauline ethical interpretation beyond ecclesial communication to the field of digital media ethics and provides an African-contextual application of biblical speech ethics.
References
Aichner, T., Grunfelder, M., Maurer, O., & Jegeni, D. (2021). Twenty-five years of social media: a review of social media applications and definitions from 1994 to 2019. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(4), 215–222. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0134
Ajaegbu, O. O., & Ajaegbu, C. (2024). The new democratisation: social media impact on the political process in Sub-Saharan Africa. Frontiers in Communication, 9(July), 1–6. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1394949
Anthony, R., & Anyanwu, M. N. (2019). Hate Speeches and Disrespect for the Opposition Parties in Nigeria: Implications for Democratic Consolidation and National Development. Sociology and Anthropology, 7(3), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.13189/sa.2019.070303
Arnold, C. E. (2011). Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic.
Ayeni, B., & Ibileye, G. (2024). Analysis of hate rhetoric on selected social media platforms in nigeria. Research and Engineering Journal, 8(4), 712–723.
Ayoola, K. A., & Adewuya, A. (2025). Ideological analysis of Nigerian ethnic rivalry and hate speech on social media. Journal of English Scholars’ Ass. of Nigeria, 27(1), 68–85.
Bayer, J. B., Tri u, P., & Ellison, N. B. (2020). Social media elements, ecologies, and effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 71(1), 471–497. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050944
Casadio, G., & Johnston, P. A. (2021). Artemis and Diana in ancient Greece and Italy: at the crossroads between the civic and the wild. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Chiadika, J. I., Egielewa, P. E., & Akpor, D. E. (2025). A Sentiment Analysis of Politicians’ Engagement on X and the 2023 Presidential Election Outcome in South-South Nigeria. Nasarawa Journal Of Multimedia And Communication Studies, 7(2), 249–264.
Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), 1–8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
Cornelius, E. M. (2021). The power of forgiveness in a broken world: An understanding of forgiveness in Ephesians. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, 77(4), 6845–6871.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). California: SAGE Publications.
Ezeudu, T. S., & Saadu, Y. (2025). Navigating religious pluralism in Nigerian public administration: A mixed-methods inquiry into governance, identity, and policy. Wawasan: Jurnal Ilmiah Agama Dan Sosial Budaya, 10(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.15575/jw.v10i1.43898
Fowl, S. E. (2012). Ephesians: A commentary. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.
Hayes, J. H., & Holladay, C. R. (2022). Biblical exegesis: a beginner’s handbook. Louisville, Kentucky: Presbyterian Publishing Corp.
Hoehner, H. W. (2002). Ephesians: An exegetical commentary. New York: Baker Academic.
Jung, S.-O. D. (2020). Identifying the primary purpose of Ephesians and the role of Ephesians 4: 7-16: a linguistic-literary approach to Ephesians. The University of Edinburgh.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
LaFosse, M. T. (2012). Age matters: Age, aging and intergenerational relationships in Early Christian communities, with a focus on 1 Timothy 5. University of Toronto.
March, E., & Marrington, J. (2019). A qualitative analysis of internet trolling. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(3), 192–197. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0210
McMurry, H. C. (2019). The Temple of God and the Temple of Artemis: Exploring the Building/Temple Image in Ephesians. Fort Worth: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Millar, F. (1987). Empire, Community and Culture in the Roman Near East: Greeks, Syrians, Jews and Arabs. Journal of Jewish Studies, 38(2), 143–164. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18647/1337/JJS-1987
Naseem, U., Razzak, I., & Eklund, P. W. (2021). A survey of pre-processing techniques to improve short-text quality: a case study on hate speech detection on twitter. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 80(28), 35239–35266. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-10082-6
Nwankpa, N. N., Ezeji, A., Nweke, B. O., & Dennis, E. (2024). Campaigns of calumny: Social media hate speech and propaganda in the 2019 Nigerian presidential election. Journal of International Politics, 5(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22259/2642-8245.0501004
Nwankwo, C., & Ayegba, O. (2023). Religious conflict and public service disruption: Evidence from Plateau and Kaduna States. African Journal of Peace and Security, 5(1), 40–61.
Sahebi, S., & Formosa, P. (2022). Social media and its negative impacts on autonomy. Philosophy & Technology, 35(3), 70–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00567-7
Shola, A. T., Deji, O. D., & Abiodun, A. J. (2021). Social media and electoral violence in Nigeria: Sustainable development goal 16, a panacea? KIU Interdisciplinary Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 189–215. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.59568/KIJHUS-2023-4-2-14
Stephens, N. F. (2018). Fivefold ministry: An expressional church model for releasing 21st-century disciples into their missional potential and design. Bethel University.
Strong, J. (1996). The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing every word of the common English version of the canonical books in regular order (electronic Ed.). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.
Syamsurrijal, M., Nurmandi, A., Jubba, H., Hidayati, M., & Hariyanto, B. (2024). De-Radicalization through Social Media: Social Media Literacy in Countering Terrorism in Indonesia. Wawasan: Jurnal Ilmiah Agama Dan Sosial Budaya, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15575/jw.v9i1.16788
Thielman, F. (2010). Ephesians: Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (ECNT). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Topal, H. V. (2020). Romanization of Urban Spaces in Ephesus. Middle East Technical University (Turkey).
United Nations. (2019). United Nations strategy and plan of action on hate speech.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499
Witherington, B. (2007). The letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A socio-rhetorical commentary on the captivity epistles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wright, S. B. (2020). The Authority of Scripture: A Biblical Exegesis of Ephesians 4: 11-16. Diligence: Journal of the Liberty University Online Religion Capstone in Research and Scholarship, 6(1), 1–12.
Yang, Q., & Feng, Y. (2024). Relationships between social networking sites use and subjective well-being---a meta-analysis and meta-analytic structural equation model. Heliyon, 10(12). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32463
Yinger, K. L. (2011). The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction. Eugene, O: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Abdulazeez Otunaya, Stephen O. Osunlana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
